Here’s the ungated WSJ article.

Qualified Immunity is unqualified evil.

Here is the complaint, since the article doesn't link it.

Here is the decision.

Barone's Law: "All process arguments are insincere, including this one."

@JeremyRubin:

Me:

Round Two!

@JeremyRubin:

Me:

Perhaps, but also understand that cognitive decline is often an accelerating process. If they were in their mid/late 60s in 2011, they could be 80 today. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a person who was able to grok bitcoin in 2011, may be unable to resist a scam today.

Of course, we don't know the details here, but I do see it as a possibility, albeit one where the person should have taken steps to protect themselves - however that is the devious nature of cognitive decline, innit.

Well, to be fair, I was going for two puns there 🤣

MMT = Chartalism with flashy handouts.

Calling it a standardness rule seems... uncomfortable. It seems too high, in that a standard is something generally reached by consensus. I think it should be referred to as a convention, which denotes both that it is commonly adhered to, but deviation is not a significant issue.

Sorry, 2-sats here.

I'm way out of the loop, but I honestly have no idea why a British chef would be responsible for a power cascade failure in Spain.

Yeah, sorry if I came across as combative, was trying to agree with you 😇

The article claims that this only means children of diplomats are excluded, but the text is not obviously clear that that is the only exclusion.

And this is exactly how you make the determination on the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.