I don’t want to have to completely redo my whole email stack.

Web services, and then various components of an email system.

And in that case the advice should be “start looking for a lawyer”.

Yeah, it’s how blatantly illegal it is.

With illegal things, there are always going to be lawyers who will bend over backwards and contort all the facts to try to make it seem legal. John Yoo was famous for doing that to justify literal torture. And not only did he get away with that, he’s now a law professor at Berkeley. So, even if it’s pretty obvious that attacking random boats on allegations of drug trafficking is illegal, it’s illegal in a way that would be difficult to prove in a court of law. In the court of public opinion it’s obvious, 95% of the world would say that it’s absolutely obvious, and even 67% of the US would agree. But, you get a creep like John Yoo in front of a GOP judge and who knows what might happen.

But, in this case they did the thing that the actual Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual (2023) gives as an example of something that would obviously be illegal:

18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.

And that example has a footnote with both a legal case, and with an explanation:

Judgement in Case of Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt, Hospital Ship “Llandovery Castle” (Second Criminal Senate of the Imperial Court of Justice, Germany, Jul. 16, 1921), reprinted in 16 AJIL, 708, 721-22 (1922) (“It is certainly to be urged in favor of the military subordinates, that they are under no obligation to question the order of their superior officer, and they can count upon its legality. But no such confidence can be held to exist, if such an order is universally known to everybody, including also the accused, to be without any doubt whatever against the law. This happens only in rare and exceptional cases. But this case was precisely one of them, for in the present instance, it was perfectly clear to the accused that killing defenceless people in the life-boats could be nothing else but a breach of the law. As naval officers by profession they were well aware, as the naval expert Saalwiachter has strikingly stated, that one is not legally authorized to kill defenceless people. They well knew that this was the case here. They quickly found out the facts by questioning the occupants in the boats when these were stopped. They could only have gathered, from the order given by Patzig, that he wished to make use of his subordinates to carry out a breach of the law. They should, therefore, have refused to obey.”).

This is so obviously against the law that they used it as an example of an illegal order. They also clearly identified the precedent. Then they spent more text in the footnote than in the paragraph itself, carefully explaining that there are some things that are just so obviously illegal that a member of the military can’t pretend they didn’t know it was a crime, and that shooting shipwrecked sailors is so obviously one of those that no sailor could ever claim they didn’t know the order was illegal.

Yes, because we all have our own lawyers.

I’m using automated renewals.

But, that just means there’s a new cert file on disk. Now I have to convince a half a dozen different apps to properly reload that changed cert. That means fighting with Systemd. So Systemd has won the first few skirmishes, and I haven’t had the time or energy to counterattack. Now instead of having to manually poke at it 4x per year, it’s going to be closer to once a month. Ugh.

Nobody thinks it could happen while the US congress is dominated by Republicans, Trump is the president, and the Supreme Court is 6-3 GOP.

But, if the Democrats win big enough in the 2026 midterm elections to overcome all the dirty tricks that the Nazis are going to use to try to stay in power, then maybe in 2027 there’s a chance they could start holding Trump to account. But, Trump would still have executive authority and unless he were impeached and this time they actually had the votes to remove him from office, they still couldn’t get his Justice Department to investigate his War Department. Even if they did impeach him and remove him from office, he’s just be replaced by Vance who is part of this whole signal chat.

So, at a minimum it would probably be 2029 before anything could happen, and would require that the Democrats got a congressional majority in 2026, and held or improved it in 2028 while also taking the presidency. And even then, the Supreme Court would still be 9-3 GOP unless some of the GOP members quit or died. So, it would probably require something radical like expanding the court to get any attempted convictions of higher-up GOP members past that court.

And, that’s even assuming that the democrats grew a backbone. If they did, they couldn’t do anything to Trump because the Supreme Court already decided the president is immune from anything up to, and including ordering Delta Force to kill the Democratic presidential hopeful. They could maybe go after Hegseth and down, but realistically would they? How many times have the Democrats had a chance to nail Trump, and instead decided that in the interest of national unity to let his crimes slide.

Then there’s the International Criminal Court. They might risk indicting Hegseth or even Trump for war crimes. However, the US passed the Hague Invasion Act, effectively saying that if any American were ever put on trial for war crimes, the US would invade The Hague. That might deter them from even trying. Under Trump, they’ve already made life hell for a prosecutor who was going after someone who was merely a US ally. If a Democratic president were in office and a Democratic congress were in charge, they probably wouldn’t actually invade, but they still might just ignore any ICC ruling. The US has made it abundantly clear that they’re the world’s only superpower and that international law doesn’t actually apply to the US. And if anybody disagrees, they’re welcome to take on the US military.

Wouldn’t changing your birth name require time travel?

The front page of the web site is excellent. It describes what it does, and it does its feature set in quick, simple terms.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gone to a website for some open-source software and had no idea what it was or how it was trying to do it. They often dive deep into the 300 different ways of installing it, tell you what the current version is and what features it has over the last version, but often they just assume you know the basics.

Or his PR firm suggested it would be effective, which it has been.

actual, Constitutionally defined treason?

The kind where you actually have to be in a state of war with another country? A war that was legally declared by the US congress? Since the last time the US declared war was during WWII, and every enemy country in that war was defeated, I don’t think “actual, Constitutionally defined treason” is possible today.

I really respect his pledge to give away his wealth

Even if it is just a scam?

He’s one of the worst billionaires, it’s just that since the 2010s he’s been trying hard to soften that image.

His mother came from money, being the daughter of a banker, and the granddaughter of a banker. His father was a lawyer who founded a law firm focused on corporate law and technology law. Given that his mom knew Opel personally, and his dad was a technology lawyer, is it any surprise that Gates’ first contract with IBM was so incredibly friendly to Microsoft’s interests?

In addition, IBM was under pressure at that point because it was being sued for antitrust violations by the US government. That limited how aggressive it could be in new contracts without drawing extra attention. In other words, the antitrust effort from the US government took power away from IBM and allowed for new companies to flourish. Then about 20 years later, Microsoft was sued for its own illegal use of its monopoly (a trial at which Bill Gates lied on the stand, and where Microsoft falsified evidence), and this work to limit the reach of Microsoft allowed for the Internet to flourish and led directly to the rise of companies like Google and Amazon. It’s now time for another round of antitrust to allow more companies to flourish – only hopefully this time the antitrust efforts don’t fade out and are aggressively pursued year after year so we don’t get more shitty monopolies making things awful.