SoylentNews

A CNBC analysis of data from the Treasury Department ranks the combined $72 billion in revenue from all the president’s tariffs as one of the biggest tax increases since 1993. In fact, the tariff revenue ranks as the largest increase as a percent of GDP since 1993 when compared with the first year of all the revenue measures enacted since then, according to the data.

Trump’s tariffs are equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades

And about that massive welfare program he's setting up for farmer bailouts? $62 MILLION went to Brazilian criminals:

Trump administration showers Brazilian crooks with $62M bailout money meant for struggling U.S. farmers

Remember when tax hikes, welfare, bailouts and criminals were bad?

Right now, I'm surfing the Soylent waters using this procedure:

1. Go to my user preferences / comments page
2. Assign an automod of -6 to foes
3. Assign an automod of -6 to anonymous posters
4. Save my user preferences
5. Set the viewing threshold to 0 and [✓] Save and then click change in a story's comments
6. Assign trolls as a "foe" by clicking the little face by one of their posts
   • Repeat #6 as needed

So what the above should do is bury comments (stop them from being expanded in a comment listing) posted by the trolls I have placed in my foes list, and also all anonymous posters, which also should keep the trolls who use anonymous posts to get past the foes list automod (and those who are simply trolling anonymously) buried as well.

The annoying downside of this approach is that anonymous posts from non-foes also get buried, because the Soylent code doesn't know who the anonymous poster is, so it cannot determine if the anonymous poster is on my foes list.

That lack of knowledge could be addressed for logged-in users, as the Soylent code does know who it is when logged-in users [✓] Post Anonymously, but short of requiring log-in to post, that isn't possible.

Having actually tried the above -6,-6 setup now, I have found the general burying of anonymous posts to be less painful than accidentally reading the various troll garbage (I read very fast, gulping down whole paragraphs at a glance... so to even glance at a post is to peruse a good chunk of it, no matter how troll-ish and/or awful it is.)

Further, I know that anonymous posters could just as securely create a unique pseudonym and post as logged-in users with no loss of anonymity, other than that people would know both post A and post B are both from the same author (a total win, frankly.) Considering this, I see no decent excuse for posting without logging in anyway, and so feel quite justified in brushing off those who can't be arsed to log in.

I could live with the above -6,-6 setup, except... it doesn't actually work.

The Top-Level Comment Bug

Soylent's "Apply automod" feature does not obey its settings when a comment is at the outer, or "top" level of a story's comments. Not if the commenter is anon; and not if they're in my foes list. Top-level comments appear no matter what the automod is set to. Ouch. Garbage out, ...garbage in.

But it's even worse than that. If you click on a comment link (for instance, one that has replies on your user page, or on the replies notification page), then first-level replies in the resulting comment subset also don't obey the automod(s.) It doesn't matter if the comments aren't actually top-level in the entire comment stream; if they're first-order comments to the comment one is now looking at, then the bug manifests again.

I humbly submit that this should receive dev attention ASAP; the whole point of automods is made moot by these behaviors.

--
I'd agree with you, but then
we would both be wrong.

A friend has made a preliminary listing for spherical cows, penguins and suchlike on EBay. Due to EBay making PayPal compulsory and PayPal being shiftier than it's co-founder (the serial fraudster and US$5 billion corporate welfare king, Elon Musk), further sales and payment options will definitely be forthcoming.

Anyhow, spherical critters are currently available via EBay user spherical_critter_emporium and one random plushie is available for £10 with free global shipping. All proceeds after taxes, fees and materials go towards food and drink for whoever attends a weekly London geek meeting which you are cordially invited to attend. If the spherical critters are popular then it will be a free evening of food, drink and geekery.

After some back-and-forth, the text of the listing is as follows:-

♪♫ They're lumpy,
They're bumpy,
They're easily squashed,
Damaged and lost... ♫♪

♪♫ Spherical Critters!
Spherical Critters!
'Round and 'round
the absurdity goes!
Spherical Critters!
Spherical Critters!
Why we love them,
Nobody knows! ♫♪

These spherical animals not perfectly spherical nor are they living animals. They have a diameter of approximately 18cm (7 inches) but are easily squashed like a cushion. They are made from synthetic sponge and short synthetic fur. They have a small bounce to them which makes them surprisingly suitable for keepy-uppy or hackisack type amusement despite being smaller than a football and significantly larger than a hackisack.

Spherical cows are based on an old physics joke: "Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multi-disciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, 'I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum.'" Further spherical cow jokes can be found on the Internet including spherical steak searing pans and the Uncyclopedia's lunar migration cycle of spherical cows. We also recommend Rollin' Wild, a series of short animations which were shown in IMAX cinemas. (The spherical cheetah is particularly funny. Likewise for the scene with the cowshed.)

For quite a while, it has been possible to purchase spherical cow tshirts and cross stitching. However, spherical cows in any form have been in short supply. Therefore, we purchased stereotypical black and white splotchy Holstein cow print fur and began making spherical cow stuffed toys/plushies. This rapidly expanded into spherical tigers, spherical leopards, spherical ladybirds/ladybugs, spherical sheep (black or white), spherical penguins and, by special request, spherical Sully print which definitely isn't Sully from Monsters Inc because it is significantly darker.

Each of the patterned spherical critters is unique because it is cut from a different offset of patterned fabric. Regardless, examples shown are representative of future supply. If sources of fur fabric differ significantly then we will update pictures prior to sale.

Spherical critters are likely suitable for small children nominally of three years old, but please use your own judgement if buying for children, and ask us any questions you have. Each item is lovingly and ethically home made by genuine physicists from five pieces of car washing sponge purchased from Poundland and two pieces of synthetic fur typically purchased from Dalston Mill Fabrics and double stitched with rip-stops using the coarsest pound shop thread that money can buy. (Leopard print and Sully print was purchased from EBay seller midtexltd.) No innards are smaller than than 50 cubic centimetres (3 cubic inches) and the basic design has no outer piece which is significantly smaller than half of the surface area.

By special request, spherical critters are available in kit form so that you can sew your own spherical stuffed toys. Please ask us to list the design of your choice with or without scissors, needles and/or thread. All kits are supplied with cutting template (whether it is required or not) so that you can advance your skills with the least impediment. We typically list a pre-cut, pre-joined spherical tiger sewing kit supplied with sponge filling because it is easiest to complete. Also by special request, spherical critters are available with eyes, ears, tails, cow bells and/or other adornments. Please ask us to list any requested variations. However, please note that each addition will typically be £2 extra and eyes for stuffed toys may be more. With additions, they may not be safe for children.

Bulk discounts are available (contact us) and we challenge you to purchase unusual quantities so that we sphere pack them into unusual shaped parcels. For example, 10 critters will pack nicely into a tetrahedral pyramid. Indeed, with 41 critters in stock [at time of writing], we currently have the world's largest tetrahedral pyramid of spherical stuffed toys (see first picture). This could be yours for a reasonable price. You may laugh now but you'll be laughing even harder when you're avalanched by furry balls!

To keep any synthetic stuffed toy in optimal condition, occasionally brush lightly with a wig brush. Wash stains by applying diluted detergent to surface only. Do not soak. Do not machine wash. Do not use hair dryer. Do not place in microwave oven. Keep away from naked flame. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. Ingress of water to middle of stuffed toy encourages mold. Excessive heat causes synthetic fur to curl or melt.

Unfortunately, due to the use of bright yellow synthetic sponge and relatively short synthetic fur, designs with significant quantities of light fur (sheep, penguin) may appear discoloured from some angles. This may be corrected in future if we can find uncoloured synthetic sponge or alternative filling at a similar price. Please let us know how we can improve this product or any other product.

Also, my friend currently holds an informal world record for a spherical critter tetrahedral pyramid with 35 spheres. We're now working towards 120 unless stock diminishes.

Edit 1: EBay listing with choice of critter.

Right now, the only way to effectively block a logged in time waster is to::

1. Make them a "foe" by clicking the little face by one of their posts
2. Assign an automod of -6 to foes and save the prefs
3. Set the viewing threshold to 0 and ✓save and then click change in a story's comments

Now, no foes show up (except at the top level of comments, because top level comments are broken, apparently on purpose, but that's a different complaint, I guess.)

The main problem with this is that many AC posts get unfairly modded to -1. Those will also disappear. That's a loss.

Further, if a registered user decides they're going to post anon to get around this, you could assign a -1 mod to anons... which will work, but also cut off the anons completely unless someone mods them up. And of course, some of our trolls are using sock puppet accounts to mod themselves up. So that's not foolproof either. But it at least requires them to work harder.

So what to do? It would be much, much, much better if we could say "foes are -10" and threshold is -1, the lowest a post can normally go with a hand mod — that's assuming the points system is still used to do this. That would really go a long way towards solving the problem, because anons would not be penalized by this, we could keep our reading threshold at -1 without a problem, because foes would be automatically submerged below -1.

Might not be that easy. TMB could throw an oar in here, codewise.

Or, just "if in foes list, collapse the post", which would be much better — and at some level, the system's already doing most of that, because presence in the foes list is the only way it knows to assign the automod.

The troll anon posts would still be there, but remember, there's always that little [-] button in the subject bar of each comment. You can nuke those exceptions pretty easily.

But I still don't want to ever see some of these registered users. Any time at all they take is a waste.

So anyway: the site would be much improved if we could mute at least the registered user trolls. Of which we definitely have a few. So for now, foes are -6 and my threshold is 0, which almost works, barring the loss of mis-modded anons (sad face) and the top level comment hiding being broken.

The U.S. justice system is FAKE.

What people don't know about our fake justice system is that most appeals are disposed of summarily, without analysis. This is a denial of due process, and the judicial system has collapsed. It is not on the verge of collapse, it has already collapsed.

Imagine paying $200,000 to an attorney who prepares a 60 page brief explaining why your side is right, then the court disposes of your case like this:

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

Or how about a 10 page petition where your case is dropped like this:

The court finds the relief not warranted, and the petition is DENIED.

And no, there's nothing more to these types of decisions other than a single sentence.

Clearly, the courts, at all levels, issue decisions in an arbitrary and capricious manner. "Docket management" has caused the rule of law to collapse. It seems we have a problem: Too many cases and not enough judges. Perhaps we should quadruple the size of all courts. In any case, the United States has turned into a lawless world where the law only applies if you hire an expensive enough lawyer to fight for you, and even then, you only have a small shot at the law being applied as written.

There are two bodies of law in the United States. The first is the written law, which applies only in theory or to anyone rich enough.The second is the unwritten law, the unpublished law, where facts don't matter and the whims of judges control your life. This latter law applies to the 99%. It's time to recognize the dual standard.

We should demand a system that doesn't issue arbitrary and capricious judgements. The obvious answer is more judges, to keep pace with cases so they have more time to review each one. Another idea is that we remove the protection of res judicta for badly reasoned or unreasoned decisions.

What should be done about the failed U.S. justice system?

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced Wednesday that his country was taking steps to halt its compliance with elements of a landmark nuclear accord, in a move that appeared certain to aggravate tensions with the United States.

In a televised speech, Rouhani said that Iran would hold on to stockpiles of excess uranium and heavy water used in its nuclear reactors. He set a 60-day deadline for new terms to the nuclear accord, after which Tehran would resume higher uranium enrichment.

In November, the United States reimposed sanctions that have strangled Iran’s oil and banking sectors as well as its foreign trade. The sanctions came after the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the pact that Iran negotiated with world powers in 2015 and that curbed its nuclear program in exchange for widespread sanctions relief.

Iran had been complying fully with the terms of the deal even after the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew last year, according to the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran announces it will stop complying with parts of landmark nuclear deal

Great job Trump!

I don't believe that's exactly true.

Anybody find the tapes?

I'll finish by summarizing what really angers me about this "social contract". First, as I mentioned, it's not really a contract nor is it usually invoked as such, but rather to excuse coercion. Any real contract would have provisions for a) honoring promises made in good faith and rejecting those made in bad faith, b) protecting the future of society, particularly of future generations, and c) apply equally to all, not just marginalized protesters who have good reason to dislike what's going on.

Second, it's commonly invoked to excuse tax collection for venal or short-sighted reasons. Sure, it's nice that older generations voted themselves a hefty pension and health services at the expense of younger generations (a near universal phenomenon in the developed world). But that dishonesty should be rewarded with a severe cutback to the benefits, not disruption of young peoples' lives and the decay of the society. Similarly, we're seeing most countries shifting to debt loads that are at least as large as their GDP (a crude measure of the size of the economy), again a glaring sign that the electorate isn't thinking about the future.

Third, it's telling that most advocates of the social contract can only point to simple things like roads or police as benefits of social contracts while the actual expenditures cover far more. If you can only point to 5-10% of government expenditure as a benefit (usually with a horrid inefficiency in benefit for the cost), then that's a strong sign to me that the government in question should be radically shrunk, perhaps as part of said social contract. Yet somehow the social contract is that we should pay our taxes, not that we should fight hard to reduce the government burden on our lives.

I think it's telling that social contract advocates can easily state what I should give to the contract, but have a hard time coming up with concrete examples of what I get from the contract. It's telling for example, that the link above was to a post rationalizing why there was some sort of "bargain" in place to presumably prevent the sort of parent/child problems mentioned in the story (and prevent pension fund looting as well).

In summary, I refuse to call this a contract, because it's not on so many different levels. Instead it is your social expectations which need not be either reasonable or honored.

Now, let's consider the matter of the "Rule of Law". A particularly poetic bit comes from end of some boilerplate in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.

As an important aside, this document makes a huge appeal to the "social compact" in its preamble. The difference is that they wrote it down which is very different from most such appeals to the social contract as an intangible thing.

The bolded text above illustrates the fundamental dichotomy that the lawmakers of the time were concerned with. In rule of law, the law is written down and communicated via an established process with alterations possible in a consistent way. Just as important, everyone is beholden to the law equally. In rule of man, well, some dude decides what the law will be that day. Maybe they'll do so with great foresight and gravitas, but history is chock full of those who didn't.

Anyway, let's briefly consider the virtues and drawbacks of rule of law. The obvious virtue is that since the law is written down, it's not hard to figure out what's allowed or not. You don't have to worry about breaking laws that someone invented on the spot. It's a saner, more stable, freer society as a result.

The drawbacks? The primary one is that law need not be just or fair. There's plenty of stuff when applied to everyone benefits some groups inordinately.

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. -- Anatole France

Technically, rule of law, but someone gets screwed.

Another problem is once you can write down rules, you can write down lots and lots and lots of rules. The developed world is an evolving example of how this can lead to a giant morass. Nor is there any foreseeable end to rule writing particularly given how such rules can interact with each other in unpleasant negative synergy, leading to rules to fix rules to fix rules.

That brings us to the conversation about rule of law that I linked above. I was accused of equating "legal with moral" even though the complaint was about rule of law. The subsequent discussion devolved to claiming that rule of law is amoral because the laws that comprise it are amoral. Somehow the immorality of arbitrary tyranny via rule of man was ignored.

This I find is a sadly common occurrence. People who laud the intangible social contract often heap scorn onto its written instantiation as rule of law. But rules that are concrete are vastly superior to vague and unspecified rules that aren't - particularly when the harm from and penalties for violating the [intangible] rules can be capricious or even nonexistent, often depending on the mood of the person that day. Such grotesque and unfair inconsistency should be avoided.