Hard to say for sure, but probably more “fine print” style notices on TV ads and billboards.

This could conceivably be used to prosecute dirty tricks-style campaigns. For example, many years ago there was an anonymous mailer campaign against the incumbent mayor in my city where a photograph of him was photoshopped to insinuate that had been beaten up, when he really hadn’t. That kind of thing might become the target of this if it becomes law.

It’s also possible that federal courts will step in and carve out some exceptions for obviously fake parody stuff. Texas law cannot override the first amendment.

1. The law applies only to office holders, candidates, campaigns, or to people who buy or sell political advertising.
2. People and platforms who post and distribute content without exchanging money are exempted.
3. All the big media firms: tv, radio, ISPs, Internet content platforms, and billboard operators are exempted when they just run someone else’s ads. The people who are liable are the ones who place the ads.
4. The requirement is to include a disclosure message when depictions of a public figure have been altered by technology: Photoshop, AI, deepfake audio, or whatever else. The content itself is not censored, it just has to be noticed that it’s artificial.
5. “Superficial” alterations are exempted from the notice message, for example, changing the color balance on a video.

The problem of getting power to startup equipment is one thing, but there’s another cool problem that this article covers but I don’t think explained very well.

A power grid is a massive distributed physical system. The energy input must exactly match the energy output at all times.

But what happens when the energy ins and outs are not balanced? The answer is that a balance is found somehow. Physics demands it.

If there is excess power on the grid and no electrical load, that power comes back to the generator (s). The turbines or whatever driving the generators produce more torque than the retarding torque from the generator coils, so they speed up. The AC grid frequency is mostly maintained by the rotating generator speed (3000 rpm for 50 Hz), so that goes up too.

Conversely, if there is excess load and not enough power, electrical drag from the generator coils exceeds the torque from the turbine (or whatever), and the generator slows down. The operator has to burn more fuel, or pull out control rods, or open more water gates, to get the speed back up.

So what is the black start challenge here? You have to go from 0 W to whatever GW the grid normally runs at. Normally when a generator plant is switched onto the grid, that gen represents a small fraction of the total grid power, so the disturbance to the grid is small. But coming back from a black start that’s not true. Going from 1 plant online to 2: you could be doubling the power level. This means you have to switch on loads (possibly many km away) at the exact same time you switch in the power. If the disturbance is too much, various equipment will trip off the grid as the AC frequency careens out of control.

Fine. Here:

I work in engineering, sometimes with startup types that want to develop a “product”. I’m also a coinventor on some patent applications. This response will be based on US perspective and economics.

1. First before all, do a patent search. This is to find out if someone already patented your ideas. If so, you either need to pay them royalties to license the patent(s) or rework your product to avoid the patents. Google Patents is highly accessible for this.
2. Then, if you think you have original, patentable ideas, engage a patent attorney to do a “real” search and to work on filings. This will take money (at least 10s of thousands US) for the initial work. All the major legal jurisdictions are “first to file,” so it no longer helps to mail your notebooks to yourself for proof of date of invention. You have to at least file a provisional application to get a patent priority date. Keep everything top secret until you have that application. Execute non disclosure agreements (NDAs) with any outside firm or individual you talk with. 2b. As an aside, software is not generally patentable any more, on the grounds that math formulas are also not patentable. There may still be some ability to patent software-oriented ideas as business methods or the like. Just because the patent office issued a software patent doesn’t mean it’s enforceable. Courts hold patents to be invalid all the time.
3. I want to impress upon you some view of the real costs of prototype design and what is known as “nonrecurring engineering” (NRE) in the biz. You don’t say, but it sounds like you want some amount of custom electronics coupled with some backend software. Costs can vary considerably depending on circumstance, but I would typically see 100k-300k USD in design and prototype build costs to get initial prototypes with some limited functionality for these components. It could very well take 1 million USD or more to get a more complete product design. This also depends a lot on how you engage engineering talent: turnkey consultants can be the most expensive, or you could save a bunch of up front labor cost by offering equity to a key designer. 3b. I don’t know how complicated this app is, but it’s not unusual for software engineering costs to overshadow the hardware engineering costs, and sometimes by a lot. This might be something to keep in mind if you’re contemplating app development up front paired with virtual hardware plans.
4. A “virtual design” for hardware that is just drawings could be done for cheaper than the prototype quote I gave. I see common prices for that kind of work at least 10k and up to 50k depending on how much initial design work you want or need done (and how the talent is engaged, etc, etc).
5. Manufacturing. Depends of course on what is going into your gadget and how many units you plan to build.
   5a. Custom PCBs can commonly be run in low volumes for relatively cheap. It’s more expensive to solder the components on than just to etch the boards. There are many board houses that let you turn in your design files and get a quote online. 5b. For startup that wants a low volume (~100) of some gadget, you might want to look into contract manufacturers. These will assemble your product per drawings, typically in a non-automated or low-automation fashion. For example, they might have pick and place machines and expensive wave flow solder machines to assemble PCBs, but then the boards are screwed into enclosures by hand. These places might run double or triple the per unit cost of a more automated setup, but it can still be the best option for low numbers of units. 5c. Overseas manufacturing can cut costs through reduced labor bills. The traditional hurdles in the startup environment are long shipping lead times (particularly by sea, 10-12 weeks not uncommon) and the added hassle and complexity of international business dealings. In the US particularly, the recent tariff situation is throwing a monkey wrench right in the middle of this, and I will not attempt to analyze the impact. 5d. A commonly surprising manufacturing cost: if using injection molded plastic for enclosures or the like, the custom molds can cost several 10s of thousands to build and store. This is a fixed cost, so it doesn’t impact the per unit for large volumes, but it is often an expensive hurdle in the total manufacturing process for small startups.
6. Regulatory. It’s highly likely that any consumer facing gadget will need at least some regulatory testing, probably from a dedicated contract test house For example in the US, Underwriters Laboratory (UL) demands safety testing, and the FCC can require “part 15” testing and separate testing if you have a radio (such as WiFi or Bluetooth). As an exercise you could try looking up all of the various logos on the bottom of your favorite gizmo or in the fine print in the manual.

“Because they were prevented from restocking, they are now out of food, but this condition need not continue if they are restocked.”. Is that good enough?

Strange is right! I once attended a seminar he gave. He stopped in the middle, and refused to proceed, until he was provided with Diet Coke. Truly strange.

Probably because this correlation is not that crappy at all. I want only the crappiest of correlations on this community!

I know Paris. If you’re looking for a place to visit, I’d recommend the other Paris, in France.

Tri bikes usually have clip-in pedals so humans can do this too.

Baby was deported together with parents and they were all released from custody into Honduras. So it’s not quite like they just chucked a two year old off the plane into a foreign land with nothing.

Thing is, by law the family has a right to have this child live with relatives in the United States. But ICE pulled a bunch of bullshit with limiting phone calls and the like to stop that from happening.

The Trump executive order on birthright citizenship is currently enjoined and not in effect in this country. Even if not, it’s not like it can go back in time and strip citizenship from a child two years ago.

This local judge appeared before a federal magistrate, and was released on her own recognizance, while the feds seek an indictment from a grand jury.

Judges, like anyone, are capable of committing crimes, and they should be held to account when they do.

Having said that, it seems that the facts alleged in this complaint may not really fit the charge of obstruction, but it’s not very clear one way or the other. On one hand, this judge allegedly directed ICE’s target to exit through a jury room after his court appearance before her. This avoided the trap that ICE had set up in the hallway. On the other hand, she arguably enjoys a high level of deference on how she manages the logistics of her courtroom (such as how various people enter and exit). ICE held an administrative warrant only, which arguably did not entitle them to enter the not-fully-public space of the courtroom (and indeed they did not attempt to). ICE ultimately did arrest their guy outside some 22 minutes later.

My prediction: Assuming this judge properly shuts up and lawyers up, this case quietly fizzles after a while. Of course, DOJ can still accomplish their goal of intimidating the judiciary.

“Pastor” is a Latin word that means shepherd. Francis would appreciate the title of pastor, because for his entire papacy he put the pastoral concerns of guiding the congregation before theology and nearly any other concern the church might have.

(cycles through the settings by itself, but you can still use it if you fight it)

Could be a button getting glitched on intermittently.

Harvard has a serious law school, but they got some big names in private practice to rep on this litigation. That’s probably a good move for them.

It’s more like the Pope clung on to life just for the opportunity to insult JD Vance. Once that was accomplished, there was no additional reason to stick around.

As long as it’s a federal court holding them in contempt, Trump can just pardon them.

Criminal contempt has this problem, but civil contempt is not pardonable, because there is no crime to pardon.

Judge Boasberg is trying to proceed with criminal contempt on the “turn the planes around” order. Whatever happens there, it is unlikely to end in convictions that stick.

Judge Xinis is proceeding towards civil contempt. If she finds someone in willful contempt, she can imprison them until they choose to comply. And the evidence standard in civil contempt is “clear and convincing,” not “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

I’m pretty sure nobody registers their personal smartphone and laptop every time they leave the US for a vacation.

I agree with you on this, but CBP is certainly within their legal rights to interrogate you on the origins of your personal electronics, and they can make a determination that your stuff is subject to duty if it’s over the limit and they don’t believe you are reimporting.

The infamous immunity ruling gives the President a lot of immunity from criminal prosecution.

But besides that, there’s an older precedent in civil litigation that no judge can write an injunction directly against the President in the performance of his official duties. So all of these TROs and injunctions, including the Friday SC order, either do not apply to the President himself, or they are illegally broad*.

Under this theory of law, the President could theoretically arrest and deport all the people he wants with no judicial intervention – just as long he does all the arrests by himself, and flies the planes by himself, etc. In reality, the fat man is always going to have underlings doing the stuff for him, and they do not have this immunity from civil injunctions.

*This is one of the points raised in Alito’s dissent: the SC order applies to “the Government”, without saying whether the President is included or not.

And even if the kids did say this thing, it would in no way prejudice his absolute right to remain in the country. Even if he did cross the border illegally without presenting at a port of entry, he would still have the right to enter and remain.