Basically, SCOTUS will decide whether California’s law banning pig crates violates the dormant commerce clause, since it would in effect be forcing farmers in other states not otherwise subject to California law to comply.
From SCOTUS:
“The questions presented are:
Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in this Court's decisions is now a dead letter.
Whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state housing of farm animals, state a Pike claim.”
Devil’s advocate take: children work because without the income they would be worse off (e.g. starving), and are generally in undeveloped economies which otherwise would be incapable of supporting them. Similar to having children help on the farm in an agrarian economy. Avoiding cheap chocolate and driving those producers out of business will just push said children further into poverty. Obviously it would be better if they didn’t have to work and could go to school instead, but if the country’s economy cannot support such a situation, there’s little to no way around it.
If the children are being forced to work, that’s an entirely different matter.
They absolutely inundated YouTube with ads for Stadia for a couple of months, to the point that it felt like half the ads I saw were Stadia ads. So that’s something, at least?
I think the idea is disruption of online livelihoods comes along with unseen and ignored externalities. Loss of online exposure will push online sex workers to make up loss of income to less safe sex work environments.
And there's no difference between this 2nd order effect that may harm porn producers (or maybe consumers will find other channels besides Instagram to get porn, and overall porn consumption won't decrease), and hiring goons with baseball bats to assault prostitutes.
Or if there's a difference, it's so small that we can call both "violence", and insisting on some kind of categorical distinction between the two is pedantic nit-picking.
Big corp foisting social agency change on people has biological effects. It rather highlights the lack of free agency and self determination our society is built on.
Go ahead and be academic but you’re one of billions, aka too insignificant to matter by your own tools of measure; there’s a reason the mathematicians of old warned against the application of such cognitive tools to societies needs. Statistical insignificance is a philosophy that can be thrown right back in your face.
I'm not saying it doesn't have effects, or that it was good. But calling it "violence" dilutes the meaning of that word into nothing, as the threshold is so low almost anything qualifies as "violent".
And when they flee they take some of their food supplies with them and hide the rest. Foraging army might be able to find some of it, but rarely all. Also, if you are in enemy territory it is entirely possible to completely miss some remote village. It's not like they have a satellite map.
The flaws in the RBMKs which were known before Chernobyl were fixed afterwards (with changes that had been proposed before Chernobyl) in the other reactors that were kept running, though. Not claiming that the RBMKs were flawless after the fact, but the specific flaw that led to the disaster was fixed.
> The flaws in the RBMKs which were known before Chernobyl were fixed afterwards
Indeed, and it shows that the design wasn't flawed to the point of condemning it: a fix was possible. Implication: even a non-major flaw can trigger a disaster.
> (with changes that had been proposed before Chernobyl)
Indeed, and it shows that even detected problems sometimes aren't fixed. This is not reserved to the USSR: Fukushima also showed it (it was well-known that the seawall/levee wasn't high enough, as recalled in my previous post here the nearby Onagawa plant had an adequate levee).
States aren’t required to enforce federal law, and the federal government can’t force states to help enforce federal law, as it’s unconstitutional.[1] If the feds want to enforce the marijuana ban and the state doesn’t volunteer to help, the feds would have to use e.g. the FBI or DEA to enforce the law. The feds don’t have the capacity to do that nationally, though, so it mostly goes unenforced, except maybe for large busts where it’s worth it for the feds to put the effort in.
But Federal funds can, and are, withheld if the States don't enforce Federal Laws.
EG: Universal 55 MPH speed limits & 21 yo drinking age come to mind.
From SCOTUS:
“The questions presented are:
Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in this Court's decisions is now a dead letter.
Whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state housing of farm animals, state a Pike claim.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/21-0...