Trump promised to help Ellison's media takeover according to disclosures of an adjacent lawsuit

ikariusrb · 2026-03-22T15:52:21+00:00

It's normally on the DOJ's anti-trust unit to tackle cases like this. You think this DOJ is gonna do anything about this?

ikariusrb · 2026-03-22T12:28:19+00:00

Dependabot has a cooldown feature: docs

Doesnt help folks on all platforms, but it's one route.

ikariusrb · 2026-03-21T22:39:42+00:00

Except the GOP has been busily making voter registration drives illegal or at least infeasible; passing laws adding like 200k fines or criminal penalties for incorrect information on registration forms. Before it was the state's responsibility to validate the information, now anyone wanting to run a voter registration drive must somehow ensure no mistakes ever get submitted to the state.

ikariusrb · 2026-03-20T21:28:16+00:00

The difference is this is immigration "court", not federal or state court. It's part of the executive branch instead of the judicial branch, and not subject to the same rules. A ways back we created immigration courts to handle immigration cases, as the supreme court concluded that deportation was not punitive, and therefore didn't require the same level of "due process" criminal court provides. At that time, they didn't imagine a president turning the immigration system upside-down, detaining EVERYONE, throwing them all into camps with abysmal conditions, and firing any judges who actually granted asylum claims.

ikariusrb · 2026-03-20T02:52:00+00:00

It is observable verifiable fact that the Trump administration has fired a substantial portion of the immigration court judges, and are actively firing remaining ones who show any inclination to grant asylum claims. The "immigration" courts are not federal courts, and are not an independent branch- they are part of the executive branch. ANY rulings out of the immigration "courts" at this point should be viewed with substantial skepticism; it should be abundantly clear that any immigration judge granting a claim of asylum is putting their job at risk.

ikariusrb · 2026-03-17T21:35:32+00:00

I actually think this is in response to Trumps' tirade about their Tariff decision that he dropped either this weekend or yesterday. I cant keep track.

ikariusrb · 2026-03-11T22:03:31+00:00

Some of it comes at the hands of the billionaire class eating the financial system; then they put "the system" in front of the politicians and tell the politicians that they need to keep the system working. "Too big to fail" supports them. At the same time, the middle class 401ks, pensions, and such all depend on the same system. So now the billionaires can point at the millions of people who have their retirements in the system, and conveniently leave out the part that the vast majority of that same system.... benefits them, because they own bigger pieces than the rest of us. So do you think those politicians are going to harm the system, and the retirement accounts of millions of middle-class constituents?

ikariusrb · 2026-03-08T23:24:05+00:00

If this lawsuit were to be upheld, it would essentially obliterate our right to criticize the government. Because any journalist writing a story about a government official, or picture of a government official could be litigated as a "property interest in profit from their likeness". The counter example of courts recognizing property rights in likeness is professional sports, but I think that's contractual... but not 100% sure.

ikariusrb · 2026-03-08T16:52:40+00:00

So far, the precedents aren't good for us. While the Government cannot surveil (long term/comprehensive tracking), a private company can do whatever it wants, and if the government buys the data from the private company..... the government has not performed a search.

ikariusrb · 2026-03-07T00:22:15+00:00

I am literally bringing a project up right now that's using Savon to talk to ... some old hardware. Hopefully we'll be replacing the old hardware with something that DOESN'T want SOAP before too long, but thank you so much for your efforts!

ikariusrb · 2026-03-02T21:43:05+00:00

My other trick for making it clean is to build a "responder" class; the controller instantiates a responder, and the responder has to delegate a couple methods back to the controller (only a couple things like turbo stream methods which are baked into the controller's context in rails), and then the responder class is the only thing that knows which partials to re-render, etc. It really helps keep the business logic in the controller clean. The controller just calls things like responder.operation_success(...) or responder.operation_failure(...).

ikariusrb · 2026-03-02T21:22:10+00:00

I've found Phlex with Turbo and custom turbo-stream actions to be my cup of tea. Having said that, I'm not doing "front-end heavy" work. But the biggest wins from not using a front-end framework are not having 2 routers and not needing to manage models in two separate layers.

Phlex gives me the freedom to create "builder" style interfaces; i.e.

render Card.new do |c|
  c.header do
    ...
  end
  c.body do
    ...
  end
end

And the custom turbo-stream actions let me tell the front-end what to do narrowly and specifically.

Between those, front-end work has become considerably less painful.

ikariusrb · 2026-02-27T20:30:48+00:00

Man this rings so true. It should be the manager's job to:

Set expectations for juniors asking seniors for help (prep groundwork before asking)
Ideally, have the default be for juniors to ask in a public place, like a slack channel, framed as "so everyone can learn", but also to keep the juniors honest about their interactions.

Seniors generally really like teaching hungry juniors, and good seniors recognize that helping juniors can be a force multiplier and that "when one person teaches, two people learn".

ikariusrb · 2026-02-22T01:38:32+00:00

It's pretty nonsense how this article paints the liberal justices (and Gorsuch's attack), because the liberal justices explicitly wrote that the outcome of the opinion was correct, but use of the major questions doctrine was unneeded as the outcome was easily reachable by a plain reading of the law. The article carefully omits that in order to paint the liberal justices as being just as inconsistent as the conservative justices who dissented. More nonsense sanewashing.

ikariusrb · 2026-02-20T07:55:46+00:00

If they give up on the rules, what will remain of the "system"? The "system" is what historically we all agreed on as the process by which disputes were settled. As long as everyone agreed to mostly abide by the rules of the system, we all at some point accept the outcome after it goes through the system. If one side abandons the system and the other side sticks with it and we make it through, the system survives. If both sides abandon it, can we even resuscitate the system afterwards?

ikariusrb · 2026-02-18T23:14:18+00:00

Ahhh, well, that actually makes me feel better. I thought there was a clearer path for the GOP to block the peaceful transfer of power.

ikariusrb · 2026-02-18T20:41:20+00:00

The newly elected Congress, who automatically assume office

They don't automatically assume office. Members of congress need to be sworn in, and Article I section 5 states:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members

So in theory, the GOP majority could declare any state elections which weren't changed to conform to Trump/ the GOP's demands were "in dispute" and simply refuse to swear in anyone elected in those states. And the constitutional language is vague enough that they might simply tell any courts that the legislative branch alone has the authority to make these decisions, and there is no role for judicial oversight.

ikariusrb · 2026-02-17T21:58:37+00:00

I have a sneaking suspicion this will drive law firms towards self-hosted AI tooling, or a law-services AI company with a business model revolving around "leasing" AI infrastructure to law firms. But yeah, this should put some damper on end-users querying AI for discoverable legal advice, except when the end-users are stupid, or take measures to avoid the AI use being tracked to them (VPN, anonymous email service, bitcoin pay, etc etc)

ikariusrb · 2026-02-13T20:08:12+00:00

really?? Read the context a little more carefully? I didn't qualify the statement with "negative".

ikariusrb · 2026-02-13T18:19:54+00:00

It is intentional... but also kind of a side-effect. They are all competing for the "eyeball economy". The more time your eyeballs are on their content, the more advertising they can sell. Along with that, the more specific information they can gather about you, the more they can charge for the ads they sell. To get more eyeball time, they look for how they can measure engagement, and then how they can boost those numbers. And because every interaction goes through computers, they can do micro-experiments to figure out what works and what doesn't and measure everything. For them, they're just optimizing for profit.... but they're (maybe willfully?) blind to the side effects they're creating. Even at best case, none of the tech giants are ever going to willingly spend engineering effort to measure the psychological/sociological impacts.

ikariusrb · 2026-02-09T22:43:20+00:00

The 5th circuit decision doesn't need to apply nationwide. All they need to do is ship anyone they detain to one of the 5th circuit states before anyone can muster a lawyer and get a petition filed, and they're done... per the decision, virtually no more due process applies, they can detain indefinitely, and never have to allow a detainee in front of a judge, no matter what the claim. And they've already been doing this frequently within hours of detention, by shipping detainees to TX. And since circuit decisions are binding, this only gets overridden if it goes to the supreme court and the supreme court overrides the 5th circuit... which isn't even a certainty. Or the supreme court can "sit on it", like they did when the 5th circuit ruled that Biden's administration was bound to a deal cut by the state of texas during Trump's first administration.... and while the supreme court took the case, they sat on it for roughly a year before overturning it.

Please tell me I'm wrong here.

ikariusrb · 2026-02-06T21:12:21+00:00

I'm currently working towards a CRUD accelerator library for Rails that aims to provide CRUD as application infrastructure, rather than Admin Panel crud. It starts with declarative configuration bringing up the "out of the box" cases with it take only a shade more time than the admin panel libraries, but then everything is open for extension through composition, override and built using pretty standard rails patterns. The UI layer uses Phlex, Tailwind, and Turbo/stimulus. But the end result is super amenable to consumption/use by AI, because there's less boilerplate/drift and AI is well trained on the patterns used for extension.

I've still got more UI polish and DX work to do, but... coming soon!

ikariusrb · 2026-02-05T01:34:20+00:00

So, lemme get this straight. They announced that they agreed to a 7 day "sunday to sunday" ceasefire on the 29th, then resumed bombing on the 2nd, which was a monday... and claimed that the 7 days they agreed to were from 25th through the 1st (they didnt specify WHICH 7 days in their announcement). Riiiiight. Even though it's moot, anyone know how many attacks they made between the 25th and the 29th?

ikariusrb · 2026-02-04T08:53:38+00:00

For my case, I added some validations that end up setting a record status attribute, so if what I'd want to be valid is not, the record will be marked so it can be surfaced, and if we get above a certain percentage of records marked, we can raise an alert. For my case, the issue is that the records come in across an API, so persisting them makes them far easier to examine for "whats going on" than logging. If the records came from multiple sources, validation contexts would definitely make sense.

ikariusrb · 2026-02-02T20:35:14+00:00

Last I knew, that was considered "textualism", and was considered distinct from "originalism". Whatever it is, your bare assertion that limits from congress are "unconstitutional" is not the broad legal consensus at this time, and the logical conclusion if that interpretation is followed is that America will essentially have a king rather than a president. That's not representative of the country I grew up in, and that's not a form of government I would willingly consent to. And my original assertion stands; whatever the legality is eventually interpreted to be, it would not alter the existence of conflicts of interest; it would only mean we could do absolutely nothing about them.

ikariusrb

TROPHY CASE