It doesn't really matter if they've been infiltrated, because they're so dependent on Google's cash. The money corrupts, even if there are no specific moles.

There's no need for any new case law here. It's already established that the cops can't go into a fenced off yard unless they have a warrant or accident circumstances, which they didn't. No precedents are going to be set, because they already were, long ago.

I believe that the victim filed a civil rights lawsuit with multiple claims, and this one claim was so obvious that the judge ruled there's no need for a jury to rule on it, but that the other claims would have to go before a jury.

This means the city is going to lose on at least one aspect of the case, and they could choose to fight the other aspects of it in court, or they could settle, as you suggested.

Just in case anyone lives under a rock, this is another great example of how the cops are not there to protect you. They will hurt you, intentionally or accidentally, and they will never apologize or try to make amends for what they've done. They will always blame somebody else.

And if you don't believe me, ask yourself this. When people on the New York subway see someone with a knife next week or next month, will they be happy if the police arrive? Or, will they run away, because the police are there. I think we all know the answer to that question.

I'm not sure what the law is on this. But from a practical standpoint, I would like to see adverse inferences drawn against him because he failed to show. That would form the basis for massive fines, so assess those fines, and take away a ton of his money.

It doesn't seem like there's any need to put him behind bars when this is a question about doing shady things with money that can be handled by taking away a lot of his cash.

My understanding is that the temporary nature is supposed to be because the plaintiffs need time to advance their case, which they got. The extension is now incredibly damaging to all of the people who would have had their student debts reduced. Every day that goes by is an extra burden on them, but the judge doesn't care.

I don't know what culture you live in, but I think your description of what's embraced by modern culture is at odds with what we see on TV, on Netflix, on YouTube, in magazines, in books, talked about by people everyday.

What is it specifically that you wish you could find that's not available, that you feel ought to be appropriate but isn't, somehow? I'm struggling to figure this one out.

Clearly the nomadic lifestyle does not work for everyone. Many people try it for a couple of months or a couple of years and then make a change. If you're enjoying it, great, and if you enjoy it for years or decades to come, great, but don't pretend that everyone does. And this is important because social workers cannot predict your future. They can only play the odds and make reasonable preparations for possible future badness.

You want certainty, but I think the many high-profile cases this year have shown that there is corruption in prosecutors and police and judges, and that often overlaps. How do you possibly think you could create a justice system that would prevent it from ever occurring?

I understand you're speaking casually, but in fact many of us do not say that. It's always a risky proposition when you conflate an organization with individuals in it.

Let me give you a related example that should shed light on their stubbornness...

If someone gets in an accident and hits their head, they might have a concussion. How can you tell? Basic first responder training says to ask several questions. What we don't ask is, "Are you OK?" because the patient will say "yes" even when they aren't OK. It's answers to the other questions that give us enough information to get a sense of whether our help is needed.

It's quite possible that some social workers are acting in a similar fashion to first responders here. They want the details because their checklist is longer than yours. (There are other reasons that social workers might be annoying, as others have explained, too.)

That doesn't negate your frustration, but maybe it helps you understand one cause.

Can you explain what you felt was harsh?

Finding out people's salaries is a good thing. It's how you prevent your bosses from screwing everyone over. Of course that information might be sensitive so don't go around inquiring willy nilly, but it's definitely a topic that you can and should sometimes visit.

(I know this is a s*** post so it's all good but some people don't realize the value in discussing salaries, and they think it's something that has to be super secret when that only hurts you, the employee.)