Buelldozer

I like the answer that grue@lemmy.world gave.

It’s Schrödinger’s control: for the purpose of having executive authority over the project 2025 policy agenda he is in control, except when doing so is illegal in which case he isn’t. The status depends on who’s looking, as it is always exactly the status that evades accountability.

They aren't imbeciles. They are pursuing their objectives in ways that are inconsistent with US Law and tradition and when they run into trouble they obfuscate as much as possible to forestall the consequences.

As an example read the court filing from Joshua Fisher (pdf warning). If you read 3 & 4 carefully you'll come to the understanding that Musk is a SGE of the WHO with the Job Title "Senior Advisor".

Then you run into #6 where the text turns itself inside out trying to explain that the US DOGE Service Temporary Organization is under the umbrella of the US DOGE Service which is separate from the White House Office (that employs Musk) but the US DOGE Service is still a component of the Executive...which Musk works for.

Once you are done bending your noggin' around all of that you are probably too tired and confused to ask the most important question. If Musk isn't in charge of DOGE then who is?

We all know it's Musk but they can't say that nor can answer the question with someone else's name because then the jig would be up and they'd be hosed. They need it to be Musk for popularity reasons but they also need it to not be anyone at all so that no one can be held responsible.

They know what they're doing. Don't assume for a single second that they don't. You aren't seeing stupidity, at least not on this, you are seeing methodical, planned, and deliberate attempts to confuse the issue in order to escape consequences and oversight.

Windows NT 3.51 came on something like 20 floppies and Win95 had 13 IIRC?

Yes Windows is bloated AF but even Linux Mint has a minimum space requirement of 20G with 100G as the recommendation. Hell just my swapfile wouldn't fit in the largest partition supported by MSDOS 6.22 (2 Gigabytes BTW).

No preemptive multitasking, no 3D support of any kind, no usb or plug and play, no desktop compositing, no web browsing...and the list goes on and on. Desktop environments just do so much more now than in the WfW 3.11 days that a DE install 1,000 times the size of WfW is pretty much normal.

WFW 3.11 only had 8 disks.

Your memory is slipping. 😎

Religious nuts.

Whelp, he's toast. The last Prez to threaten that got domed while visiting Texas.

“Outlawry” was applied to people who refused to submit to the legal process in the US.

The concept of an "outlaw" goes at least as far back as ancient Rome and was used in England until something like 1869. It held on in Scotland as part of Civil Law until somewhere in the 1940s. It was also present in France, Germany, and several Nordic countries.

This isn't just a US thing.

there is no legal process to submit to because they aren’t subject to US law to begin with.

Yes...because they are "Outside the Law". An Outlaw is neither subject to nor protected by the law.

It's that last part that so many people in here are missing. If the Elongated Muskrat were declared an "outlaw" you could kick in his front door, drag him out of bed, load him onto a catapult and fire him into the sun and the legal apparatus would not, nay could not, do anything about it.

People need to understand how deeply that "no legal process to submit to" goes. The "outlaw" isn't subject to the law but neither is anyone else as it relates to them.

My understanding is that outlaws were still subject to the law in the UK ...

English Common Law had the "writ of outlawry" and the subject was deprived of all legal rights, being outside the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he were a wolf or other wild animal.

There's a pretty good Wikipedia Article for this.

If so, any white supremacist or government agency could commit any atrocity and not get convicted, because the victim wasn’t protected by any laws.

Ding ding ding! You got it!

Sure, and also no one to protect them if / when they're caught.

If these people are not under the jurisdiction of the US then we have no legal right to deport them as they aren’t subject to our laws.

No.

Outlaws, people literally outside the law, have no legal protections at all. Taken to its limit this means that deportation is not necessary as they could simply be executed where they are found.

This is why being declared an outlaw was such a big fucking deal back when that word wasn't just a synonym for "criminal". You could be executed in broad daylight by the first person that found you and there would be no repercussions.