No idea what you're even trying to reference in your second sentence, but the first sentence "community law enforcement" is a red flag in my book. The law creates a fiscal incentive for people to report their neighbors for actions that were federally protected at the time this law was passed. Neighbor vs. neighbor. Citizen vs. citizen. We spend more on policing than any country in the world and yet still need to deputize citizens in a heavily armed state? It's not my neighbor's damn business to know if someone in my household seeks an abortion.
If fiscally incentivizing vigilantism isn't dystopian I don't know what is.
Deputization and vigilantism are antonyms, your framing is incoherent.
An elected legislature sanctioning civil action is "dystopian", but rioting and arson? Intimidating judges at their homes? Laundering a decade of domestic terrorism into universities and district attorneys' offices? Never heard of that stuff!
The discussion was about abortion in the context of digital privacy. You are the one who brought up all of these other things, which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's whataboutism and not worth engaging with.
The purpose of the private right to action was to get around Roe/Casey prior to the Supreme Court overruling both cases. The law was specifically designed to evade judicial review.
As a private plaintiff, you can typically sue a state official that is charged with enforcing a law in federal court on constitutional grounds. SB8 is written in such a way that state officials are barred from enforcing the law. Thus, it is effectively impossible to challenge in federal court because there is no state official that enforces the law, only private citizens, and thus there is no proper defendant.
Re: Skiff, it looks like a very cool product but I'm skeptical they can make enough money. The primary path to monetization for a product like this would be enterprise SaaS licensing but I simply don't see how you can sell to enterprises without centralizing the product. Auditability, compliance, SSO, etc. would all seem to be difficult if not impossible with the product as specced.
You can't just transfer a process/technology that works in Estonia to a country like the U.S. which has 300x the population and decades of processes that are dependent on SSNs, many of which aren't controlled by the government.
Want to open a bank account? Need an SSN.
Healthcare: SSN
Employment: SSN
Want a STATE driver's license? Need some form of government ID, depending on the state. An SSN card is often an option.
My point is, to adopt a system like you suggest would require reforming ALL of these systems across public (federal, state and local) and private sectors.
It's not just bureaucracy. Doing this at scale across public/private domains is hard.
Something else to consider: what % of server workloads actually run on kubernetes?
I have no data to back this up, but my hypothesis is that if you zoom out, and look across the entire industry, the % is vanishingly small. It may seem like every company is running or adopting kubernetes within our bubbles but our perspective is biased.
(Note: I'm not espousing an opinion on kubernetes itself, just about it's total adoption across the entire industry and how that effects the number of devops/sysadmin/SRE roles.
Under that definition of a CMS I agree, however I think what you are describing is an MVP of a CMS that would require additional features and (likely) bloat to truly be useful to most publications.
Examples:
Social Media integrations
Subscriptions integration
Advertisements + trackers (which will likely pull in additional garbage)
Analytics (GA, etc.)
Comment section + moderation tools
Media: images, videos
Font(s)
Responsiveness
It CAN all add up fast unless someone is keeping track and responsible for keeping these sites lean.
Aren't both things true from an environmentalists perspective?
1) We need to "transition[] to healthier and cleaner source of energy"
2) We need to use less energy overall
We do not produce enough clean energy to meet the total demand for energy. Until that is true, using less energy is a valid path to reducing the total impact of climate change.
"... holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech because they are "associations of citizens" and hold the collected rights of the individual citizens who constitute them." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#:~:text=T....]
> The Supreme Court codified this in CITIZENS UNITED
Actually, the Supreme Court established it no later than First National Bank v. Belotti (1978), despite the frequent claim that this was an innovation in the 2009 Citizens United case.
Do they? I don't. Mainly because I don't even know what that phrase means anymore. Any meaning the word "woke" HAD has been thoroughly lost as it has now become a stand-in word for any position some conservatives don't like.
If fiscally incentivizing vigilantism isn't dystopian I don't know what is.