I wish it were that simple.

First, note that there isn't one emoluments clause, there are two. And they're quite different.

The Foreign Emoluments clause prohibits any officer of the government, which would include the president, though that's not specifically stated, from accepting a "present" from any foreign government. The problem with this is that it's not clear how it's supposed to be enforced with respect to the president. Traditionally, presidents have treated gifts as gifts to the country, and when they wanted to make an exception they asked Congress to authorize it. Mostly. George Washington famously kept a painting the French gave him. Trump, er, took a different approach, simply ignoring the Foreign Emoluments clause, which the Constitution says isn't allowed... but then what? Congress never passed any law defining how exactly the clause was supposed to apply to the president (there are laws about not accepting gifts for pretty much everyone else in the executive branch)... so, how it might work is undefined.

During Trump's first term, a bunch of Congressional Democrats sued Trump for violating the Foreign Emoluments clause, and their suit was dismissed for lack of standing. Courts ruled that individual legislators (much less individual Americans) lack standing to sue over it, only Congress as a body has standing, and Congress as a body hasn't been interested in acting. There were also some suits by DC hospitality businesses claiming economic injury because foreign visitors chose Trump's properties to curry favor. The district court said they didn't have standing but that was reversed on appeal.. but never decided because it was mooted when he left office. The DC and Maryland governments sued and courts went back and forth on their standing, but that was never decided either, then mooted when he left.

So... at present there is no enforcement mechanism unless Congress creates one, or unless the courts decide that someone (and it's not clear who that might be) has standing. And we also have no idea what the remedies might be.

The Domestic Emoluments clause is more precise, but very narrow. It says Congress can't change the president's salary during their term, and that the president can't be paid by the federal government (other than his salary) nor any state government. That says nothing about Wall Street bros buying insider info, people paying for pardons, hodlers buying crypto to get a sit-down... none of that.

So far, experiments have shown that one cannot expect people to remain as diligent after extended periods of LLM use.

This is absolutely a problem if you work in a shitty sweatshop that forces you to be a sin eater for robot code.

The way we do it is, the tools are available, but you're not required to use them in any specific way or really, at all if you don't want to. You do, of course, have to get your work done and be responsible for your code. We have a spectrum of use, from all-in cascades of agents through folks who use it as little more than a search engine.

We had a few incidents where people were caught out and couldn't explain why their code did what it did, but that seemed to be enough to warn the rest; that hasn't happened in a while. I don't see our "velocity" stats, so I don't know if/to what extent the robots are speeding us up, but knowing our bean counters we wouldn't be maintaining our spend at this point if there weren't a visible bottom-line result. I do see our bug and incident metrics, which haven't seen any impact from LLM use.

If you work in a shithole, yeah, they're going to burn you out. But that's about sociopathic management, not the robot. They'd wear you down a different way if LLMs didn't exist.

I just figured fleecing rubes was considered the retirement plan for this band of raiders and whores.

Dude's crime wasn't playing the inside, it was getting caught while not having enough dirt on the boss to make him care.

Not exactly a yawn. More like a shake of the head at more evidence that all politicians are on the take, perhaps with a wry grin that "their guy" is smarter and better at it and so makes a lot more money.

I mostly don't talk politics with my family because they're Trump supporters and it creates friction, and accomplishes nothing. This morning, though, when I saw this news, I started typing a post on the family chat to ask if they're really okay with it. By the time I got to the end, I realized I knew exactly what their response would be "Nancy Pelosi does it, too, Trump just does it better", so I deleted my post, unsent.

That reply is wrong in degree, of course, but, sadly, it's not wrong in kind. We've long tolerated insider trading by Congress, and a revolving door between regulators and the companies they regulate. The Supreme Court has allowed its justices to take veiled bribes, and even ruled that government officials can accept bribes as long as the payoff comes after the action. Prior to Trump, presidents and their staffs stayed out of this mud, but if others can do it, why not the president?

The root of the problem is voter acceptance of corruption. Too many Americans just assume that all politicians are corrupt and there's nothing you can do. They're wrong on both points -- and in fact the US previously did have massive public corruption and then mostly shut it off, but Americans don't know their own history -- but until voters care enough to get Congress to act, this is the new normal.

If that were the only impact, it wouldn't matter.

But the fact is that Trump regularly posts official public policy announcements that move markets, so getting the bullshit early can make you money.

It should be, but the Emoluments Clause has never been enforced and "Emoluments" isn't even clearly defined, legally speaking. It's pretty much a dead letter.

The only practical backstop here is impeachment and conviction, but the Republicans in Congress aren't going to allow that, not until and unless their voters begin to care.

The AC who replied is technically wrong: The immunity ruling only applies to official acts, and Trump's participation in TMG is not official. However, Trump would probably claim that he had nothing to do with this decision and the immunity ruling also effectively prevents investigation of any personal crimes that were committed because it blocks investigation of anything that touches on official acts. So as long as Trump made the call ordering it from the from the Oval Office, it's unlikely that any evidence could be obtained. If someone in the know at TMG testified against him, that would work, but it's very unlikely anyone with a conscience has direct knowledge.

Really? What vulnerabilties did you find?

Or are you talking about something completely unrelated?

He's creating a "middle class" - they will get the info after the regular insiders, but before hoi polloi.

He should have thought of selling multiple levels of higher tiers.

For a small fee you can get your bullshit before everyone else.

Why would you stop a selective recount aimed at finding more votes in a specific set of counties that tended to lean toward one candidate? Hmm...

The above is a one-sided interpretation, but it's not an unreasonable one. The situation was that Florida had voted with punchcard ballots, and there were problems with a percentage of the ballots, both "overvotes", cases where more than one candidate was punched, and "undervotes", cases where no candidate was punched in a race. But it turns out that when you're talked about punched cards, "punched" is an ambiguous term. There were cases where chads (the little rectangular pieces of paper that get punched out) were left barely attached ("hanging chads") and cases where they were partially punched but still fully attached ("dimpled chads"). And everywhere in between.

Gore's team called for the targeted recount, arguing the theory that the targeted counties had more elderly populations who were more likely to have failed to fully punch their choices, resulting in "undervotes" when the scanning machines read them, i.e. the machine saw no holes for a race and decided that the ballot didn't vote for anyone. They argued that human examination of those ballots could clearly see in some cases that a position was punched and that a recount should be done to count those. The Florida State Supreme Court ordered a selective recount of the counties the Gore team thought should be recounted, to correct correctable undervotes.

Bush's team argued to SCOTUS that the selected counties were all Democrat-leaning (they were) which meant that the voters in the Republican-leaning counties that had not been selected were not receiving equal treatment under the law. The initial statewide count was done by machine, but the recount which would be more "permissive", finding votes where the machine wouldn't, was only being done in counties where the newly-found votes were more likely to be for Gore.

SCOTUS stayed the recount while they decided how to handle this, then ruled a few days later that the recount was unequal treatment, that a proper recount would need to be statewide and it would need clear rules for how to count ambiguous ballots, rather than each county defining its own rules. But by then the clock had run out anyway. The court's rationale for staying the count while they decided was that if the count proceeded counties would release updates that would likely show the vote totals shifting, which would make rejecting the recount look really corrupt if it went against Bush and if they decided that's what should be done. "Oh, the conservative court let the count go forward until they saw it wasn't going their way, then they rejected it" was worse than "The conservative court stopped the recount before it produced any results", was the theory.

You can certainly argue that these published positions by the court weren't the real reason, but they're not without merit.

In any event, as a careful, methodical, independent recount determined months later, the Gore-requested recount would still have shown Bush won. An incomplete recount which resulted in no win would have been a Bush win, because the state legislature was voting to send Bush votes for that case. An incomplete recount in which Florida failed to submit a slate would have been a Bush win, because the US House would have picked him. The only scenario in which Gore won was a statewide recount that also tried to tally "overvotes" -- having humans try to discern which of multiple punched chads was "most" punched, but no one at the time thought that would favor Gore, and it wasn't even being discussed.

Aside: "Corruption" is the wrong word. Corruption specifically refers to bribery and other compensation-related schemes (not necessarily monetary). "Partisanship" is a better word.

Indeed it does.

Yep. So all of the F-Droid-distributed apps will be associated with one account. Or maybe it'll be distributed across a handful of accounts.

For open source apps absolutely anyone can package and submit an app under their account.

You think Google is going to verify that an app was submitted by the author/developer rather than some F-Droid guy who submits all of the F-Droid apps?

They just require the code to have been submitted by a registered identity. They aren't going to check copyright ownership... and with open source apps that's rarely only one person anyway. The only risk is that if some of the F-Droid apps turn out to be malware, Google may revoke the permission of the person who submitted them to submit apps. And note that they don't insta-revoke. If it's a legitimate mistake (e.g. someone slipped some bad code in upstream), and it doesn't happen too often, it's fine. But whoever does the F-Droid submissions will want to take some care with what they submit.

That, BTW, is the actual reason for the registration requirement: Being able to block malware authors, at least to the extent of requiring them to find or create some government ID to create a new account. The way many malware authors operate, the $25 fee may actually also pose an obstacle for them.

Similar requirements on the Play store did wonders for reducing malware volume to a level where Google could stay ahead of it. Now they want to extend the same protection to the entire Android ecosystem. If you're curious how I know this: From 2014 to 2025 I was a senior member of the Android security team at Google. While I never worked on anti-malware efforts, I know the senior engineers who do and I chatted with them about stuff. The security engineers have been pushing for this change for years but it has been blocked by management because it was expected that it would generate exactly the sort of mis-perception that you have. Eventually, the engineers were able to prove their case with sufficient data that management let it happen (not without some pushback from the PR team, I expect).

It really, truly has nothing to do with killing F-Droid. No one in Google has any reason to want to kill F-Droid, and more than a few use it personally. NewPipe is a different story, though even there the Android team doesn't particularly care about it, except to the extent that the YouTube team can convince them to care.

I don't think Google should be required to provide anonymized search data to rivals. Firstly, that's effectively their intellectual property.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure the others will do something transformative with the data.