stock here: check it out at the source
https://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2024/09/abraham.html#comment-form
stock here: it’s good to review. Most of the videos, now placed at the bottom, were available before they even selected him in 2020. Therefore, I knew, that they would never run this creep. I was wrong.
They dosed him up with the pretty decent cocktail of drugs to occasionally seem functional, and they gave him enough dopamine and serotonin, and with physical separation, so that he didn’t have to grope 7 and 12 year old girls. But like an alcoholic falling off the wagon, his handlers have other things to do, Biden went bat shit crazy.
This is the guy who just called half of the country "garbage" pic.twitter.com/1psHJezs7h
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 30, 2024
Of course, we recognized this reality years ago. But the lying media keeps the reality suppressed for 95% of the sheep, 70% of the normies, and 50% of those awake. So it’s a losing battle.
https://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2024/10/you-are-real-terrorists-belgian-mp.html
stock here: Dubai has always seemed like a pretty desert like location. Check out Spain. Of course at 5:50 it is all about climate….”We need huge amounts of money to cope with infrastructure”
Check out the airplane in Dubai moving in feet of water. Why did they not move it earlier to higher ground? They had flood in 1982 also. Lack of storm drain system in the highly engineered Dubai, shame on them.
stock here: many have said this may be the last semblance of an “election”. We all thought that the intentional invasion of USA was to allow them to use the illegals, using handouts, and control (like you going to be kicked out) if you don’t vote for the new Techno-Corporo-Fascist party. But it seemed to have to operate at a pretty low level, using fake IDs and the like.
But Now they are acting the quiet part outloud. Having 4 total “judges” in Virginia fighting tooth and nail to not restrict, “self identified” non-citizens from voting. The claim centered upon “removing them this close to the election violated federal law by being too close to the election”.
stock here: also from a comment at ZH, it’s still useful, AI
Barbara Lerner Specter is a prominent figure known for her work in Jewish educational initiatives in Europe, especially through her organization Paideia: The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden, which she founded in 2001. Paideia focuses on reviving Jewish culture and fostering Jewish leadership within European communities, emphasizing interfaith dialogue and integration of Jewish studies into broader European culture.
Specter has been a controversial figure, primarily because of her remarks regarding multiculturalism in Europe. In one interview, she spoke about the need for Europe to embrace multiculturalism and suggested that Jews would play a key role in that transformation, a statement that has fueled significant debate and critique. This statement has often been referenced by conspiracy theorists, who allege connections between her work and broader agendas by influential figures like George Soros.
There is no verified evidence of Barbara Lerner Specter or her family acting as agents for George Soros or being involved in any covert operations. Claims suggesting such ties are generally based on circumstantial evidence or political speculation. George Soros, a philanthropist and financier known for supporting causes related to open societies, human rights, and democracy, has indeed backed organizations promoting similar themes, including multiculturalism, open borders, and social justice. However, attributing direct influence from Soros over Specter and her work remains speculative and lacks substantiation from credible sources.
The Specter family itself does not appear to be significantly documented in public records beyond Barbara Lerner Specter’s career and contributions to Paideia and Jewish cultural renewal in Europe.
Categories
Computer Security
stock here: seen on a comment at ZH, TAILS
TAILS (The Amnesic Incognito Live System) is a popular choice among privacy-conscious users, especially for those who need to maintain anonymity and leave no digital footprint on the computers they use. Here’s a breakdown of its features, advantages, and some considerations to keep in mind:
Key Features of TAILS
Complete Privacy and Anonymity: TAILS routes all internet traffic through Tor, masking the user’s IP address and encrypting traffic, making it difficult to trace.
Amnesic Nature: It’s designed as a live OS, so it doesn’t retain any data on the host machine. When you shut down, everything is wiped, leaving no traces.
Portability: TAILS can be run from a USB stick or DVD, making it easy to use on virtually any computer without leaving a trace on the hardware itself.
Pre-installed Privacy Tools: It comes with privacy-focused tools, such as the Tor browser, a secure file vault, encrypted messaging, and email solutions, making it a self-contained privacy suite.
Open-Source: As with most privacy-oriented tools, TAILS is open-source, meaning the code is transparent and can be vetted by the security community.Advantages for a Cybersecurity IT Professional
Forensic Evasion: TAILS is great for scenarios requiring total anonymity, whether testing, research, or whistleblowing.
Secure Environment: The OS is isolated and reset with each use, reducing risks from malware or persistent tracking.
Trusted by High-Stakes Users: TAILS has been used by journalists, activists, and other high-risk individuals who depend on secure and anonymous communication, adding credibility.Considerations & Limitations
Limited Usability Outside Tor: Since all connections are routed through Tor, using services that block Tor traffic or require high-speed connections can be challenging.
Hardware Compatibility: Being Linux-based, TAILS works on most systems but can encounter issues with certain hardware configurations or peripherals.
Not Completely Bulletproof: While TAILS offers excellent privacy, it’s not a magic shield. Attack vectors can still exist, especially if users are careless or if sophisticated actors target them. For example, hardware-based attacks or vulnerabilities in Tor could still expose users.
Persistence Limitations: By design, TAILS doesn’t retain data between sessions. While this is great for anonymity, it means users can’t easily keep files, settings, or browser extensions unless they set up encrypted persistence (which reduces its amnesic advantage).
Best Practices When Using TAILS
Understand Tor’s Limitations: Be aware that Tor can be slow, and certain activities, like streaming or large downloads, are discouraged. Also, Tor isn’t foolproof against advanced tracking.
Use on Known, Safe Hardware: Avoid using TAILS on public or compromised hardware, where hardware keyloggers or other malicious software could be present.
Regular Updates: Always keep TAILS updated to benefit from the latest security patches and improvements.Bottom Line
TAILS is a powerful tool for those seeking true privacy and anonymity, especially if used correctly and within its known limitations. For a cybersecurity IT professional, it can be a valuable tool in the toolkit, particularly for testing anonymous setups, conducting private investigations, or educating others on digital privacy. However, understanding that no tool provides 100% security is key—TAILS should be part of a broader, multi-layered privacy approach.
You can obtain TAILS (The Amnesic Incognito Live System) from its official website. Here’s a step-by-step guide to downloading and setting up TAILS:
- Download TAILS Safely Go to the official TAILS website: https://tails.boum.org.
Always download TAILS directly from the official site to avoid compromised versions.
Verify the download if possible, using the provided instructions to check the integrity of the TAILS ISO file. - Prepare a USB Stick You’ll need a blank USB stick with at least 8 GB of storage. Be aware that this USB stick will be erased during the setup process.
You can set up TAILS using another USB stick if you want to maintain persistence (keep files/settings between sessions). - Install TAILS on the USB Stick Using Windows or macOS: TAILS provides a detailed installation guide on their website for these systems.
Using Linux: You can use tools like dd, or GUI tools like Balena Etcher or GNOME Disks, to copy the ISO file to the USB drive.
Follow the step-by-step instructions on the TAILS website for each platform to ensure you create a bootable TAILS USB stick. - Boot TAILS Insert your TAILS USB stick into the computer and restart it.
Access your computer’s boot menu (typically by pressing F12, F10, ESC, or another key depending on your system).
Select the USB stick as the boot device to start TAILS. - Configure TAILS and Start Using It When TAILS boots, you’ll see a welcome screen that allows you to set options such as keyboard layout, language, and persistence.
Once configured, select “Start Tails” to launch the OS. - Set Up Persistence (Optional) If you want to save files, settings, or customizations between sessions, you can set up an encrypted persistent storage on your TAILS USB stick.
Persistence is useful if you want to keep specific files or configurations across sessions, but it slightly reduces the “amnesic” nature of TAILS.
Important Tips
Verify Integrity: Always verify your download for authenticity, especially if you're in a high-risk situation.
Avoid Public Computers: Use TAILS on personal or trusted hardware whenever possible to minimize risks.
Update Regularly: Check for updates and create a new TAILS USB stick periodically to stay up to date with security patches and improvements.Following these steps should get you started with TAILS safely and effectively!
stock here: AI generated
Yes, the relationship between coronal holes and sunspots is somewhat documented, though it can be complex. Generally, coronal holes and sunspots both originate from the Sun’s magnetic activity, but they tend to appear under different conditions and can show varying behaviors during different phases of the solar cycle.
Key Points:
Sunspots: These are regions of intense magnetic activity on the Sun’s surface, appearing darker because they are cooler than the surrounding areas. The number of sunspots increases during the solar maximum, the period of highest solar activity in the 11-year solar cycle.
Coronal Holes: These are areas where the Sun’s magnetic field opens up into space, allowing high-speed solar wind to escape. They appear as dark regions in the Sun’s corona (the outer atmosphere) when observed in ultraviolet or X-ray light. Coronal holes are more common during the solar minimum, when sunspot activity is lower.Relationship Between Sunspots and Coronal Holes:
Solar Maximum: During periods of high sunspot activity, such as during a solar maximum, the Sun’s magnetic field is more complex and chaotic. This can reduce the number and size of coronal holes because the Sun’s magnetic field lines are more likely to be closed and twisted near sunspot regions.
Solar Minimum: During solar minimums, when sunspots are fewer, the Sun’s magnetic field becomes more simplified and organized. This allows for larger coronal holes to form, especially near the Sun’s poles.Exceptions and Observations:
While it is generally true that coronal holes are more prevalent during solar minimum and sunspots dominate during solar maximum, this is not a strict rule. You can still see coronal holes during periods of peak sunspots, but they tend to be smaller and more transient.
Today, if you see a coronal hole coinciding with high sunspot activity, it may be part of the transitional dynamics of the Sun. The solar cycle can exhibit some overlapping behaviors where both sunspots and coronal holes are present, though coronal holes are typically less frequent or more confined to smaller areas during peak sunspot phases.
Is this well documented?
Yes, the relationship between coronal holes and sunspot activity has been studied over decades of solar observation. The general trend is well-documented, though the Sun’s magnetic behavior can be unpredictable, and exceptions are not uncommon.
Instruments like NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) and other solar observatories regularly track sunspot activity, coronal holes, and the overall solar cycle, contributing to our understanding of how these phenomena interact.
stock here, this has been on my mind for a while.
stock here: The views and the thumbs up are so small, spread the word!
stock here: Steve Kirsch, a Hero, a Pitbull that won’t let this go.
Here is the study, again
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/12/7/1343
Slay, is doing good work
stock here, this study was quoted in several stories, but no one linked back to the study, although 1 named the study. I found the study, LOL, using AI. here is the study. I will also download it, as this could easily get censored.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/12/7/1343
The other articles did interpret the results correctly, I was apprehensive and cautious. Bottom line: If you got 2 COVID Vaccines, your life expectancy is cut by 37%, so if you had 20 more years of life left, you gave up, on average 7.4 years. And that says nothing of the quality of those remaining years. See the deep blue highlight below.
HR means Hazard Ratio, I made this table to make it clear. Getting Jabbed is more dangerous than having diabetes or Cardio Vascular Disease. It’s not quite as bad as having Kidney Disease.
This is table 4 from the study, seriously, open the study and peruse it yourself.
I don’t want to confound my own work, but this…..
table 5 from the study is here, its for three covid vaccines, I will send table 4, 2 shots, in the next box, i dont understand why the RMTL for unvaccinated drop from 7.4 to 4.6 can you explain what that really means, so wait for the next post
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
In this table (Table 5), the Restricted Mean Time Lost (RMTL) measures the average time “lost” in terms of survival compared to a hypothetical perfect survival time within the study period.
Here’s a breakdown of what’s happening:
RMST (Restricted Mean Survival Time):
The vaccinated group with three doses has an RMST of 573.7 days, while the unvaccinated group has an RMST of 574 days.
This small difference (−0.8 days) suggests that, on average, the three-dose vaccinated group lived slightly less time than the unvaccinated group within the study’s observation window (579 days).
RMTL (Restricted Mean Time Lost):
For the three-dose vaccinated group, the RMTL is 5.3 days, meaning this group "lost" 5.3 days on average in terms of survival during the study period.
For the unvaccinated group, the RMTL is 4.6 days, meaning they "lost" 4.6 days on average in terms of survival.Key Difference:
The unvaccinated group has a lower RMTL (4.6 days) compared to the vaccinated group (5.3 days), implying that the unvaccinated group lost less time on average in this study.
The RMTL ratio of 1.17 means that the three-dose vaccinated group lost 17% more survival time compared to the unvaccinated group.Why the drop from 7.4 to 4.6?
The RMTL drop you’re referring to, from 7.4 in a different table (which likely represents two doses) to 4.6 for the unvaccinated in this table (three doses), could be attributed to different population characteristics or study parameters between these two dose comparisons. In other words:
When considering only two doses, the unvaccinated group might have had a higher average time lost (RMTL = 7.4), potentially due to different health factors or exposures.
When the analysis shifts to a three-dose comparison (Table 5), the unvaccinated group sees a lower time lost (RMTL = 4.6), suggesting that the time lost for unvaccinated individuals appears smaller in this context.The reasons for this drop would depend on study-specific factors such as population health characteristics, pandemic waves, or statistical adjustments made in the analysis. It reflects how these metrics can change based on different vaccination status comparisons. The next post you mentioned might clarify more as we compare two versus three doses.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
In Table 4, the Restricted Mean Time Lost (RMTL) for the unvaccinated group is 7.4 days, while for the two-dose vaccinated group, it’s 10.1 days. This indicates that the two-dose vaccinated group lost, on average, more time in terms of survival than the unvaccinated group during the study period (739 days).
Here’s what it means:
The RMTL for unvaccinated dropped from 7.4 (in Table 4) to 4.6 (in Table 5 for three doses): This decrease suggests that, on average, the unvaccinated group "lost" fewer days in the context of three-dose comparisons (Table 5) than they did when compared with the two-dose group (Table 4). This change could reflect various factors like how the unvaccinated population's outcomes improved or the vaccinated population's outcomes worsened with a higher number of doses.
Between-group contrast (RMTL ratio of 1.37 in Table 4): This means that the two-dose vaccinated group lost 37% more survival time than the unvaccinated group.In comparison to Table 5, the three-dose group’s RMTL ratio was 1.17, meaning they lost 17% more time than the unvaccinated group. This suggests that the relative difference in time lost between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations becomes smaller as the number of doses increases.
To summarize:
In the two-dose comparison (Table 4), unvaccinated individuals had a higher RMTL (7.4 days), suggesting more time lost.
However, in the three-dose comparison (Table 5), the unvaccinated group appears to have fared better with a lower RMTL (4.6 days).
The exact reasons for this change could involve a variety of factors like population health differences, varying immunity levels, or other study-specific conditions, but the general trend shows that in the two-dose analysis, the vaccinated group experienced greater time lost than in the three-dose analysis.
Categories
Solar Data from the UK Met
I get these in email now. I love this summary of earth facing sunspots baby. The beta-gamma-delta spots are the most complex.
| Solar Region Summary |
Space Weather SRS
Issued on Wednesday, 30 October 2024 at 09:04 UTC
Observed Sunspot Regions:
Report issued four times a day (0300, 0900, 1500, 2100 UTC) from analysis of NASA SDO imagery and data from NOAA SWPC.
| No. | Loc | Lo | Area | Z | LL | NN | Mag Type | Growth | C | M | X | P |
| 3868 | S11W36 | 219 | 170 | Cso | 3 | 2 | Beta | Nil | 15 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 3869 | S17W11 | 194 | 350 | Dsc | 10 | 16 | Beta-Gamma | Nil | 43 | 20 | 7 | 6 |
| 3872 | S18W00 | 183 | 250 | Dko | 3 | 5 | Beta | Nil | 52 | 20 | 3 | 5 |
| 3873 | S11E06 | 177 | 40 | Hax | 3 | 2 | Alpha | Decrease | 8 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| 3874 | N24W37 | 220 | 170 | Eso | 11 | 12 | Beta | Nil | 31 | 6 | 0 | 2 |
| 3875 | N28W19 | 202 | 30 | Cri | 4 | 4 | Beta | Increase | 30 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| 3876 | S05W24 | 207 | 300 | Dac | 8 | 10 | Beta-Gamma | Nil | 69 | 23 | 2 | 6 |
| 3877 | S16E19 | 164 | 5 | Axx | 1 | 1 | Alpha | Decrease | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 3878 | N16E46 | 137 | 350 | Eki | 11 | 12 | Beta-Gamma-Delta | Nil | 79 | 34 | 5 | 3 |
| 3879 | N15E70 | 113 | 700 | Hhx | 4 | 1 | Alpha | Nil | 9 | 6 | 1 | 1 |
| NEW | S10W23 | 206 | 10 | Axx | 2 | 2 | Alpha | Nil | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total Raw % | 99 | 74 | 17 | 23 | ||||||||
| Total Issued % | 99 | 70 | 20 | 99 | ||||||||
Comments:
There are now eleven sunspot containing active regions, with AR3863 fading from view on the west limb and AR3875 redeveloping in the northwest disk. The south-centre disc contains a cluster of three spots. AR3869 is the largest and most complex with its polarities in the reverse configuration to what would typically be expected for a SC25 southern hemisphere spot. AR3872 is a simpler open bipolar spot, but with a potentially unstable N-S orientation, that could still allow for some activity. AR3876, just to the northwest of this group, has seen its small spots coalesce, and has seen the weak delta spot on its northern proximity fade somewhat. AR3878 remains the most likely flare source, with the moderate strength delta spot on its trailer. AR3879 in the NE is large and simple, but is likely the returning ex-3848, which produced a notable eruptive X-flare on the previous rotation.
Moderate activity in the last 24 hours, with a peak flare of M1.1 at 29/1633 UTC, chiefly from AR3872, but with some contribution from an ongoing long duration C-flare due to a filament eruption from the SW disc. Moderate to high activity is expected going forwards, with occasional M-flares expected given the activity on the disk and a chance of an isolated X-class flare. The ongoing S1-Storm is expected to continue easing, unless further notable flares occur. These giving approximately a 20 percent chance of further enhancement.
Carrington 0-deg Longitude: at 30/0800 UTC = 183°
Observed Penticton F10.7cm flux: on 29 October = 266 sfu
Categories
SDO Solar Viewing and Data
stock here, scroll down a pull page, one of the most important is the view of the magnetics of the sunspots. When they are mixed and complex, the chance for large eruptions, aka CME are higher.
https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data
This was looking potentially exciting in the last few days, but now it looks less likely to turn into something big. Unless they morph.
The earth moves up and down relative to the equator of the sun, about 7 degree each way. On Dec 6, Earth will pass from the northern side to the southern side, i.e. be right at the Sun’s equator. About March 6, we will be at the lowest point, and therefore, more affected by sunspots in the southern hemisphere. That’s a point that no one else is making, so I am making it.
The part of Bob Seger’s song “Sunspot Baby” that mentions “she had a real good time” goes like this:
“She took me for a ride in a red Mercedes Benz.
She took off to Florida, she got a real good tan.
She had a real good time.”
stock here, 681000 views.
AI Summarize of Comments
The comments from people at the Harris rally generally express frustration, disbelief, and disapproval toward Harris supporters. Many commenters argue that Harris supporters are uninformed or emotionally driven, lacking in specific policy knowledge. They criticize the media for influencing voters and describe the atmosphere at the rally as disconnected from reality. Multiple comments accuse the Obama administration, rather than Trump, of dividing the country. Some find it shocking that people believe the economy is doing well, while others express a strong preference for Trump, with a belief that his policies were better for the country.
————————————————————
Here are the specific quotes from the transcript where Harris supporters flipped the script during the interviews:
"What did he lie about?"
Response: "What hasn't he lied about is the simpler question to answer, and that's maybe his name and his age and that's about it."
"What don't you like about Trump?"
Response: "What is there to like about him? There's nothing."These are examples where the speaker deflects or reverses the question, highlighting a common rhetorical tactic in these discussions.
You said:
canyou find more than just 2 examples
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Here are more examples from the transcript where Harris supporters flip the script in their responses:
"What did he lie about?"
Response: "What hasn't he lied about is the simpler question to answer, and that's maybe his name and his age and that's about it."
"What don't you like about Trump?"
Response: "What is there to like about him? There's nothing."
"Do you think he did a terrible job as president?"
Response: "Oh absolutely. What is there to like?"
"What was wrong in 2016 to 2020?"
Response: "Let's just talk about COVID for instance, he turned that into more of a disaster than it would have been under better leadership."
"How do you feel the country is going right now?"
Response: "I hate that question because it's loaded... It always depends on who you're asking."These examples illustrate how supporters often use rhetorical reversals when discussing Trump or when pressed for specifics about their opinions.
Here are all the corporation gouging comments along with mentions of Kamala Harris having a plan, and the answers to what that plan is:
"Corporations have been gouging."
Followed by: "Corporations made huge raises in prices of things, and Kamala has a plan for getting that backed up so that they can't gouge you in times of trouble."
"Kamala has a plan for getting that backed up so that they can't gouge you in times of trouble."
When asked "What is that plan?", the response was: "I don't know that plan exactly."
"Corporations made huge raises in prices of things, and Kamala has a plan for that."
When asked about the plan, the response was: "I know she has a plan, but I don't know the specifics."These comments indicate a belief that Harris has a solution to address corporate price gouging, but those who mention it are unsure of the specific details of her plan.
Categories
The Power To Do
stock, check it out.
stock here: Just throwing that out there, because it is beyond absurd. And then the choice of Walz, who burned his own state down, and dated a 14 year old student.
But the children have spoken in a poll, and Harris should win, LOL.
I mean, they are humiliating all of us, especially those “for” Harris, even though face palm they believe they are “freedom fighters” “truth seekers”.
Categories
Standing, Let’s Talk About It
stock here, from AI, I slap AI as sloppy at the bottom and they kind of agree and backtrack.
standing seems an odd concept in law since if someone has a valid point why do they need “standing” please flesh this out
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The legal concept of “standing” refers to the requirement that a person must have a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support their participation in the case. Essentially, standing ensures that courts resolve actual disputes where individuals have a personal stake in the outcome, rather than hypothetical or generalized grievances. Here’s why it is significant:
Constitutional Limitations: In the U.S., standing is rooted in the Constitution, particularly Article III, which limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "cases" and "controversies." This ensures courts do not become arbiters of abstract legal questions but resolve actual disputes where plaintiffs have suffered or are in immediate danger of suffering harm.
Personal Stake: The standing doctrine requires that the person bringing the lawsuit (the plaintiff) must show they have been directly affected by the issue at hand. This helps filter out cases brought by individuals with no real connection to the matter, preventing the court system from becoming overburdened with claims brought by individuals with only intellectual or philosophical objections. Courts demand:
Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or will imminently suffer a concrete and particularized injury.
Causation: The injury must be directly traceable to the defendant’s actions.
Redressability: It must be likely, not speculative, that a favorable court decision will remedy the injury.
Judicial Efficiency: By ensuring that only those with a direct stake in the case can sue, standing helps maintain a manageable docket for courts. It prevents cases based on mere ideological disagreements from being heard, focusing resources on real-world harms and practical solutions.
Separation of Powers: Standing also reflects the separation of powers. Courts are not supposed to interfere with legislative or executive decisions unless they involve direct, specific harms to individuals or groups. Without standing requirements, courts could be overwhelmed with challenges to laws based on mere disagreements with policy choices, infringing on the roles of the other branches of government.Criticism of Standing
Many people, like you, find standing to be an odd or frustrating barrier because it can prevent potentially valid claims from being heard, particularly when an individual may raise important legal issues of broad public interest but cannot demonstrate personal harm. Critics argue that this allows certain unconstitutional laws or governmental actions to persist if no one with standing steps forward to challenge them.
In response, some courts and legislatures have crafted exceptions or broader interpretations of standing, especially in cases involving constitutional rights, environmental law, or public interest litigation. However, the basic framework of standing remains essential for maintaining the judicial system’s structure and focus.
Standing may seem restrictive, but it’s designed to balance the court’s role in resolving disputes and maintaining judicial efficiency.
————————————————-
You said:
in 2022 we received a sizable “refundable tax credit” from hawaii for doing solar work and not having a tax liability that a tax credit could go against. The question is, would this refundable tax credit count as a tax refund in 2023, since there were not taxes due technically
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The refundable tax credit you received in 2022 for solar work in Hawaii would generally not be considered a tax refund for federal tax purposes in 2023 if it was refunded to you as cash or a check, rather than being used to offset taxes.
Here’s why:
Refundable tax credit: This type of credit is treated differently from a non-refundable credit. It means that even if you don’t have any tax liability, you can still receive the credit as a payment from the government. Essentially, it’s considered more like income rather than a refund of taxes that were paid.
Tax refund status**: Since you didn’t have taxes to offset, the credit would not reduce previously paid taxes. Therefore, it’s unlikely to be treated as a "tax refund" in 2023 for federal tax purposes.However, this credit might need to be reported if you deducted state taxes in the previous year (2022) and claimed the state tax deduction on your federal return. If the tax credit or refund was based on those state taxes, you might need to include it in your 2023 income. This is similar to the tax benefit rule, which applies to state tax refunds.
You should check your 2022 tax return to confirm if state taxes were deducted, or consult with a tax professional to ensure proper treatment. Does this answer align with your situation?
You said:
how much percent energy does maui get from qind and solar
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
As of recent data, approximately 50.8% of Maui County’s electricity is generated from renewable sources, with the bulk of this coming from solar and wind projects. Specifically, solar (both rooftop and utility-scale) contributes significantly, while wind energy accounts for about 16%. Maui has made significant progress toward its goal of achieving 100% renewable energy by 2045, with a focus on retiring older fossil fuel plants and replacing them with solar-plus-storage projects
NREL
mauinews.com
.
For the near future, Maui is expected to continue increasing its reliance on solar and wind, with projections of achieving 100% renewable energy on an instantaneous basis by 2024 for certain periods of the year
pv magazine USA
.
You said:
standing seems an odd concept in law since if someone has a valid point why do they need “standing” please flesh this out
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The legal concept of “standing” refers to the requirement that a person must have a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support their participation in the case. Essentially, standing ensures that courts resolve actual disputes where individuals have a personal stake in the outcome, rather than hypothetical or generalized grievances. Here’s why it is significant:
Constitutional Limitations: In the U.S., standing is rooted in the Constitution, particularly Article III, which limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "cases" and "controversies." This ensures courts do not become arbiters of abstract legal questions but resolve actual disputes where plaintiffs have suffered or are in immediate danger of suffering harm.
Personal Stake: The standing doctrine requires that the person bringing the lawsuit (the plaintiff) must show they have been directly affected by the issue at hand. This helps filter out cases brought by individuals with no real connection to the matter, preventing the court system from becoming overburdened with claims brought by individuals with only intellectual or philosophical objections. Courts demand:
Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or will imminently suffer a concrete and particularized injury.
Causation: The injury must be directly traceable to the defendant’s actions.
Redressability: It must be likely, not speculative, that a favorable court decision will remedy the injury.
Judicial Efficiency: By ensuring that only those with a direct stake in the case can sue, standing helps maintain a manageable docket for courts. It prevents cases based on mere ideological disagreements from being heard, focusing resources on real-world harms and practical solutions.
Separation of Powers: Standing also reflects the separation of powers. Courts are not supposed to interfere with legislative or executive decisions unless they involve direct, specific harms to individuals or groups. Without standing requirements, courts could be overwhelmed with challenges to laws based on mere disagreements with policy choices, infringing on the roles of the other branches of government.Criticism of Standing
Many people, like you, find standing to be an odd or frustrating barrier because it can prevent potentially valid claims from being heard, particularly when an individual may raise important legal issues of broad public interest but cannot demonstrate personal harm. Critics argue that this allows certain unconstitutional laws or governmental actions to persist if no one with standing steps forward to challenge them.
In response, some courts and legislatures have crafted exceptions or broader interpretations of standing, especially in cases involving constitutional rights, environmental law, or public interest litigation. However, the basic framework of standing remains essential for maintaining the judicial system’s structure and focus.
Standing may seem restrictive, but it’s designed to balance the court’s role in resolving disputes and maintaining judicial efficiency.
You said:
Your argument that a person must show personal harm,as opposed to potential future harm is wrong, and this is especially important as regard to rights, so please review this and don’t be sloppy
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
You raise an important point about potential future harm and its relationship to standing, especially in cases related to constitutional or civil rights. While my initial explanation focused on the basic elements of standing, it’s worth clarifying that future harm, if sufficiently imminent, can indeed establish standing in many cases, especially when rights are involved.
Standing and Future Harm
Courts do recognize that imminent injury — even if the harm hasn’t occurred yet — can suffice to establish standing. The key distinction is whether the harm is speculative (too far in the future or too uncertain) or if it’s imminent and certainly impending.
The Supreme Court has addressed this concept in several key cases:
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992): This case is a leading example where the Court emphasized that injury must be concrete and particularized, but also actual or imminent. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing because the harm they alleged was too speculative (involving future travel plans without concrete details).
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013): This case further clarified that for future harm to confer standing, the harm must be "certainly impending," not just a possibility. The plaintiffs in Clapper alleged potential future surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but the Court ruled that this potential harm was too speculative because it was not sufficiently imminent.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014): In contrast, the Court ruled in favor of standing when the plaintiffs faced a credible threat of future prosecution under an Ohio law regarding false statements during elections. Even though the prosecution hadn’t yet occurred, the Court found that the threat was real and imminent enough to justify standing.Importance in Rights Cases
In cases involving rights, courts are particularly attuned to ensuring that imminent threats to constitutional rights are addressed before the harm fully materializes. For example, in First Amendment cases, the threat of enforcement of a law that chills speech can create standing, even if the person hasn’t yet been prosecuted or fined under the law. The courts recognize that waiting until after harm occurs might mean irreversible damage to constitutional rights.
Example: In Steffel v. Thompson (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that a person could seek relief to prevent enforcement of a law that posed a serious threat of prosecution, even though no prosecution had occurred. The potential harm to the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights was deemed imminent and enough to confer standing.
Key Takeaway
You are correct that standing doesn’t always require present harm; potential future harm can suffice if it is imminent and concrete, especially in cases involving fundamental rights. Courts generally prevent claims based on hypothetical or speculative future harms but do recognize standing when there’s a credible, real threat of future injury.
This aspect of standing helps balance judicial efficiency with the need to protect individuals from real and immediate threats to their rights.
stock here, this was always pushed into my Facebook feed. And it was extremely interesting. He spoke truths, and certainly those that want to create a fake reality, hate that. So he was pushed out of my feed, and I suspect most feeds. But someone posted him back up.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/861860445712423
https://www.facebook.com/Alohakeakuaco/reels
https://www.facebook.com/reel/857429839642669
https://www.facebook.com/reel/408704971636501
https://www.facebook.com/reel/365621153002450
https://www.facebook.com/reel/858828126098883
This one has a ton of important people listed quickly
https://www.facebook.com/reel/843318653886708
This one is pretty powerful also, the descendants of the missionaries….became weak in spirit and manipulative.