zaphod

You probably didn't recently rewatch the whole show like I did!

It's one of the affectations she picked up while living in the Vulcan colony on earth. Part of her arc is she's not a particularly "good" Vulcan and the tea is one of the little tells.

Alright, since someone needs to be the canon pedant: akshully she drank chamomile and occasionally mint tea on the show.

Why would a court be able to "easily find this was handled improperly"?

Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn't apply?

Ahhh my bad. I noticed you seemed to fail at reading comprehension earlier but I didn't realize it was a chronic condition. Carry on!

You wouldn't be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn't critical infrastructure.

I'm sorry, but this is irrelevant. Look at the list of CFIUS cases. Among them:

CFIUS requested that Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd. sell Grindr, citing national security concerns regarding a database of user's location, messages, and HIV status, after the company acquired the gay dating app in 2018 without CFIUS review.

Would you agree that Grindr probably doesn't count as "critical infrastructure"?

(BTW, before you mention it, the CFIUS case on that list vis a vis TikTok was reversed by the court because they ruled the executive exceeded the bounds of the IEEPA, not because the IEEPA itself was unconstitutional).

(CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.

So again. Not personal use.

LOL security risks are literally the justification for the bill. The bill even says as much:

To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.

So if CFIUS is constitutional, then I fail to see why this law is any different.

Look, again, I get it, I think the law is dumb, too.

But it is absolutely not a slam dunk that the law will get struck down by the courts, whether you like it or not.

The difference between your position and mine is I can acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong.

Furthermore, ByteDance absolutely is not operating within US borders. It's incorporated in China and the Caymans (in the latter case as a variable interest entity so that Americans can buy economic exposure to ByteDance shares that otherwise don't trade on any US stock exchanges).

TikTok, a wholly own subsidiary, is incorporated within the US. A forced divestiture affects the parent company (ByteDance).

The real question is whether the ban itself, if divestment doesn't occur, would be constitutional, given that would affect TikTok Ltd., and that, to me, is unclear, and I expect it's that portion of the law where TikTok is most likely to succeed in courts.

Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.

In what way does that invalidate it as an example?

The executive cannot just declare something punitive.

CFIUS and OFAC would beg to differ.

Also, if there aren't rights for foreigners in the US then there aren't rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.

Bytedance isn't inside your borders and the constitution doesn't protect extra-nationals. There's a reason Guantanamo Bay still exists.

I couldn't agree more. IMO the right solution is to regulate data collection, mandate algorithmic transparency, and require opt out for algorithmic curation.

But the discussion isn't about whether this is the right remedy (IMO it's not) but about whether the remedy will be held up by the courts.

See my reply to your sibling comment. This is wishful thinking. You could be right, but it's just as likely (I'd argue more likely) you're wrong.

They basically remap wavelengths, so yes, absolutely those would be representative of real features, either in the atmosphere or on the ground.

That said, absolutely, sometimes there's a bit of artistic license in how the wavelengths are mapped.

Edit: the space.com article on the image describes some of the physical features depicted:

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-saturn-moon-titan

You're missing my point.

In the case of antitrust law, the government has to prove its case in court because that's the way the Sherman Act and related laws are written, not because the constitution necessarily requires it. And it's the constitutional interpretation that matters as this is a law passed by Congress. A constitutional challenge is the only way to reverse it.

That said, TikTok is owned by a Chinese organization. So if I'm wrong and the constitution does protect corporations from forced divestment in a situation like this, it wouldn't apply to TikTok. This is much closer to protectionist trade policy and I'm not aware of any cases where such acts were found to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, as a recent example, Huawei was banned from American markets on national security grounds (see: CFIUS) and while challenged in court, those challenges were defeated. And then there's OFAC and the entire American sanctions regime (e.g. Russian asset seizures).

To be clear: I am not saying I support this ban one way or the other. I'm saying the belief that this will easily be struck down in court is misguided and that it's not an obvious slam dunk.

In infrared. Titan basically looks like a brownish grey blob to the naked eye due to its incredibly dense atmosphere.

On what basis? The legal power of the US government to break up or otherwise force divestment of corporate assets is the basis upon which antitrust law is built. The only way this law could be overturned is it's found unconstitutional, and if that happens, you can say goodbye to the FTC.