• 0 Posts
  • 85 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 20th, 2023

help-circle
  • The president already was protected from all civil lawsuits due to previous rulings. This ruling was only about criminal prosecutions.

    He has absolute immunity for any use, for any reason, of his core presidential powers include anything listed in article 2 (the military, pardons, firing or hiring officials within the executive department). There is no determining if those are an official act or not. Anything the president does with an article 2 power is an official act with absolute immunity now. Motives or reason for using that power or the outcome of that cannot be questioned. It is legal for the president to accept a bribe to pardon someone right now. The fact that it happened couldn’t even be mentioned in court.

    Only when the president is doing something not listed in the constitution can it be determined if it’s an official or unofficial act by the courts and should be immune. And again it’s the action, not the motive or the result or purpose of the action, that determines whether it is official. The only example they gave was talking to justice department officials is official. So if he is talking to justice department officials to arrange a bribe or plan a coup? Legal, immune, can’t even be used as evidence against him. It doesn’t matter why he was talking to the justice department, the fact that he was makes him immune from any laws he breaks in the process of doing so. They aren’t determining if a bribe or coup is an official act, they’re determining if talking to justice department officials in general is. It doesn’t matter what he’s actually doing it for, arranging a coup? That’s perfectly okay. Oh someone found out, pardon everyone else involved in the conspiracy who wasn’t already immune. Now it can’t even be brought up in court.

    In the example you gave of ordering an assassination, if it used the military to do the assassination that is a core power, cannot be questioned. The supreme court ruling placed no limits on what can be done with his article 2 powers. Only a nebulous official vs not official test for things not listed in article 2. There’s also a very worrying core power in article 2 about “ensuring laws are faithfully executed” that even Barrett thought was too much in her concurrence as it could apply to seemingly anything. Basically, as long as the president is using the levers of government to commit crimes, legal now.

    Impeachment is the only recourse now as you say, but even if impeached and removed from office by some miracle, they still wouldn’t be able to be held criminally liable afterwards for that.

    Everyone panicking in this thread is right to do so.








  • Oh yes absolutely op’s x chromosome is expressed. I just meant unlike all the other chromosomes where in general both gene copies on both chromosomes are expressed, in xx individuals usually one of the x chromomes is inactivated and only one of them is being expressed at a time. The x chromosome has many essential genes. This is why we have x linked genetic diseases as well. Often xx individuals are just carriers or more mildly affected since they have two x chromosomes, and xy individuals are more severely affected since they have no backup copies of that gene.



  • Thank you for clarifying those misconceptions about what recessive and dominant are getting at. A gene isn’t really dominant or recessive. A phenotype (some trait in the organism like blue eyes or a certain disease) can be dominant or recessive though and results from changes in a gene. The same gene could have many different possible mutations, some with dominant effects, some with recessive effects, or some with no effects, depending on the change in the gene and the phenotype.

    To go further on that, many recessive diseases are because just one functional copy of many genes are fine from your body’s perspective. Many recessive diseases are due to loss of function of a gene or its protein product, a gene that for a variety of potential reasons no longer leads to a functional protein. Often your body can get by with just one working gene making protein, though both gene copies are generally always being transcribed and trying to be turned into functional protein.

    One big exception to this is the x chromosome. Males only have one x and have a y instead of a second x. The y is very tiny and has very few genes compared to the x, quite different from other chromosome pairs which generally just have copies of all the same genes on each other. Early in embryo development for xx individuals, one of the x chromosomes is generally inactivated and not expressed very much, otherwise xx individuals would have double the gene products of all those different genes compared to males, which the body is not expecting for x genes like it does for all the other genes that have a second copy.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation

    If you go even further you also get into the idea of penetrance. A gene codes for a protein, but that protein doesn’t exist in isolation, it interacts with lots of other proteins coded by other genes in the body, plus the environment. So for some genetic changes it might be a 100% chance at leading to a certain phenotype (like a disease or a specific trait), or it could be less, like only 70% or 30% chance or something of someone with that change getting that trait, even if it’s still “dominant” (meaning only one gene copy with that change is needed to express the trait).



  • There are definitely pros and cons with both systems. It can be brutal for someone who was listed as a health care proxy but the patient never expressed their wishes to them. Can’t agree more about having those conversations with loved ones even if you’re healthy, you never really know, and it’ll make the decisions so much easier on your loved ones when they know they’re doing what you would have wanted.

    Technically doctors are not required to offer futile care in the US even if the health care proxy wants it, but courts have sometimes inserted themselves into that which makes it complicated. Luckily those cases are rare, usually through education and meeting with all family members most come to agreements about what their relative would want and move forward.


  • I’m sorry you went through all of that, it sounds terrible.

    For anyone reading from the US, the system is a little different there. Treatment decisions would default to a health care proxy if a person is not competent (and like this poster said, that means unable to understand, ask questions, and articulate choices, not making bad choices). A health care proxy is different from power of attorney (in the US), check your state for forms to pick one. It’s always a good idea to have one declared and paperwork with your doctor, however if you don’t have one selected on paper, then default health care proxy is closest relative (spouse, then adult kids, then parents, then siblings, usually). If no health care proxy can be found, only then would the court system get involved and appoint a guardian.

    In regards to the original posters question, involuntary commitment for a mental health issue may involve a competency determination, but is much more involved and needs to involve courts very quickly. In general only a 72 hour hold can be placed by a doctor without a court getting involved. It’s less common too, most people in inpatient mental health situations are in voluntary stays.

    In addition to the ED which is always available if needed as a last resort, check your local area for mental health crisis lines and support. These are often a local group such as through a county and may be affiliated with mental health providers, can often even make home visits and quickly connect people with resources and advice on how to go forward.



  • That the eye can only perceive 24 fps is a myth. Plus vision perception is very complicated with many different processes, and your eyes and brain don’t strictly perceive things in frames per second. 24 fps is a relatively arbitrary number picked by the early movie industry, to make sure it would stay a good amount above 16 fps (below this you lose the persistence of motion illusion) without wasting too much more film, and is just a nice easily divisible number. The difference between higher frame rates is quite obvious. Just go grab any older pc game to make sure you can get a high frame rate, then cap it to not go higher to 24 after that, and the difference is night and day. Tons of people complaining about how much they hated the look of Hobbit movie with its 48 fps film can attest to this as well. You certainly do start to get some diminishing returns the higher fps you get though. Movies can be shot to deliberately avoid quick camera movements and other things that wouldn’t do well at 24 fps, but video games don’t always have that luxury. For an rpg or something sure 30 fps is probably fine. But fighting, action, racing, anything with a lot of movement or especially quick movements of the camera starts to feel pretty bad at 30 compared to 60.



  • You know Osiris? Kind of like that, but it’s in Israel instead of Egypt, and there’s only one God, who has two different forms, one in heaven but also is a dude down on earth, until eventually it’s revealed he has three different forms not just two. Also unlike with Egypt, a significant lack of animal heads, all just like normal human heads. Except the holy spirit who’s like a ghost or something. Nailed it.

    Wait you don’t know Osiris? Crap, let’s talk Quetzalcóatl then. So he’s like this giant snake with feathers…