GBSCSI and ZuluSCSI support “initiator mode” that can be used to either image an attached SCSI disk to a file on an SD card or provide live access to it over USB as a mass storage device—with better performance than the old USB 1.1 SCSI adapters too, which top out at about 750KB/sec.
The point is that you can do reads/writes to it on a super-faster SD card reader on your main system, and then also use it with the ZuluSCSI/whatever. USB long ago exceeded SCSI’s data rates.
There’s a huge difference between anti-design bias and calling out Liquid Glass for the garbage human interface design that it is. If anything, it demonstrates a substantial *pro-design* bias because it shows that people actually care about design more than any “party line” here.
Crimes against humanity are subject to universal jurisdiction. A state need not be a member of the ICC to be subject to its (or any other entity’s) jurisdiction in investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating such crimes.
The US does not recognize such an argument. If that is the argument being made, then no wonder the US issued sanctions; it would perceive such a precedent as a threat to its sovereignty.
Not quite: The US helped invent that argument, and has used it extensively to pursue its foreign policy goals since World War II.
What the US has argued historically is that American people and institutions are not subject to it because the US has a functioning civilian and military justice system, and so prosecution for such crimes can be handled within it, even by foreign nations and NGOs.
Obviously that’s a load of bullshit, especially (but not only) these days, but “sovereignty for me but not for thee” has long been the rule and with its weakening international position the US may come to find that to be less achievable in the future.
When has the US used the argument that a judicial system has universal jurisdiction? In the US, foreign policy is the domain of the executive, to the point where court cases involving foreign sovereigns are usually dismissed.
Compared to how much of a mess most of the world's powers are on matters on sovereignty, the US is actually one of the more conservative ones here (e.g., see OFCOM in the UK).
Let me restate: The US position is that the US justice system “works” and thus *US persons and institutions* must be pursued *within the US system* even by foreign entities.
In other words, the US position is not that if (say) North Korea commits a crime against humanity they must be pursued in US courts; the US is fine with the ICC in that case. The US position is that if the US commits a crime against humanity that must be pursued in US courts, not the ICC.
It’s an obvious (and bullshit) double standard, but it’s also not a denial of the legitimacy of universal jurisdiction. It’s just the US, as usual, trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Why is that a double standard? The US position is that recognized nations have sovereignty, and are the supreme law within their jurisdiction. If there is no recognized legitimate sovereign power, then the US is fine with an international body substituting.
That this standard is complicated, and different from those that argue that international law should be the supreme law, doesn't make it a double standard. It's also not what is meant by universal jurisdiction, as it does not depend on overriding sovereignty.
Edit: Seeing your other comment, it's also worth noting this was a large reason why the US didn't sign the Rome statute, since as you note, the US isn't inherently opposed to the idea of international courts, only the supremacy of their jurisdiction.
They don't want the precedent established. Same reason why uninvolved parties in US courts submit "amicus briefs" - the precedent from a case may affect them down the line.
The US doesn’t believe universal jurisdiction applies to it or its vassal states and proxies, which includes Israel.
On the other hand, the US didn’t try to prevent Slobodan Milošević from being tried at The Hague for war crimes and genocide, as Serbia wasn’t a vassal state or proxy.
Even if we had some legal theory under which ICC could assert universal jurisdiction for certain crimes, the ICC doesn't do so. It has to abide by its own jurisdiction rules, which have no such mechanism.
The ICC's jurisdictional claim is here is rather based on the idea that PA is the de facto government of Gaza, even though they never controlled it.
That literally *is* what they’re doing though, just not at sentence granularity—they’re doing it at both larger and smaller scales. Sometimes they may give you a plagiarized paragraph, sometimes they’ll give you a plagiarized phrase, sometimes they’ll give you a structure that they fill in with “their own” words where the structure itself was taken from something… They do nothing original.
More like whether one is correct in giving it any epistemic weight. Not everything is opinion, some things really are clearly right and clearly wrong and attributing thought, reasoning, and analysis to an LLM is one of those things that’s clearly wrong.
They’re absolutely right, and you’re wrong. In the moral sense.
You’re treating it as a moral imperative that (to be charitable) all able-bodied adults in a society must be somehow self-supporting, and using that as justification to either browbeat the recipients of minimum-quality-of-life benefits in order to continue receiving them, or to deny such benefits entirely after some point.
Given the relative wealth of our society, it’s immoral to cut off minimum-quality-or-life benefits when doing so would result in people becoming homeless, hungry, or sick. Even from a strictly utilitarian perspective, that will in the end impose higher costs on society than just distributing benefits.
Similarly, if what you actually care about is the cost to society in a utilitarian sense, the cost of the administrative overhead of browbeating benefits recipients and doing the necessary tracking to ensure benefits are cut off when they reach their endpoint and stay that way will be higher than just distributing them.
So what is your actual moral argument? It comes down to “everyone should have to work.” And, well, why? Some people can’t work and I hope you don’t begrudge them being cared for by society. Similarly there are the young and elderly who society should care for, rather than rely just on family to care for. So why is an able-bodied adult different to you?
If the argument is that you have to work so others should too, well, under the proposed scheme you actually don’t! If you want to just hang out all day every day on minimum benefits, I wouldn’t begrudge you that. Sooner or later you’ll probably work anyway just to get more than is possible at the very bottom. Or maybe you’ll create art and contribute to society that way. Or maybe you’d avoid being a drag on a workplace that’d be a bad fit for you, and contribute in that way. Or maybe you’d be able to devote your time to raising a child so they can contribute much better than if you weren’t there because you were working.
A morality that treats work as virtuous for its own sake is too simplistic to survive contact with the real world.
Oh, can you reframe? Maybe I'm reading wrong too (sorry if I did).
Meanwhile, I noticed a slight detail which both sides may have missed? : Job-finding rates were equal with the treatment and control group. Which makes sense in a high-trust society actually.
reply