Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | typeofhuman's commentslogin

Can you provide a couple examples of the laws they're violating?

How about court orders?

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/ice-violations-judge-...

> ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence," Schiltz said, adding that he counted 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/frustrations-from-judge-prosecu...


[flagged]


"Allegations" from the exact judges whose orders aren't being enacted? The orders in question are pretty simple: release this guy. Don't take this guy out of state. It's pretty clear when they're not being followed. This guy is not a slouch:

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/27/patrick-schiltz-jud...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230...

Did you notice that one article I linked involved a DoJ lawyer admitting that she couldn't convince ICE to obey court orders that she was trying to transmit to them? That's beyond an allegation and into admission. How is that not evidence?

More on these ignored court orders:

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/28/ice-illegally-detai...



At this point you're taking a piss, this is not a honest discussion stance.

Judges themselves complained about their own orders being ivolated/ignored. Repeatedly.


> you're taking a piss

"You are taking a piss" -- you are currently urinating.

"You are taking the piss" -- you are mocking me or this.


Thank you. Sadly can't edit it anymore but I'll remember it next time.

If someone violates a court order don’t they get arrested?? Can’t the judge pronounce the perpetrators should be arrested instead of just complaining?

This is exactly the breakdown of the system that people are sounding the alarm about.

The problem is that it's always specific to a particular case. So, if one guy isn't being released according to court order, they could order someone held in the courthouse jail until he is, and probably just the threat will get him released. But then 1) nobody ends up in jail, because they're not in contempt anymore and 2) it doesn't do anything for any other cases, and there are so many other cases. This sort of contempt where a judge can just order it is "civil contempt" and is meant to convince someone to comply with the court order, it can't be used to punish someone longer than that (criminal contempt can, but you need an actual prosecution, trial, etc).

You might think "ok can't they be held in contempt for the pattern of ignoring court orders" and, well, you'd think so. But that looks a lot like a universal injunction or a class action and SCOTUS has deliberately been nerfing those.

If they've simply been committing crimes then judges don't have anything to do- they'd have to be prosecuted by someone, or I guess sued civilly, but that won't put them in jail either and takes forever.


There's no one in 2026 honestly saying "But what crimes has he committed???" its just concern trolls, sealions, bots, and some nazis.

As noted above:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ38/pdf/PLAW-... : the Attorney General was to have produced the entirety of the Epstein files, with very narrowly-enumerated redactions, in December. She has not done so.

Furthermore, there are numerous allegations that the documents that have been released contain CSAM, which (referencing the PDF above) may fall afoul of 18 U.S.C. 2252–2252A.

In addition, one need only glance at the action in US courts to see egregious violations of the Constitution and valid court orders playing out daily.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26513988-trorder0128...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230...


Allegations aren't evidence. Has the Administration actually been found guilty of violating the law - if that is even possible.

Yes, the Abrego Garcia and Öztürk detentions are two very newsworthy cases that have actually reached the point of a final judgement in the district courts, as opposed to "merely" preliminary injunctions against the government.

(It's also worth noting that almost none of the government's appeals to their losses in preliminary injunctions have been on the merits as to whether or not their actions were legal, but rather on the grounds of "no one should be allowed to challenge our actions," which has also been a fairly losing argument for everybody except SCOTUS.)


>if that is even possible

yes.... any administration can be found guilty of violating law, and should be dealt with accordingly.


> Has the Administration actually been found guilty of violating the law - if that is even possible.

Obviously administrations can violate the law. Otherwise this is just an autocracy with term limits.


>Allegations aren't evidence

Allegations are literally evidence. "He attacked me" is an allegation of a crime and is evidence that would be used in conjunction with other evidence to prosecute said crime.


Evidence is evidence - of which there are enormous amounts of.

Are you expecting the administration to prosecute itself?

That's why there is separation of powers or ought to be.

There's more than enough credible reports of CSAM in the Epstein Files dump - more than enough for me to not go and download even a single file of them myself, simply because German law does not care about why you are in the possession of CSAM, even if you took the picture yourself.

The legal situation regarding CSAM is very strict no matter which country, and I better hope no one here will actually be dumb enough to provide actual links.


If those reports are true then what we have is not just an effective deterrent for download and distribution of the set, but legally prosecutable malware targetting anyone who does, empowered by the Interpol CSAM database to which the DOJ should probably already released the offending material.

Use encryption

> even if you took the picture yourself.

I'd hope the punishment is more severe in that case!


It's a tricky issue. In many countries it's not illegal and quite common for children to run around naked in public, during the summer on beaches for example, and so millions of people have holiday photos that are technically CSAM in their possession that they don't even know they have.

CSAM must be for sexual gratification usually. A medical anatomy textbook isn't CSAM.

And now you're in court strenuously arguing that you weren't sexually gratified by the photo of your kid in the tub.

Obviously most people are sensible most of the time but sometimes they are not.


More than that. CSAM is evidence of abuse. Hence the "A".

And nudity is not required.


CSAM has a meaning identical to child porn but doesn't make that meaning explicit. Drawn or generated depictions of child nudity can be considered CSAM in some jurisdictions.

"CSAM isn’t pornography—it’s evidence of criminal exploitation of kids."

That's from RAINN, the US's largest anti-sexual violence organisation.


Yep. Germany is very very strict for example. Even textual descriptions fall under that law.

> I'd hope the punishment is more severe in that case!

I'm talking about kids making photos of themselves. Which has been an issue multiple times in the past.


That might be intentional tbh, to make the database toxic to limit the spread.

They illegally fired the IGs responsible for whistleblowers and fraud in every department; https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/firings-of-inspectors-...

They illegally withheld funds (impoundment) from congressionally authorized/mandated expenditures and relied on pocket rescissions to defund programs they didn't like: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/pocket-rescissi...

They keep illegally appointing unqualified hacks as US attorney in defiance of the mandate they're approved by the Senate (Essayli, Habba, Halligan, Sarcone, Chattah) - judges have found at least five of the appointments illegal. As one example: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/28/judge-los-angeles-t...

They've repeatedly violated court orders to either return immigrant detainees or release them. "This is one of dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to comply in recent weeks.": https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/27/politics/patrick-schiltz-judg...

The EPA illegally convened a secret panel of climate deniers to issue a sham report in order to repeal the endangerment finding: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/climate/energy-department...

His targeting and shakedowns of Universities, law firms, and media companies is transparently illegal jawboning.

Everything about the tariffs is obviously illegal which he confirms every time he opens his mouth since he's relying on 'national security' justifications to issue them without Congress and he keeps insisting they're punishment for some random perceived slight.

His illegal firing of Federal workers without the notice required: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/25/nx-s1-5544317/federal-probati...

Some sillier things like renaming the Kennedy Center -- the law that established it literally said that it couldn't be renamed without Congress -- so Trump firing everyone on the board and then appointing a bunch of his flunkees to vote for the name change doesn't cut it.. https://beatty.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/beatty.house.gov...

It's a literal onslaught of illegality so I can't tell if you haven't read a news article since 2025 or if you're trolling.


[flagged]


How can illegal firings be not illegal?

How can legal firings be illegal?

No way I can see!

Buy Puts


Mine have a microphone.

Maybe it's having a computer and battery next to sensitive glands that's causing the growths.


I use Bluetooth earbuds almost all day.


How's your thyroid?


I wish it had solutions.


And automatic tests in some cases.


I wonder if having less RAM would compel you to read, commit to long term memory, and then close those 80 tabs you have open.


The issue for me is that bookmarks suck. They don't store the state (where I was reading) and they reload the webpage so I might get something else entirely when I come back. They also kinda just disappear from sight.

If instead bookmarks worked like tab saving does, I would be happy to get rid of a few hundred tabs. Have them save the page and state like the tab saving mechanism does. Have some way to remind me of them after a week or month or so.

Combine that with a search function that can search in contents as well as the title, and I'm changing habbits ASAP.


Regarding wanting to preserve the current version of a page: I use Karakeep to archive those pages. I am sure there are other similar solutions such as downloading an offline version, but this works well for me.

I do this mostly for blog posts etc I might not get around to reading for weeks or months from now, and don't want them to disappear in the meantime.

Everything else is either a pinned tab (<5) or a bookmark (themselves shared when necessary on e.g a Slack canvas so the whole team has easy access, not just me).

While browsing the rest of my tabs are transient and don't really grow. I even mostly use private browsing for research, and only bookmark (or otherwise save) pages I deem to be of high quality. I might have a private window with multiple tabs for a given task, but it is quickly reduced to the minimum necessary pages and the the whole private window is thrown away once the initial source material gathering is done. This lets me turn off address bar search engines and instead search only saved history and bookmarks.

I often see colleagues with the same many browser windows of many tabs each open struggling to find what they need, and ponder their methods.


I've started using Karakeep as well, however I don't find its built-in viewer as seamless as a plain browser page. It's also runs afoul of pages which combats bots due to its headless chrome.

Anyway, just strikes me as odd that the browsers have the functionality right there, it's just not used to its full potential.


Websites that are walled off behind obscure captcha don't do well in Karakeep for sure, but so far for me those are usually e-commerce sites or sites I don't return to anyway.


If I'm doing work than involves three different libraries, I'm not reading and committing to memory the whole documentation for each of those libraries. I might well have a few tabs with some of those libraries' source files too. I can easily end up with tens of tabs open as a form of breadcrumb trail for an issue I'm tracking down.

Then there's all the basic stuff — email and calendar are tabs in my browser, not standalone applications. Ditto the the ticket I'm working on.

I think the real issue is that browsers need to some lightweight "sleep" mechanism that sits somewhere between a live tab and just keeping the source in cache.


I wonder if a good public flogging would compel chrome and web devs to have 80 tabs take up far less than a gigabyte of memory like they should in a world where optimization wasn’t wholesale abandoned under the assumption that hardware improvements would compensate for their laziness and incompetence.


The high memory usage is due to the optimization. Responsiveness, robustness and performance was improved by making each tab independent processes. And that's good. Nobody needs 80 tabs, that's what bookmarks are for.


"that's what bookmarks are for"

And if you are lucky, the content will still be there the next time.


Is there a straightforward way to have one-process-per tab in browsers without using significant amounts (O(n_tabs)) of memory?


There is no justification for that IMHO. The program text only needs to be in memory once. However, each process probably has its own instance of the JS engine, together with the website's heap data and the JIT-compiled code objects. That adds up.


I'd very much like a crash in one tab not to kill other tabs. And having per tab sandboxing would be more secure, no?


What do you mean? All these features are provided by process per tab.


Thats a weird assumption to make.


It does matter because it reveals your bias and ignorance. So one would be weary to regard anything you say as well-informed. Sort of ironic, ey?


Exactly _how_ should society deal with it, and exactly _when_ should society deal with it?


Opinions vary.

There are those who think massive concentration of wealth is not a problem at all and is just a product of healthy capitalism. Tax is theft, and individual property rights are above all else.

There are others who want some kind of communist revolution, where the entire structure of society and property ownership is changed. The workers should benefit from their work as much as the managers.

Personally, I feel like there's a middle ground to hit. We should be able to make changes to our current system in the US without needing anything too radical.

We have some good examples from the last century, such as trust busting, the New Deal, and the Great Society. These programs made major improvements without changing the country's fundamental economic system or growth trajectory.


> trust busting, the New Deal, and the Great Society.

I don't know what sea change it would take for today's GOP to even tepidly support any of these.


An electorate that looks like it will certainly vote them out if they don't change


Netflix records many shows simultaneously in the same building. This is why their shows are all so dark - to prevent light bleeding across sets. I wonder if this is also true for keeping the volume down.


Why the downvotes, HN?


Because it’s total nonsense.

The darkness of shows has more to do with the mastering monitors having gotten so good that colorists don’t even notice if the dynamic range is just the bottom half or less. Their eyes adjust and they don’t see the posterisation because there isn’t any… until the signal is compressed and streamed. Not to mention that most viewers aren’t watching the content in a pitch black room on a $40K OLED that’s “special order” from Sony.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: