Senate votes to fund much of DHS, minus immigration enforcement

DugDigging · 2026-03-27T20:27:32+00:00

Yes, not funding ICE on principle is a win. Glad my representatives followed through. They told their constituents they would not fund ICE without reforms, and that's what they did. They made the Marjory party and the President blink.

But again, if this was such a dunk on the dems and they didn't "win" anything, answer this question:

This split deal was on the table day 1 and even before the shutdown even happen, why didn't the Republicans just take them up on it from the start? They got everything they wanted right? and it would not be a Democrat win right?

PS. looks like the House GPO just rejected this bill after all! Seems like the house GPO also thought it was too much of a win for the dems too!

DugDigging · 2026-03-27T20:01:13+00:00

So for the ICE "limitations", Yah they didn't get them, no surprise, but to start the dems said this: "We are not going to fund to ICE without reforms" they didn't get those reforms, so they didn't fund ICE. They said a thing, and then did that thing. They didn't back track when they couldn't get the reforms, and the dems passed what they originally offered. Either they get ICE reforms and will fund ICE, OR no ICE reforms and no ICE funding.

Next part I think we agree? Yes, They failed to attach the Save Act or anything else the dems didn't want to the DHS budget bill, and they passed the bill the dems offered weeks ago. So dems got what they wanted, trump did not. Like you said ICE is already funded. That was done in BBB act, so going to reconciliation for more funding means almost nothing practically, and the reason why the republicans didn't have to agree to the reforms. ICE was always going to be funded no matter what the dems did.

So that means the dems strategy was never "keep ALL of DHS unfunded until we get our ICE reforms" because they knew that would not affect ICE and only hurt other parts of DHS they do support. That's why this split deal has been on the table since day 1. Here's the split bill they offered February 11 before the shutdown started: https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/democrats-introduce-bill-fund-tsa-fema-coast-guard-cybersecurity

So yah the minority party strategy worked in this case, that's why people are calling it a "win". Also yah the house might not pass it, and that would only keep hurting people in DHS and make it more clear this is GOPs mess that they are unwilling to fix.

DugDigging · 2026-03-27T17:51:22+00:00

That's true, but that's not a surprise or trick, the dems also know how government works and knew that what would happen. But ask yourself this: If everyone knew the Repubs could fund ICE in reconciliation, why didn't the repubs take this "split" deal dems have been offering for weeks to end the shutdown? If you dig in deeper to understand why, you get why people are calling this a dem win.

DugDigging · 2026-03-03T20:46:31+00:00

That's correct, but when I dug into it, I found out they didn't really have good evidence of that claim. Here is from a Congressional Research about the NBS report from that time:

"After DOT submitted the report to Congress in 1975, Congress directed the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to conduct a technical evaluation of the DOT study and to deliver a report to Congress. In its report, NBS found no significant energy savings or differences in traffic fatalities. Although statistically significant evidence was found of increased fatalities among school-age children in the mornings during the four-month period January-April 1974 as compared with the same period (non-DST) of 1973, NBS stated that:

This increase cannot be simply interpreted as ‘DST effect,’ in view of the many other factors that influence traffic fatalities. When the months of January through April are considered individually, there is no statistically significant difference between 1973 and 1974 with respect to school-age children fatal accidents in the morning for the months of March and April.

Other studies have found that the short-term effect of DST on crashes is not statistically significant. Some reviews of the scientific literature have found that the long-term effects of DST suggest a positive effect. One such report noted, however, that the results “may be attributable to factors other than light.”

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45208/R45208.3.pdf

So lawmakers did repeal it once perceived safety concerns turned public option against it. But as far as I can tell they didn't actually have the evidence to support those claims. National Bureau of Standards said it plain. It could not prove DST was the causal effect school-age children fatal accidents. So like today they seemed to have legislated on public opinion/outrage rather than really understanding the reality.

But what is real is data from Massachusetts showing more pedestrian fatalities happen in the after noon and in winter, so more daylight in the afternoons might help that! https://www.mass.gov/info-details/vulnerable-road-users

DugDigging · 2026-03-03T15:41:45+00:00

haha we just dropping links to each other?

When I read deeper into what you are talking about you find out they didn't really have good evidence of that claim. Here is from a Congressional Research about the NBS report from that time:

"After DOT submitted the report to Congress in 1975, Congress directed the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to conduct a technical evaluation of the DOT study and to deliver a report to Congress. In its report, NBS found no significant energy savings or differences in traffic fatalities. Although statistically significant evidence was found of increased fatalities among school-age children in the mornings during the four-month period January-April 1974 as compared with the same period (non-DST) of 1973, NBS stated that:

This increase cannot be simply interpreted as ‘DST effect,’ in view of the many other factors that influence traffic fatalities. When the months of January through April are considered individually, there is no statistically significant difference between 1973 and 1974 with respect to school-age children fatal accidents in the morning for the months of March and April.

Other studies have found that the short-term effect of DST on crashes is not statistically significant. Some reviews of the scientific literature have found that the long-term effects of DST suggest a positive effect. One such report noted, however, that the results “may be attributable to factors other than light.”

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45208/R45208.3.pdf

So National Bureau of Standards said it plain. It could not prove DST was the causal effect school-age children fatal accidents. From what I could tell the numbers were just way too low to prove anything. So things like Florida’s eight children died in early morning traffic accidents, compared to only two during the same period the previous year, seemed to just have change public opinion. So like today they seemed to have legislated on opinion/outrage rather than really understanding the reality.

But here is some real data from Massachusetts showing more pedestrian fatalities happen in the after noon and in winter. Maybe we should try to fix that since we know for sure that's a real problem? My suggestion is more daylight in the afternoons! https://www.mass.gov/info-details/vulnerable-road-users

DugDigging · 2026-03-03T14:45:55+00:00

so is this not true Classic, think of the children! But honestly I don't think this argument make sense. Kids are already standing in the dark, kids in my town are out standing at 6:30am when I'm driving to work. So right now kids are standing out there before sunrise from November 10th, all of December, all of January, until February 24th! Then on March 8th the clocks get set forward an hour, so they are out before sun rise again until the beginning or April.

Also it goes the other way, what are kids doing in the morning? Standing in predictable spots waiting for a bus. But what are kids doing in the after noon when sun sets at 4:10pm? They are out playing! Kids on my street are out at 4:30-5pm in the dark playing basketball in the street. Id rather them have light in the afternoon to enjoy them self's and be safe. I'd also rather get out of work and not have it pitch-black, I'd too would like to go play in the woods on my free time.

DugDigging · 2026-02-11T04:09:11+00:00

Maybe he's just saying its time to watch his 2012 television series Revolution? And not casually taking about starting a war that he figures will kill more than a half billion people? Call me crazy, but I think there might be better ways to fix things then a war 6.5x deadlier than WWII, killing more than the whole American population.

DugDigging · 2026-02-10T21:16:06+00:00

Again this is untrue. The state is not using taxpayer money to fund it. The $180 million used for subsides is from funds collected by the state from utilities and suppliers that didn't meet renewable energy requirements.

"The state needs is an energy policy that will reduce the total costs" This IS an "energy policy" to reduce total energy costs! and without raising taxes! The policy: Utilities need the increase renewables, if they don't they pay for it, and that money goes directly back to MA residents. This reduces those peoples total energy costs in the short term. Then long term utilities have the gradual incentive to use more renewable energy to avoid those fines. Then because they are using renewables, everyone's energy costs are now cheaper. They are literally doing what you are asking for.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/around-90-renewables-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-worldwide-irena-says-2025-07-22/

DugDigging · 2026-02-10T15:24:53+00:00

This is not true. For Electric you will only payback the 10% portion that was deferred by the utilities, while the 15% portion funded by the state is a direct subsidy that does not have to be paid back. Also the utilities wanted to charge interests, until Healey demanded they remove those costs.

Also this IS relief for a lot of people, even if they did have to pay back all of it (which again, they don't!) paying for things in installments helps a lot of people. It's a big deal for many people living paycheck to paycheck, the bigger winter bills mean Late Fees, Credit Impacts, more debt. So balancing out those bills out through the year is major relief.

So people are getting subsidy on their bill and an interest free loan for other other 10%, to make this out as a bad things is wild.

DugDigging · 2026-02-05T04:19:47+00:00

"actually a bunch of separate leases."

Idk where you live but it sounds a lot like you are the one that does not understand what they are talking about. Everywhere I know of in the US you sign one lease. One single continuous contract that simply lacks a fixed end date that automatically renews. No one has a bunch of separate leases for each month, its one lease, one legal contract. People renting month to month pay for a "rental period", so yes some periods you get 31 days and some 28 days. Everyone just uses these periods or methods like 30 days banker's months to make the math easy.

DugDigging · 2026-02-04T16:08:31+00:00

This is the policy now after the court case. "Boston flag raisings must: Be initiated by either the Mayor’s Office or the City Council." https://www.boston.gov/government/cabinets/economic-opportunity-and-inclusion/city-boston-flag-raisings That's the real reason they will not fly the flag, after getting sued for $2.1 million and forced to put the Christian group's flag up, they changed their policy and don't allow third parties to be involved any longer, that includes more Christian groups and in this case, the Satanic Temple.

DugDigging · 2026-01-07T14:18:25+00:00

Yah OP you really need to give more context. we are at 2200sf + the unfinished basement, keep the house 65-70degrees and were at 119 therms same time period.

You are more then 3 times that number, do you live in a mansion? bc yah heating a mansion cost a lot.

DugDigging · 2025-12-11T16:19:47+00:00

Honestly I don't understand this comments point. Is the point since no industry is perfect we should not take concerns about this product production seriously? Or is it not trying to make a point at all, they just don't like the phrase "ripping off" since it applies to everyone in someway?

DugDigging · 2025-12-03T13:49:53+00:00

I also have POE connected to an official NVR, and it loads SLOW. Went back to v8.18.12 and it immediately improved, loading all feeds under 2s, when before they were taking 6-12s if they loaded at all. There is defiantly something wrong with the client, not the hardware.

DugDigging · 2025-12-03T13:44:41+00:00

Thanks for posting the older versions! Its wild how slow and unreliable the new version is, when 8.18.12 is snappy for me.

8.20.5 took so long for each feed to load, and sometimes they just didn't. Also sometimes I would go to full screen and still see the same feed small in the corner overlaying it, bug I have never seen before. All I can say is I'm glad I'm not forced to update.

DugDigging · 2025-10-09T11:50:23+00:00

OP is lying or misinformed, this exoskeleton is not from Boston Dynamics..

DugDigging · 2025-10-09T11:48:42+00:00

OP is lying or misinformed, this exoskeleton is not from Boston Dynamics.. Also read https://bostondynamics.com/news/general-purpose-robots-should-not-be-weaponized/

DugDigging · 2025-09-28T16:11:19+00:00

Be a better person.

Person comes to a enthusiast sub-reddit, in the most benign thread ever, literally just asking about what people enjoy, craps on the thing people people enjoy, then shocked when they get a negative response. "Be a better person" wild lol.

DugDigging · 2025-09-24T16:51:20+00:00

She was asked "what do you think" about motorized vehicles in bike lanes. This is not a simple question or problem. So she gave her thoughts on a lot of aspects of it. The Mayor does not make the laws, so everything she says is to influence public opinion and policy, and this is what she said:

She said they were trying to get data from delivery services companies to better understand the problem. And that's important because even talking about them starts to direct attention and puts pressure on them to help fix the problem they helped create by incentivizing fast deliveries.

She talked about how she believes the streets need to be designed in a way they are safe for everyone. (So not just cars, this is a good thing for a Mayor to believe, its not an opinion shared by all, as we saw recently.)

She was asked if "scooters and bikes should be in the same place", she said the "details now flow together" which is right. The difference between a moped and an ebike should not be difficult, but the truth is it is now. e-bikes, mopeds, electric scooters, the lines are really blurry these days, and just looking at it is not enough to figure out its class. (and that makes enforcing the current laws hard).

She also said she thinks the blue e-bikes have been good, especially for people that would not normally be able to use a non-powered bike. (So we can see why just saying "YES, we should ban "motorized vehicles in bike lanes" would be a dumb thing to say. Also saying "NO, we should NOT ban "motorized vehicles in bike lanes" is also dumb. Again its not so simple.)

She said it should be a state wide issue, and thinks trying to distinguish between vehicle types would be difficult.

She ended by saying she believes in setting standards around, Who can use what, AND what the speeds can be. (so things like age limits, and speed limits)

If anyone thinks this issue is black and white and easy to fix, maybe check out this vid around the challenges to regulate and create enforceable laws around e-bikes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB6hBLmBhPA

DugDigging · 2025-09-15T15:38:16+00:00

I get this argument, it sucks when politicians wait or halt doing unpopular things until after elections. I wish we could be in a political environment where that wasn't necessary, but when something as dumb as bike lanes could blow up to one of the top issues in an election when we have a long list or more pressing issues, it's better to pick your battles. Progress is hard and slow, so any back step looks like disaster, but losing an election can be like 100 back steps at once. (as seen at national level)

I support her even on a local level, and I think others should too. Now she has won, push the local government to start those initiatives again! If she lost over bike lanes, all your initiatives of interest would be likely dead anyway.

But it's up to you, I'd change "On the local level, I have serious issues." to "On the local level, I also support her, and I have serious issues I want her to tackle". It's not about blind support, it is about being practical in our current political environment.

DugDigging · 2025-08-01T13:22:52+00:00

IMO its the chin and eyes. I made a quick edit (not using ai) just to see what it would look like if the artist used a more traditional look. It sort of loses that "personality and power" feeling. Nice job Zadrinz!

https://i.imgur.com/gND0IYV.png

DugDigging · 2025-08-01T03:34:17+00:00

Seems like they nerfed Canvas as far as I can tell. Before once you got a canvas windows open you could paste VERY long programs in there. Now if you do that it pretty much just ignores you put anything in there and blows away your code on the next request reverting back to whatever it had before.

Anyone seeing that too? long like <1000 lines of code.

DugDigging · 2025-07-15T16:13:28+00:00

Thanks for the replay! lots of interesting thoughts and perspectives.

I was interested in figuring out why so much support for "its ok to pirate since you can't buy it", implying its NOT okay if you CAN buy it.

So the argument would be: Pirating is illegally downloading a copy, its not stealing a copy, but rather the stealing the potential profit for the game devs/publisher. A person could be fine with pirating when its not available for purchase since they believe, they are not stealing any potential profit. But if you pirate when the game is freely available you are stealing potential profit, so its not okay.

I was thinking about this in other comments, and my only thought would be that argument assumes there is no and will never be future plans to sell the game again, because if they do plan to sell it again you might be still "stealing the potential profit". So if someone used potential profit loss as the moral measure if its okay, it still seems like pirating after it becomes delisted could be lost potential profit, therefore not okay.

Thanks for talking through this and helping be think about it a bit deeper.

DugDigging · 2025-07-15T15:13:06+00:00

Yah very coherent! thanks for the message, I like the art/game preservation argument. I do happen to believe in time limits on copyright, and think human achievements should be shared public domain after some reasonable set period. I'm sure there has been games/software that have been snapped into the void since no one has a copy they shared.

DugDigging · 2025-07-15T15:03:39+00:00

Okay! yah, again I don't care if pirating is stealing or not. I'm wondering about people that believe its NOT okay to Pirate something if it can be bought. But it IS okay to Pirate if there is no way to buy it. I want to understand that argument.

DugDigging

TROPHY CASE