1. Most Americans already knew he was a criminal and either strongly opposed him or strongly supported him, in part on that basis. There are a lot of other people who usually or often vote Republican, but also just don't always vote. Those people aren't going to be enthusiastic about showing up to vote for a felon. I think we're looking at extremely low turnout among non-MAGA Republicans. Optimistically, this scenario can also lead to a blue wave as those same people skip down-ballot races as well.
2. First-time offenders get lighter sentences. He's going to be convicted in multiple upcoming trials, and in all of them he's now going to enter the sentencing phase as a felon. We can look forward to extended prison sentences in Georgia and the federal cases.

It's up to the judge and can range from no prison to four years. A nonviolent first-time offense usually means a lighter sentence, but the judge can also factor in the complete lack of contrition and the numerous egregious gag order violations. These make prison significantly more likely than it otherwise would be.

A fine of less than $1 million is absolutely not what anyone except Google is asking for.

The DOJ can really only ask for treble damages. If Google paid ~$3 million, that's realistically as good as the DOJ was going to get. It sounds like the initial estimates were just way off. Nobody should be shocked that the inept antitrust division screwed up again. They're going after big, buzz-worthy names without the facts or law to actually back it up.

The headline is strange. The DOJ sued for money and Google just straight up gave them the money they could have won upfront. That's not a "pay off"; it's literally what they asked for. It's a win for the DOJ. Google's argument against a jury trial also seems on solid ground. The right to a trial by jury is meant as a protection for Americans; the government itself doesn't have the right to demand a jury. If the defendant thinks the legal issues in the case are too arcane and a judge is more likely to get it right (and get it right faster, which is cheaper), that's their prerogative.

A long exposure allows more of the light to be captured but that’s not the reason for the color discrepancy. They really are as colorful as they appear in photos but human night vision is primarily black and white. We just don’t see a lot of color unless it’s sufficiently bright and since auroras are still quite dim in absolute terms, our eyes aren’t capable of recognizing the full intensity of the color.

The new pope and Mussolini essentially rose to power together, forming an alliance. The church’s open embrace of the Fascists was critical to the government’s power and to ending the enmity between the church and secular authorities.

The pope was also jaw-dropping antisemitic. Jews did not have many friends in the Catholic Church.

I just left Paris a week ago and 100% of the service staff I came across were very friendly and almost all of them spoke passable to excellent English. I’d say “bonjour” and they’d start talking to me in English. As a tourist with only extremely basic French remembered from high school, it was really nice to experience how false the stereotypes were.

If prosecutors lost more cases, that would mean they were being even more aggressive in over-prosecuting flimsy cases.

The criminal justice system is intended to be biased in favor of the defendants as innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, if everything were working perfectly, I'd expect prosecutors to only charge people if they were extremely confident that they could prove the person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Taking cases without solid evidence and regularly losing at trial would be indicative of a major problem.

these “things” that exist on the blockchain are sometimes representations of ownership (think like a deed for property: it’s just a piece of paper that represents ownership. that could easily exist on the blockchain, where the owner of the property is the person who is assigned the deed on-chain)… the you can have a smart contract that automatically releases funds to the seller once the deed has been transferred to the buyer

The idea that property can be accurately recorded on a neutral blockchain is absolutely ludicrous. What happens when the owner of the property dies and they are unable to update the record? What if there is a dispute among the heirs? What if the owner goes bankrupt and their assets are seized by a third-party, but they are still unwilling to update the blockchain record? There is a reason that definitive records for real property are maintained by the government itself. Anything of real value must exist within a legal framework and be subject to a change of ownership under law or court order.

If a judge determines a property belongs to someone else, the sheriff who comes to evict you isn’t going to care when you point to some record on a blockchain. If a blockchain record can’t be unilaterally updated by the government to change ownership, against the wishes of the current owner, then it cannot function as a true record. Consequently, any “smart” contract based on that record is unreliable as well since the seller may not actually own in the real world the thing their blockchain deed says they own.

US: Credit card only, almost exclusively using Apple Pay. If I somehow obtain cash, I deposit it so that I can spend it using a card instead and earn the rewards. I actively use about half a dozen cards, choosing the right one for each transaction to maximize rewards.

For work I frequently need to look up information for patents. The specific data I need is spread around in multiple US Patent & Trademark Office databases. I created tool with Django/Python so I just have to copy/paste the patent numbers into a box and hit submit. It then returns exactly what I need in the exact format I need. It leaves me with more free time to play Cookie Clicker.