If it turns out that someone is willing to pay for some other protocol then they just have to hook it up to that MIME type and start serving. It might be possible that they can derive an implementation of that protocol from their data schemas.
If they hardcode JSON such a change would be breaking for their previous users.
How many is it? Your link gets us to 1, and it's from months ago. I expected you to link the number since you're claiming it's high.
Supposedly there's been 500k deportations, and 2.5m "self-deportations" in 2025, so what would be high here?
Edit: I also googled that man's name. A quick read of nbcs article suggests it's not clear he's a citizen. The judge said he "had a substantial claim to citizenship," which means nothing either way. He was born in Thailand.
"In his Nov. 3 brief, [a lawyer] contends Souvannarath stayed in the United States for 19 years after his removal order without challenging it or seeking proof of citizenship."
So, to answer his question: not realistic at all that you'll get deported as a citizen. That's without fact checking you. I haven't seen anything about actual citizens being removed, including in the sibling comment claiming it with a reference.
> Besides, how realistic is a fear that a law abiding citizen would be endangered by the ICE?
Perhaps you are having trouble following the conversation. The argument put forth by OP is that ICE is endangering american citizens. That is factually true.
I didn’t sneak anything in - you failed to follow a thread. Why are you trying to put that on me? It’s okay to admit fault and take responsibility. It is obvious at this point that you do not care or won’t take the time to understand the conversation or respond in good faith.
My concern covers all LEO fucking with American citizens, especially the masked and unidentified ones.
So anyway, per your link: 170 citizens "wrapped up" by ice during between 327,000 and 605,000 deportations, depending on which source you like (I linked them in a different response to you in another thread).
Between .0005% and .0003% chance that if ICE grabs someone up, they're a citizen. I think that's a pretty good record, actually. I don't think it's very alarming.
We have 348 million citizens, 170 got held for...days! While we conducted the most effective deportation of illegals in history.
I'm pretty sure ICE isn't going to accidentally get me. This problem may as well be non-existent.
What's real is actual citizens wrapped up in actual bullshit with regular LEO. With probably several orders of magnitude difference, wouldn't you agree? Maybe thousands per day, instead of 170 per year? Costing folks more than a few days' detention.
I think that's extremely alarming, given the fact they are trying to deport people as fast as possible so they don't have time for a hearing in front of a judge. The hearing that they are supposedly guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the Constitution!
Why do you think deportation is the only thing that matters? We've seen ICE fuck up the lives of American citizens by destroying their property, illegally holding them, arresting entire buildings etc in Chicago. And there is zero recourse for these blatant violations. How about you open up your wallet and pay for their crimes if you're willing to go to bat for them so hard?
Mexico, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Hawaii, Guam, Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines?
In the last 100 years the trend has been been for America to invade a country and try to install a friendly government rather than formally annex them - Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria.
So it's not longer 30 years but 100? What the US did pre WW2 was in no way abnormal or worse than that what every other powerful was doing..
Also US never technically invaded Lybia, Yemen or Syria (unless you count their intervention to support the Kurdish and Iraqi governments against ISIS an invasion...)
What happened in Korea was the opposite of the invasion (of course the South Korea regime they were saving was extremely oppressive and arguably not worse at all than the one in the North at the time).
Also are you implying that the majority of military bases US has in other countries (especially in Europe) is involuntary?
Invading countries to annex them is not even that bad if you give full citizen rights to their population. Invading to occupy, destabilise and depredate is much worse.
> Invading countries to annex them is not even that bad if you give full citizen rights to their population.
How is that relevant to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Whenever Russia takes territory they're filling mass graves with raped Ukrainian civilians.
American forces too have committed innumerable atrocities, and there is no forgiving that, but it doesn't support the premise above that Russia is in some way cleaner.
No intention to deny individual episodes of war crimes, but the ratio of civilian to military casualties in the conflict is pretty low, despite a drawn out war and massive military casualties: we're talking about 12-15 thousand civilian deaths in almost four years of war. Absolutely tragic but doesn't seem to indicate a genocidal intent. Compare with the widespread massacres of civilians perpetrated by Israel in Palestine.
Ukranian civilians sensibly fleeing for their lives when the front gets close has prevented many deaths, and doesn't change the facts of what happens when they don't escape.
There's 3.5 million people living in the Russia-occupied territories of Ukraine now. The Wikipedia entry about them even lists "forced Russification" as one of the abuses they suffer: "Ukrainians have been coerced into taking Russian passports and becoming Russian citizens". Now, as bad as this is, being forced to become a regular citizen of the occupying state is a far cry from being deported and murdered by that state. Nazi Germany wasn't giving German citizenship to Poles and Jews in occupied territories; Israel is not giving Israeli citizenship to Palestinians in occupied territories. Do you see the difference?
Putin himself has famously claimed that Russians and Ukrainians are the same people: this is the very opposite of the ideological premise to justify a genocide.
From what I understand from friends who still spend a lot of time in Donetsk because their businesses are there, you might be taken to a basement and shot if you say the wrong thing.
It's pretty bad, but sure, if you just go along with it you'll probably be fine.
>this is the very opposite of the ideological premise to justify a genocide.
Genocide is an attempt to kill a group; That does not happen only by murdering people - it's also forced assimilation. In this case, Russia is directly violating article 2) e) of the Genocide Convention*: "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
>citizenship
Citizenship is not relevant to the genocide convention at all.
Putin has famously claimed that Russians and Ukrainians are the same people for the same reasons that Hitler claimed that the Sudetendeutsche are the same people as the Germans - to justify an illegal imperial attack on a neighbor.
Russian imperialism needs Ukraine, since without Ukraine there's no Russian empire. Russia invaded Ukraine out of imperialist delusion, not for humanitarian reasons.
You have thoroughly bought into Russian propagandist lies.
> for the same reasons that Hitler claimed that the Sudetendeutsche are the same people as the Germans
Indeed, but Hitler is not famous for mass-murdering the Sudetendeutsche.
And I never claimed that Russia invaded Ukraine for humanitarian reasons. I think it did because it could not tolerate a Ukraine fully integrated in the West and NATO- but this just means exercising political control over Ukraine, it doesn't imply an ethnic cleansing or genocide of Ukrainians.
We'll see about Venezuela, it's early to say. In Ukraine, a short conflict would have been better than a prolonged one, and in case of annexed territories, the status and civil rights of annexed populations should have been the focus of any peace agreement. The territory doesn't care who owns it, it's the people that suffer.
For example, the Israeli occupation and progressive annexation of Palestine is especially criminal because they have no intention of including the native population in their ethno-state- it's an annexation with ethnic cleansing or, if needed, genocide.
>Invading countries to annex them is not even that bad if you give full citizen rights to their population.
This is soviet bullshit, the Moscowitz did a lot of genocides you can find plenty of sources, so they were and are as bad as Israel because the Rusky/slavs in Ruzzia are indoctrinated to feel superior to the other non slaves in the empire and feel still a bit more superior then the rest of the slavs. You can look at the existing recent data from the Ruzzian stats and how the minorities are more in decline then the Ruskies.
So for uninformed people that might read this soviet guy comment, read a wikipedia summary of what moscowites did and Putin is still doing, I suggest not reading in detail, like reading books or interviews with vitims of this criminal empire you will fill a big amount of pain if you have empath on how this Ruscists treated humans , I will never forget the stuff Ir ead and better if I did not know the details.
Ruzzia, israle , USA all are bad but the situation is multidimensional and is not easy to say that Ruzzia is less bad then Nazis and are better then Israle etc., we cana dmit that criminal are criminals, dictators are dictators, bastardads are bastards and trolls are trolls.
Russia in the last 30 years invaded and occupied Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria - not to mention the atrocities committed in Africa.
But with the exception of Syria, Russia always had genocidal intent - deny cultures, erase them, and make those countries as unstable as possible while remaining occupied.
I'm not saying what the US did was good, or right, but there's a big difference.
The US never denied the existence of cultures, languages, etc.
Right, so what's the scope of time we're talking about here? Are we talking about the world post WW2, or are we going back to the Roman Empire?
Because if you want to "win" arguments by randomly swinging hundreds of years to make a point, then it's pointless, because anyone can pick a point in thousands of years of History to show "look - they were bad here".
I think discussions about modern history are sufficient for the post-WW2 period, as there was a global consensus on international law and the Charter of the UN.
If you hold grievances about events hundreds of years old to make points about current events, then it's pointless.
If you believe the US that colonized part of North America is the same as post-ww2 US, then I can understand.
I don't think they're the same, so many institutions were established that over the years that I don't see them as the former colony of the British crown.
But hey, if you want to discuss semantics, go for it.
Yeah, when you draw arbitrary limits (30 years for you it seems), it's easy to paint one side as the better one. Once you start to think a bit bigger, you start to realize most big nations act as the others, and it's just different flavors of "bad", yet they're all as bad as the others.
What about segregation then, is that recent enough for you? Or that wasn't about culture/language, so that too isn't applicable? I'm afraid that with rose-tinted glasses, everything has an explanation why your favorite is different than their favorite.
Why is the founding of the UN, at the end of WW2, and the signature of the UN Charter, considered an arbitrary event in modern History for you?
It's the biggest geopolitical event in modern History to prevent the death of millions, by attempting to stop the expansion of borders through military force and making countries recognize the borders of each of its members.
> What about segregation then, is that recent enough for you?
What about segregation? Where? In different European countries? USA? South Africa? India?
Was there a global consensus to end segregation? Or were different events at different points in time, achieved in different manners? Is there still segregation happening in some societies?
So all the countries Russia interfered with are neighbours, with hundreds of years of ethnic, cultural and religious disputes, while basically all the countries the US interfered with are across one or more oceans, with no historical disputes with the US, and happen to be resource rich.
Thanks for explaining why Russia is less unreasonable than the US.
"Historical disputes" is the most unreasonable claim to violate international law and the UN Charter lmao
You're basically saying that one countries interpretation of events is enough to annex another. That's the old logic of pre WW2 lol
Especially Russia that has revised their history so many times they even have a saying that "Russia's past is uncertain".
So to have that interpretation of what I said shows that you have a very poor understanding of History and current events, or it's just a deficient provocation.
So they invaded their own internationally recognized territory. Wonderful. By that standard Ukraine invaded Donbass after they declared themselves independent of Ukraine.
>Syria
Even more outlandish claim, considering they were invited by the government. Whether the west considered the government illegitimate or not didn't matter.
>Moldova
>Georgia
in both conflicts in protection of a minority, on whose territory a larger state laid claim using Soviet drawn borders and dissolution of the USSR. Since the Ukrainian conflict started I observed lots of enthusiasm for Soviet borders on the side of Russia's detractors, which were often drawn with territories assigned as a form of favoritism, simply because communist leadership in Moscow had better a relationship with the communist leaders of one of the ethnicities in question. That way historic Armenian land of Artsakh was assigned to Azerbaijan for example -- the recent ethnic cleansing outcome of that is well known.
The US just stole every good ever. The Maine. Union Fruit/Banana Company.
If the US tried to survive by just fair economics it would crumble into dust in less than a decade. Yet they use Latin America as their own backyard in order to avoid this.
And, well, as an European I have to say that France does the same with Africa in order to be semi on par with Germany. If not, their GDP would just be slightly better than Spain, if not worse because centralisation it's hell for modern times.
Some states in the US would do fine, OFC. But in order to support the whole USA, that's unfeasible. You can't have a country where a few powerhouses have to carry up the rest in a really innefective way, such as oil dependant transportation.
Meanwhile, the Chinese and Europe will just build non-polluting railways everywhere.
Someday it will be your country and yourself, and nobody will be outraged anymore, because everybody is the same. Stop this cycle and organize, instead of separating like-minded people with useless lines, standing aside and shouting about how things should be, in your opinion, and how everyone else should do... something, because you know better than insiders.
You know that justification in support of access to firearms in the US- "we need to be armed in case our government goes rogue". I always thought it was BS, but in case it's not, maybe this is the time.
The problem is that there's no "we". Tens of millions of Americans support the Trump regime and its actions in Venezuela. Coincidentally, they are also the ones who have most of those firearms.
The specific Americans you speak of mostly care about domestic issues and trend isolationist. They'll perhaps be slightly peeved anytime we intervene overseas, but they'll certainly overlook it while they get what they want at home.
I doubt they care (or know) about Venezuela.
Also I think the number is hundreds of millions, not tens.
I'm referring specifically to the people who support the military action in Venezuela, which is a subset of those who voted for Trump. Like you say, most of them care mainly about domestic issues. However there is a crowd that is all in on Trump and supports whatever he does - you can see them cheering even here in the comments - those are the tens of millions that I'm speaking of. It's still way too many, unfortunately.
Thanks for answering my question and imploring me to drone some mantra (I counter with: everything is a system, my dog is a system), and I'll guess I have to wait for New Zealand to do some invading.
sigh Nevermind, it's obviously way too much to ask for a simple answer to a simple question after being strawmanned.
Do you understand that the difference in the Ukrainian case is literally caused by the actions of Western countries?
Venezuelans are going to work tomorrow because no one has provided their corrupt dictatorial government with hundreds of billions of dollars in military and financial aid?
The difference is that Russia's goal is the annexation of most or all Ukrainian territory, the looting of the country and the erasure of its national identity. Without western support, Ukraine would be in a much worse state than it is now.
Whatever US goals are, it seems they are not pushing forward after snatching Maduro.
Yeah, sure, if they did not get support they would have dies already and look what peaceful place this graveyard is. Slight hiperbole, not everyone would be dead, but a lot, for sure, and the rest, too scared they would be next to do anything else.
Regardless of anything else equating Maduro's Venezuela and Ukraine and the military side-effects of both invasions/"operations" isn't exactly fair. The Venezuelan government is/was both illegitimate and very oppressive. Not that I'm implying that Trump did what he did on Humanitarian grounds...
> Americans who are upset don’t possess the wherewithal to hold them accountable.
Any attempt at holding the admin accountable would make it look a bit more like Venezuela. NA is rightfully too soft to want to ever go that route. They'll peacefully protest and that'll be it. Anything more than that would be the individuals throwing their lives away unless the whole country did it in unison.
Trump was extraordinarily lucky here, the Maduro regime was wholly unprepared and he was immediately extracted from the county; he can claim "mission accomplished", parade Maduro in front of the world media and watch from afar the PSUV leadership tear themselves appart.
But the dice Trump rolled could have easily fell onto a well prepared Maduro regime, which could have downed a few Blackhawks, torpedoed the ship from which they launched, captured and killed a few dozens to a few hundreds US service men, paraded them in the streets of Caracas and used them as human shields protecting the main military targets etc.
I.e, Trump could have easily committed US to a long term war and a ground invasion, without Congress authorization or allied support, and with Iraq or worse long term results.
While I strongly doubt this is true, it still doesn't change the fundamental gamble Trump took: it's impossible to predict how a regime change attempt will go, who will betray and who will rally around the flag. Especially in a resource rich country.
DJT 2.0 did a `Charlie Kirk' flex and acted out of MAGA base self interest before the Who you know. Stocking up on fuel will put more cards in the hand for next moves in China or Iran.
what? I'm reading this as: "We're gonna need oil for fuel when we go to war with china"
But south America is easily blockaded in times of war the oil (if we needed it) would be ours regardless. Second, we don't need it, we've been a net exporter for like over a decade now right?
Its been a few days. It turns out this was a simply capricious and erratic act on the part of Donald Trump, and we stand to essentially benefit not one iota as a country from it!
Because nobody uses mongo for the reasons you listed. They use redis, dynamo, scylla or any number of enriched KV stores.
Mongo has spent its entire existence pretending to be a SQL database by poorly reinventing
everything you get for free in postgres or mysql or cockroach.
False. Mongo never pretended to be a SQL database. But some dimwits insisted on using it for transactions, for whatever reason, and so it got transactional support, way later in life, and in non-sharded clusters in the initial release. People that know what they are doing have been using MongoDB for reliable horizontally-scalable document storage basically since 3.4. With proper complex indexing.
Scylla! Yes, it will store and fetch your simple data very quickly with very good operational characteristics. Not so good for complex querying and indexing.
You joke and folks downvote, but this is my biggest issue with WebStorm. I'm seriously considering switching for the first time in 16 years. Zed is quite snappy. The Claude Code integration in VS Code is brilliant. I've used the CLI in the JetBrains terminal. I had no idea I could revisit past conversations until I used the VS Code extension!
Zed is snappy in the same way that notepad ++ is snappy: If you don't support 10% of language features you can avoid the hard work. Unfortunately this means that non trivial projects have false positive errors everywhere.
Okay, but do you actually know what monies changed hands under the now-ended agreement? Perhaps PBS was not paying ASU, as the person quoted said, it was a mutually beneficial relationship. ASU got to have a very cool internship opportunity right on site of its prominent J-school.
If PBS was not paying significant money to ASU, then it is unlikely to be related to federal politics.
> or state surveillance is fine, or that they don’t exploit migrant workers, or that their currency manipulation and financial repression were/are good.
can you clarify if you’re talking about China or the US?
Yes it is extremely evil. I was just saying domestic migration is a different thing than cross border migration. Different kind of exploitation, different kind of scapegoating
This is the same AG who sued Tylenol over autism. While we can applaud the effort (broken clock theory?), it’s all but guaranteed he’s getting paid for helping another entity. Corruption is on the menu and fully expected these days.
