I can understand like a little logo in the right hand corner or something.
There is also a little logo in the right-hand bottom corner.
tal
joined 2 years ago
Country with a second amendment refuses to use it.
Donald Trump has a First Amendment-protected right to say this. It may be irresponsible or outrageous, but the First Amendment protects irresponsible and outrageous speech.
On the outrageous-things-Donald-Trump-has-done list, this is probably one of the more-clearly-legal things that I can think of.
I'm starting to feel that Donald Trump might not entirely live up to the bar set by Thomas Jefferson.
I wouldn't want to rely upon the legal services of a law firm that I'd just extorted. Seems...risky.
Well, some insects are furry. I mean, bees are furry.
If you could change three small historical events by going back in time, what would they be and why?
It might be difficult.
Step 1. Suffer some unpleasantness resulting from an event in the past.
Step 2. Identify the event that was source of this problem.
Step 3. Travel back in time to just before event occurs.
Step 4. Prevent event from occurring.
Step 5. The change at Step 3 has prevented Step 1 from occurring. You have altered history to avoid unpleasantness.
Step 6. Step 2 depended upon Step 1 occurring and also does not happen. This prevents Step 3 and thus Step 4 from occurring. Now the event and the resulting unpleasantness occurs again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox
Consistency paradox
The consistency paradox or grandfather paradox occurs when the past is changed in any way that directly negates the conditions required for the time travel to occur in the first place, thus creating a contradiction. A common example given is traveling to the past and preventing the conception of one's ancestors (such as causing the death of the ancestor's parent beforehand), thus preventing the conception of oneself. If the traveler were not born, then it would not be possible to undertake such an act in the first place; therefore, the ancestor proceeds to beget the traveler's next-generation ancestor and secure the line to the traveler. There is no predicted outcome to this scenario.[8] Consistency paradoxes occur whenever changing the past is possible.[9] A possible resolution is that a time traveller can do anything that did happen, but cannot do anything that did not happen. Doing something that did not happen results in a contradiction.[8] This is referred to as the Novikov self-consistency principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_baby_Hitler
The question of killing baby Hitler contains a version of the grandfather paradox,[20] also known as the "Hitler's Murder Paradox".[21] According to the B-theory of time,[22] if someone travelled back in time with the intention of killing baby Hitler, then their reason for travelling back in time would be eliminated. It is often concluded that as the past has already happened, alteration of the past is a logical impossibility.[23] As Hitler killed himself in 1945, it can also be inferred that no time traveler has killed baby Hitler.[24]
In contrast to the B-theory, models that adopt the A-theory of time avoid logical contradictions in the killing of baby Hitler by considering time to be two-dimensional, where the first dimension is standard time (tx) and the second dimension is known as hyper-time (Htx).[25] Theories that leave room for the past to be changed include hyper-eternalism, two-dimensional presentism and hyper-presentism, which each demonstrate the possibility of killing baby Hitler in two-dimensional time.[26] In these temporal models, both the past and the future are held to be mutable; in changing the past by killing baby Hitler, the time traveller also changes the future.[27] Although it can also be debated whether such temporal models genuinely change the past, or if killing baby Hitler simply affects the past by causing a variation in hyper-time.[28]
If time travel caused creation of a parallel universe, killing baby Hitler would only create a parallel universe without Hitler in it, and the original universe would continue existing and thus the suffering he caused in that timeline would not be alleviated by the time-traveling assassin. From this perspective, astrophysicist Brian Koberlein concluded that killing baby Hitler would be "inconsequential at best, and could be downright harmful", recommending that time travelers avoid such an activity and instead visit the 1980s.[29]
impertinent
I don't know if there's a specific legal meaning
legal jargon isn't always plain English
but it might be that the meaning there is the other English meaning of "impertinent":
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impertinent
impertinent (comparative more impertinent, superlative most impertinent)
Insolent, ill-mannered or disrespectful; Disregardful.
(archaic) Not pertaining or related to (something or someone); Irrelevant or useless.
I mean, the term right before it in the code is "immaterial", which is very close to the second common-language definition. Just because it's archaic in common-language use doesn't mean that it is in the legal world
a lot of legal terms with jargon meanings were in common use at one point.
kagis
Yeah, sounds like it:
https://www.lsd.law/define/impertinent
Definition: Impertinent means something that is not relevant or important to the matter at hand. For example, if someone is talking about their favorite food and you start talking about your favorite color, that would be impertinent because it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. In legal terms, impertinent evidence or allegations are ones that do not help prove or disprove the case and are not important for the court to consider.
I'm skeptical that, whether-or-not the judge can take issue with it, a dragon in a suit reaches the bar for malpractice or breach of fiduciary duty. Though I suppose that it'd be interesting to see Dragon Lawyer and a backup, non-dragon lawyer fighting that one out in court.
Nah, they addressed that in the thread
I only grabbed a subset. Said that they'd need a more-dignified dragon to address that.
If you want to look for communities, look at https://lemmyverse.net/communities. They have an index of all communities on all instances, including those that your home instance of lemm.ee doesn't know about yet.
Reddit's lawyer forum had some discussion:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1ka9oc1/lets_all_start_filing_pleadings_with_a_giant/
The trial court ordered them to refile without the cartoon dragon, but did not order them to refile without a cartoon dragon.
This needs to be regulated. Like allowable D&D dragon type scales to years in practice
So, are chromatic dragons allowed at all, or just metallic? Or maybe just gold, for the lawful aspect.
Circuit split. Ninth Circuit allows chromatic obvi but Fifth has said only metallic
The judge missed the opportunity to put the order on paper with a sick dinosaur watermark
Go to his website. https://dragonlawyerspc.com/
Our platform integrates AI to lower the cost of legal services
Millennials who grew up on anime are hitting the age of finishing their law degrees and I couldn’t be prouder
I don't feel that there's a threat internal to the United States that warrants Trump needing to basically hire new internal security equivalent to two thirds of the entire existing American federal internal security institutions combined.
And to be blunt, I can think of some really good reasons to reject such a request.
EDIT: According to Wikipedia, the DHS currently has 240,000 employees. Assuming proportional headcount/spending, that'd be Trump hiring 160,000 more people.
For perspective, that increase alone would be half the size of Russia's internal security force Rosgvardiya, which the Kremlin uses to maintain internal political control in Russia.
There are some people who I'd be willing to trust with establishment of a very large new internal security force. The guy who tried to refuse to leave office once, has used executive institutions against political enemies, and is presently selling "Trump 2028" hats doesn't make the cut.
EDIT2: Okay, here's the House recommended budget. It looks like they do have a breakdown; the bulk of this this would be proposed to be for building 1,300 miles of border wall.
https://homeland.house.gov/2025/04/29/homeland-republicans-advance-funding-recommendations-to-continue-president-trumps-border-security-victory-bolster-frontline-personnel-for-years-to-come/
The White House request is for a net $43.8 billion increase for DHS.
I don't know whether that is expected to get earmarked to construction; not familiar with the process, but could be. That is, it could be that the Executive is obliged to spend that on something other than personnel.
EDIT3: Yeah, I don't know where they're pulling the numbers from, but CNN has the House having some form of itemization, and it says DHS is hiring about 8,000 more people, a much-smaller number.