(no subject)
Jun. 27th, 2016 02:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_rckWell, I got more sleep, but I also got a spam phone call and had Cordelia come in to cuddle for a while, so it wasn’t unbroken sleep. I think it helped, however. I went back to bed around 7 a.m. and got up for the day at about 11 a.m.
I came across this at the NPR Science Blog. It’s a little quiz that offers sonnets written by people and sonnets written by computers to see if readers can tell them apart. I thought the difference was clear, but I also thought that comparing the two was fascinating. My suspicion is that the programming will get there eventually, but it’s a long way yet.
I’ve also been poking at the SCOTUS blog. I’d seen that they’d ruled in three cases today, but I’d only seen information about two of the three cases and was curious about the third. The first case had to do with restrictions on abortion clinics in Texas. The second had to do with whether or not the federal government can use a state level misdemeanor (for domestic violence) as grounds to forbid someone from owning a gun. Both of those went in the direction I was hoping for— The clinics can stay open. Folks with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions can’t own guns.
The third had to do with what exactly constitutes actionable corruption by an elected official. That last is one of those rulings that is right, long term, but is being applied in a case where, despite the evidence not being sufficient, the person being prosecuted was doing something solidly on the dubious side of the right/wrong divide. But the justices were unanimous in the ruling, and when that happens, I look several times at the case. I have the impression that the court was concerned that any government official taking action on constituent concerns could be open to corruption charges if that constituent had ever made any sort of gift/donation. That interpretation could certainly be used to harass and destroy people, and I don’t want that as an option even if, right now, it’s being used on people I don’t like. My hope is that the ruling will result in clearer legal guidelines so that everyone has a better idea of where the line is.
I came across this at the NPR Science Blog. It’s a little quiz that offers sonnets written by people and sonnets written by computers to see if readers can tell them apart. I thought the difference was clear, but I also thought that comparing the two was fascinating. My suspicion is that the programming will get there eventually, but it’s a long way yet.
I’ve also been poking at the SCOTUS blog. I’d seen that they’d ruled in three cases today, but I’d only seen information about two of the three cases and was curious about the third. The first case had to do with restrictions on abortion clinics in Texas. The second had to do with whether or not the federal government can use a state level misdemeanor (for domestic violence) as grounds to forbid someone from owning a gun. Both of those went in the direction I was hoping for— The clinics can stay open. Folks with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions can’t own guns.
The third had to do with what exactly constitutes actionable corruption by an elected official. That last is one of those rulings that is right, long term, but is being applied in a case where, despite the evidence not being sufficient, the person being prosecuted was doing something solidly on the dubious side of the right/wrong divide. But the justices were unanimous in the ruling, and when that happens, I look several times at the case. I have the impression that the court was concerned that any government official taking action on constituent concerns could be open to corruption charges if that constituent had ever made any sort of gift/donation. That interpretation could certainly be used to harass and destroy people, and I don’t want that as an option even if, right now, it’s being used on people I don’t like. My hope is that the ruling will result in clearer legal guidelines so that everyone has a better idea of where the line is.
