Chris Johnson

Divination is the art of predicting the future or reading a person using some type of indicator.

Most people can do a cold read of a person and get it mostly right. Others do a much better job.

My personal example was being on a date with a young lady while at university. We had had a nice dinner and were sitting in the rose garden on campus, watching and listening to the water of the river.

I wasn’t pushing, being mostly stupid about females at the time, I was just talking and listening.

I stopped, and said, “I’m so sorry. I didn’t know you had been raped here.” The “guess” was right. I was able to observe her discomfort, and divine what was causing it. Was it magic? No. It was simply a logical result of analyzing the situation and her no verbal cues.

One of the methods that “readers” use to do divination is “reading the tea leaves.” Tea is poured into a teacup with loose tea. The person drinks the tea, leaving the leaves behind. The reader then looks into the cup and divines something about the person, often predicting what will happen to that person.

They read the non-verbal cues to do this, frequently without even understanding the cues they are reading.

The Supreme Court is mystical in how they decide what cases to hear. It is difficult to predict how they will decide given the questioning during oral arguments. Yet, we insist on trying to predict what they will do.

The information we have to work with is typically very limited. In this case, we are attempting to predict if they will grant certiorari in a Second Amendment case.

We have access to the case histories, we have access to the opinion pieces written by others, we have the briefs filed by the parties. We know what other cases are seeking certiorari. And we know cases that will be seeking certiorari.

And we have the orders issued by the Court.

The case which is furthest along appears to be Snope v Brown. It has been fully briefed, it was scheduled to be discussed yesterday.

Snope is an “assault weapon” ban.

Another Second Amendment case is Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island. It has been fully briefed, it was scheduled to be discussed yesterday.

Ocean State Tactical is a “large capacity magazine” ban.

Then there is the case of Gray v. Jennings. This is one of the interesting cases because it doesn’t ask the Court to decide a Second Amendment issue directly, instead, it asks how the inferior courts should address motions for a preliminary injunction.

In September 2024, the petitioner (good guys) filed a petition for writ of certiorari. They are asking the Court to clarify a Winter factor.

Winter factors are the four questions that must be answered before a preliminary injunction is granted, or a stay is granted.

The first question is, “Is the party likelihood of success on the merits of the case?” In other words, is the party requesting the injunction or stay likely to have the winning argument.

The second question is, “Is the party likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction/stay?” Losing money is not irreparable harm. Losing your life is. Losing your business? That might be something that can be fixed with lots of money.

The third question is, “Does the balance of equities and hardships tip in favor of the party seeking the injunction/stay?” If the hardship is trivial, then it does not justify an injunction or stay.

The fourth question is, “What is in the best interest of the public?”

In the past, the state has often won injunction’s and stays by getting the courts to modify the order of the factors. They claim it is in the public’s best interest, the court agrees, so never looks at the likelihood of success. Or the court finds that the party is likely to win on the merits, but no harm and no hardship is happening.

The Supreme Court not only set forth the “Winter Factors” but they later ordered that the factors be done in order. Success on the merits must always be done first.

In most civil rights cases, if the party is likely to succeed on the merits of the case, they are granted the preliminary injunction or stay. Having your constitutionally protected rights infringed is always irreparable harm. You will never again be able to speak at that moment.

The balance of equities always favors the protection of The People’s rights.

The public has no interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws.

The exception, of course, has always been Second Amendment cases. Many courts believe that there is no harm in denying The People their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Gray asks, “Is the infringement of Second Amendment [protected] rights per se irreparable injury?”

The Reading

Snope and Ocean State Tactical were both conferenced for December 13th. The state declined to respond to the petition in September/October by Gray. The case was scheduled for conference on November 8.

Five days after it was scheduled, the Court issued a demand for the state to respond.

This is tea leave one. If the Supreme Court is “requesting” a response, it means that they are looking at the case seriously. You get your response in.

The state delayed in responding, then asked for an extension. The extension was granted. The date for the state to respond was fixed at December 12th.

The response is the normal anti-gun garbage. They first claim that there is no circuit split. This is not a requirement, it is just an assumption. The Court will often let an issue simmer until there is a good case. The one place where they are more likely to step in, is if the interpretation of the law is different in different parts of the country.

Their second argument is that the plaintiffs (good guys) should have presented evidence that being unable to purchase guns and magazines was actual irreparable harm.

Finally, they argue that the Circuit court not only rejected their appeal regarding the denial of preliminary injunction on winter factor two, but on factors three and four.

Because the petitioners (good guys) are only challenging the second Winter factor, if it is a Second Amendment challenge, then it is irreparable harm. The reason is that the other two factors also favor the plaintiff, per current case law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court likely wants to discuss all three of these cases in the same conference. When we see these three cases distributed for conference on the same day, that will be a strong indication.

The Supreme Court can decide to combine the three cases, combine two and leave the third separate, or hear all three.

Of course, they could decide to hear none of them, this is highly unlikely.

This might be the most important case regarding the Second Amendment since Heller.

Kolbe v. Hogan

This case started when the Fourth Circuit Court issued their opinion in Kolbe v. Hogan. Fourteen judges sat, en banc to hear a challenge to Maryland’s “assault weapon ban”. Only four of the judges found that the Second Amendment protected the right of The People to acquire, posses, and use “assault weapons”.

Judge King wrote the opinion of the majority. They start with story telling.

You can always tell that an opinion will be a great legal work when the opinion starts with stories of events taking place, outside the legal system. In this case, they decide that the most professional way to start an opinion is by telling their version of the evil Bushmaster AR-15 type rifle that killed so many children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The entire reference to human autonomy is “a gunman” Everything else is the action of those evil “assault weapons”.

They go on to list other mass shootings, all done by evil black rifles.

Using the standard tap dance of the time, the lower court found that the law implicated the Second Amendment and then decided the government should win, so selected “intermediate scrutiny.”

A three judge merits panel of the Fourth Circuit split for The People, vacating the lower court’s rulings and telling them to “do it over, using strict scrutiny.”

The Fourth Circuit could let this stand, so the en banc vacated the merit panel’s opinion and heard the case.

The en banc Fourth Circuit then decided that the proper position wasn’t strict scrutiny, nor even intermediate scrutiny. No, they decided that “large capacity magazines” and “assault weapons” don’t even implicate the Second Amendment because they are “like” “M-16 rifles.”

Bianchi v. Frosh

This Second Amendment Challenge was started as one of the many cases attempting to get another Second Amendment case before the supreme court. It was a direct challenge to Kolbe.

As such, the case barely paused for a rubber stamp at the district level. The district court, correctly, ruled that they had to follow the superior court, the fourth circuit, and found for the defendants (bad guys).

The gist of the court’s opinion was: This question has been asked and answered by the circuit court. You lose.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal, as planned.

This went before a three judge merits panel. That panel did the same thing the district court did. “The en banc has been asked this question and they answered. You lose.”

On December 20, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. At that point, this became one of a half dozen Second Amendment cases waiting for a writ of certiorari.

In the end, the Supreme Court chose to hear New York Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen.

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion in Bruen and it was powerful.

On Aug 1st, 2022, certiorari was granted in Bianchi. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case to “do it right”.

Moving at lighting speed, the Fourth Circuit merit’s panel scheduled and heard the case on Dec. 6th, 2022.

And then nothing. For over a year, nothing.

Then on January 12th, 2024, the Fourth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc. Nobody had requested a rehearing, the Fourth just decided to yank it from the merits panel’s hands before they could issue their opinion.

Reading between the lines and often on the lines, it was clear that the merits panel was going to issue an opinion favorable to The People. The dissenting judge refused to provide the dissenting opinion, keeping the opinion from being published.

The en banc Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments on March 20th, 2024.

The plaintiffs filed another petition for writ of certiorari, but it was denied because the case was still in an interlocutory state.

In a surprising move, the Fourth Circuit published their opinion in only 5 months. It was as bad as we expected.

The majority opinion with respectful consideration and benefit of Bruen” upheld their original judgement. They found that they had done it right in Kolbe and that “assault weapons” are outside the ambit of protection of the Second Amendment.

Snope v. Brown

This case has been going on for so long that the AG of Maryland has changed, and might change again before this case is heard. The original lead plaintiff has left the state of Maryland, making David Snope the lead plaintiff.

The petition for writ of certiorari was filed August 21st, 2024.

The state, waited to the last minute, then filed a motion to extend the time to respond. This should have been a no-brainer. They knew this case was going to be appealed. This is just the state intentionally stalling.

By September 23rd, all the plaintiff and amicus curiae supporting the plaintiff had been filed. Not a single filing by the state.

On October 9th, the state requested another 30 days. This was limited to just two extra weeks. This is a big win for The People.

The Supreme Court is now in the 2024 term. This runs from August 2024 through June 2025. All briefings and arguments need to be completed in time for the court to come to a decision and write their opinions before the end of the term.

This means that any case that will be heard in the 2024 term must be granted cert. before the end of January. With final briefings filed by November 12th, the case is conferenced for December 13th. If the state had gotten a 30-day extension, the case might not have been conferenced until mid-January, pushing oral arguments into the 2025 Term.

Remember, this was before the election. The state was hoping that they could push the case into the next presidential term and hope for a more favorable to the state Supreme Court.

In every case before the Supreme Court, the most important part is making sure the question presented is representative and will focus the opinion correctly.

Here is how the state put the question:

Wow, that is difficult to parse. I think it might be a question, there is a question mark at the end of the paragraph.

Translation:

1. Is Maryland’s assault weapon ban consistent with Heller?
2. Did the Fourth Circuit faithfully apply Bruen?
3. Is there a need to resolve a conflict among the lower courts?

I was once a teaching assistant for a computer science professor. His examines were horrible. He thought I was there to proctor the exam. Instead, I took the exam. Scored my answers against the answer sheet outside in the hall. Then told him which questions he would be throwing out as bad questions.

He loved to add negatives to his questions. I can’t even write a question the way he did. It wasn’t uncommon for one of his multiple choice questions to have four or more negatives in it. I taught the students to count the number of negatives. If it was an odd number, then it is a true negative. If it was an even number, then it was a positive.

This increased the grades of all the students significantly.

As normal, the next lecture was students challenging questions on the exam. After the second challenge, he took my list, read it to the class stating, “These are the questions that Chris said to remove. I’m going to remove them.”

He gained 75% of the lecture time back. After the next exam, he didn’t even let the challenges start. He read the list of questions that were being tossed.

This “question” reminds me of attempting to decode Dr. Reed’s exam questions.

Compare the state’s convoluted “question” with the plaintiff’s question:

Hmm, that is much easier to parse.

Conclusion

We should know by mid-January if this case is granted cert. If it is, you can expect all the usual suspects to jump in with amici curiae briefs. Some will be fun reading, most will be emotional blackmail.

In 2017, Mr. Wilson was arrested for trespass. When searched, it was discovered he had a firearm on him. He did not have a license to carry.

His case was heard in the lower courts of Hawaii, later it was appealed to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.

There, the court found that because he had not attempted to get a carry license, he could not claim a Second Amendment defense. They then took multiple nasty shots at the Supreme Court of the United States and in the Bruen opinion.

Mr. Wilson then filed a petition for writ of certiorari. On the 9th of December, that petition was denied.

Justice Thomas wrote respecting the denial of certiorari. Justice Alito joined him. Justice Gorsuch also wrote a statement.

No justice wrote to say they would have granted cert. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all agreed that cert. should be denied.

Oh my, the Hawaii Supreme Court was spanked, hard.

The Second Amendment litigators were also chastised. Thomas et al. have stated clearly, “We are not going to grant certiorari on cases that are still in an interlocutory posture.”

As a Second Amendment litigator, stop appealing during the interlocutory phase. If you win, great. You can find in the appeals. If you are going to lose, lose as quickly as possible, then appeal.

Appealing TROs and preliminary injunctions just delays getting a win. I’m not even sure it is worth asking for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Again, it is just a delay.

In the jurisdictions where these battles are being fought, the appeals courts are not on our side. If you request a TRO and it is not granted, the appeal to the circuit court will lose, but it will add months of time to the process, and it increases the costs as well.

If you request a TRO, and it is granted, the state is going to appeal. Having appealed, the circuit court will stay the TRO, the case then will be scheduled for oral arguments months later.

We are much better off moving to final judgement as quickly as possible.

For your Christmas pleasure:

Originally from Neptune’s Daughter.

My first fiber switch turned out to be a L3 managed “switch”. Way cool. But I purchased a cheap switch and found that it completely undocumented.

It has taken me a while to figure things out.

The configuration GUI is an What You See Is All You Get type. There is enough there that you can get the switch up and running, but not enough to fully configure the L3 Switch.

To accomplish that, you need to use the CLI. Not a problem, I like CLI’s.

Of course, there is no documentation but for tab completion and very limited help screens.

I get it mostly working.

After playing with the Free Range Routing Suite (FRR) for a while and getting OSPF working on all of my hosts and the primary router, I was feeling pretty confident.

It seems that FRR took their configuration model almost directly from Cisco’s CLI. The number of times I used a Cisco help page to determine how to configure an OSPF setting is remarkable.

The new L3 switch turns out to have a Cisco like configuration language. And what isn’t Cisco like, is FRR like. Neither Cisco nor FRR, but close.

Today I had a tremendous success, I moved a ceph host from the physical network to the OVN network.

This included moving that segment of the network to a new subnet. And everything sort of worked.

The issue turned out to be a routing issue.

The correct answer is to turn on OSPF within the new physical router. It does support it, after all.

Having played with the damn thing for a few hours, breaking my network multiple times, I was about to give up when I happened to notice a strange value for a setting.

That setting? MTU, of course.

Even though every interface shows an MTU of 9000. Even though jumbo frames are turned on and using a 9000 byte frame.

Even though an MTU of 9000 is very much supported, the MTU of the “VLAN” was set to 1500.

Now, Cisco VLANs are not the same as a tagged VLAN. A tagged VLAN acts like a separate physical network. They are where you place interface settings. These VLANs can then be assigned to a physical port.

The physical port’s MTU overrides the VLAN MTU. This means my jumbo packets from host to host work.

The problem is that the VLAN MTU is maxed out at 2000 bytes. This seems to only affect the OSPF traffic and not the physical interface. But I’m dead in the water or I need to figure out how to do this differently.

Still, I didn’t pay an arm plus a leg for this physical router. I’ll get it to work.

In general, people are idiots. In groups, they have a combined IQ of less than 70 and the common sense of a three year old.

Daniel Penny is a US Marine who stepped up and protected the people on the subway. He held a homeless, violent, man until the man could be arrested.

He was then interrogated for hours without a lawyer because the police interrogating him established a relationship, by being an ex-marine.

It is often said that there is no such thing as an ex-marine or a former marine. You are a marine for life. There are exceptions, the cop who interrogated Daniel Penny is an ex-marine.

Having charged and arrested this hero, they are now trying to screw him over, yet again.

Prosecutors have wide latitude in what they charge. One of the standard tricks is to bring multiple charges for the same crime, over charging at least one.

Humans like to think they are being fair and reasonable. One of the oldest and most famous instances of this is when a man was taken before a Roman Governor to be “sentenced” for claiming to be a king above Caesar.

The Governor refused to kill the man, instead sentencing him to be whipped. Even though I’ve found nothing wrong with him, he still had the man flogged. When the mob insisted he be put to death, the Governor replied, I told you — he’s not guilty! I find no reason to condemn him..

The complete tale can be found in John 19:1-25.

In other words, to appease people, an innocent man was flogged.

Prosecutors overcharge in expectations that the jury will often find the accused not guilty of the most serious charge, but to appease the prosecutor, will find the accused guilty of the lesser charge.

They can go home, secure in the knowledge that they didn’t sentence a man to 20-life but only 5 to 10. (made up numbers).

Not really internalizing that 5 to 10 is still too much for an innocent person.

The Jury deadlocked. Some members of the jury found that Daniel was not guilty of second-degree manslaughter, some insisting that he was. When they reported a deadlock, the judge charged them to work harder.

The prosecutor then did Daniel a dirty. He requested that the second-degree manslaughter charge be dismissed.

Why is this dirty pool?

If the Judge accepts the motion to dismiss the second-degree manslaughter charge, then the deadlock goes away. If the deadlock goes away, then the jury will have to deliberate over the second charge of criminally negligent homicide.

Human nature will make it easier for the jury to return a guilty verdict on the lessor charge.

The judge should have declared a mistrial. Instead, he accepted the motion to dismiss. He released the jury until Monday.

On Monday, they will start deliberation on the second charge.

I hope that they deadlock on the second charge as well.

One of the ways the left “wins” arguments is by changing the meaning of the words they use.

So, what is healthcare?

Healthcare is anything that is caring for your health. That is the skills of a doctor or health professional. The medications you might take for high blood pressure or pain. It is setting a bone or removing a tumor.

Healthcare is about your mental and physical health. Everything from a band-aid to a heart transplant, and everything in between, is health care.

What is access to healthcare?

This is about your ability to get healthcare.

If you are in a vehicle accident, they pick you up, carry you to the hospital, and take care of your injuries. That is access to healthcare.

You are having trouble breathing, walk into the emergency room, they put you on a nebulizer, admit you, and take care of you until you can walk out the door. That is access to healthcare.

You cut your toenail too short, and it becomes an ingrown toenail, badly infected. You walk into the urgent care, and they take half your toenail off and write you a prescription for an anti-biotic. That is access to healthcare.

You think you have a sinus infection, you call your doctor’s office. They schedule you to see your doctor or another later that day. That is access to health care.

Your doctor thinks a skin growth might be cancerous. He refers you to the dermatologist, two weeks later, you are seen, and a biopsy is taken, tested, the results are back to you and your doctor 15 days after first being seen by your doctor.

Being able to get a doctor is part of access to healthcare. So is the ability to get medical tests done in a timely fashion.

In Montreal, CA in 2021, it took 862 days, on average, before you were assigned a family doctor.

As of 2042, on Friday, most of the hospitals emergency rooms in Montreal are over capacity. Most of the over capacity hospitals have had patients on stretchers for over 24 hours, some for over 48 hours. They don’t even bother to give wait times.

A different website gives wait times ranging from just over an hour to more than 6 hours.

The website I found with wait times for US hospitals shows about the same for Boston hospitals. But, a data point that I have is that my local hospital has a listed wait time of 2.2 hours. My personal experience at that hospital is that wait times are generally much less than that. You are normally seen by a triage nurse within a few minutes of arriving.

You can have good healthcare, good access to healthcare, or some mixture of the two.

In the United States, no person can be turned away from an ER because of their ability to pay.

Paying for Healthcare

Paying for healthcare is where things start to get very complex. When a friend came down to visit from Canada, she was horrified with how medical payments were done, here in the states. On the other hand, when she got sick, she was seen by a doctor within 15 minutes of arriving at an urgent care facility. She left with antibiotics, in hand. She had paid in full for her medical service, around $100.

She agreed that her access to healthcare, in the states, was better than it was in Canada. She felt that the quality of her healthcare was better in the states, and she was surprised at how little it cost.

The first issue with healthcare, is that you have no ability to shop for services. Until recently, with the creation of boutique medial services, you didn’t know how much accessing your doctor was going to cost.

I had a slow leak in the rim/wheel of the truck. Not an issue, every other week I gave it another shot of air.

It finally decided to become a fast leak. I called my guy, asked how much to move the current tire to a new rim. He told me. I ordered a new wheel, took it and the truck to him.

At the end of the morning, my truck had a new rim and the cost was within $5 of what he quoted me. The difference being a choice to replace the valve stem.

I came out of my doctor’s office, asked what the cost was. Paid in full. Then three weeks later, gotten a bill for more because they hadn’t coded the office visit correctly. They ate that extra after I made complaints to the administration.

If we agree I have paid, in full, then they don’t get to change the bill later.

Regardless, there is no real way to find out the prices of different procedures, ahead of time.

The next issue with healthcare costs is that the person paying for the procedures/visits is not the person who is getting the procedure. There is no reason for you to shop around when somebody else is going to pay. You will always choose the best quality you can find.

So what about payments?

You can pay at the point of service, or you can pre-pay.

“Point of service” is paying when the service is performed. If you go in to have your car serviced, you are expected to pay for that service before you leave. That is payment at the point of service.

The few times when some vendor or service person has said, “I know you, you’re good for it, come back tomorrow and pay.” has been so few and far between, it sticks in my mind.

My barber only takes cash, no cards. I didn’t know that when I sat down. It got done, found out that I didn’t have enough cash, left my lady as collateral, went and got more cash. I got my lady out of hock and called it a day.

Most healthcare is billed out after service, but is still considered payment at the point of service.

Pre-payment for medical services is when you pay something now for services you might need later.

In America, that is done with insurance. You purchase insurance to cover your healthcare costs.

Originally, health insurance was designed to cover unusual health events. You broke your leg, insurance covered it. You required your appendix removed, insurance covered it. You require a hip replacement, insurance covered it.

If you require an annual physical, insurance doesn’t cover it. Most of the maintenance costs of healthcare were paid out of pocket, not with insurance.

The government broke this model.

The benefits your employer gives you are part of your total compensation package. Only some of those benefits are taxable. One of the things that is not taxed, is your healthcare costs. Nor the amount your employer pays towards your healthcare insurance.

Consider the following, you are offered $50,000/year. You pay $13,000 in health insurance per year. That leaves $37,000. The government takes 30% of that, leaving you $25,900.

A different firm offers you $45,000 per year with matching insurance payments. This means that you will be paying $6,500 in insurance and the company will pay $6,500 for a total of $13,000. Your taxable income is $38,500. The government still takes 30%, leaving you with $26,950.

By taking a lower salary $5000 less, you get to take home just over a $1000 more. Not bad.

These tax games actually changed the face of medical insurance. For healthy, young people, this equation wasn’t as persuasive. So “insurance” started to cover healthcare maintenance. This drastically increased the cost of insurance.

Whereas, before, the insurance company could play the odds, taking money from everybody, knowing they would only have to pay a few, the new model required them to collect money and pay money for everybody.

A healthy 25-year-old didn’t cost the insurance company anything, on average. But now that maintenance is included, even the 25-year-old costs money. All of that had to be paid for.

The other place where the government interferes with insurance pricing, is in boundary limits.

There are places in this country where the side of the street you live on changes the cost of your medical insurance.

While you might think you have “Blue Cross/Blue Shield” insurance, I can promise you that you do not.

If you look at your insurance card, you will find that you have “Blue Cross/Blue Shield of STATE”. This is because medical insurance companies can only offer medical insurance in their state.

This means that there are 50 different Blue Cross/Blue shield insurance companies. Are they inter related? Yes. It is a legal fiction that keeps them separate.

In addition to the visible insurance costs, there are other hidden insurance costs. The federal government of the US takes a part of your income and uses it to fund Medicare and Medicaid.

When people talk about “free healthcare” in the UK or Canada, they are lying. There is no free healthcare in any country.

It is free at the point of service. The citizens of those countries pay for their healthcare via taxes.

The NHS of the UK spent $231.6 Billion on health services in the 2022/2023 budget year. This is out of a budget of $1,551 Billion. The NHS budget was 15% of the total budget.

This puts the price, per person, at about $3,400, or $13,600 per family of 4. Just about the same as the pre-Obamacare cost for family insurance in the United States.

The point is that healthcare in the UK is NOT free.

What they mean by “healthcare”

The left conflates healthcare with paying for healthcare. In the process, we have created a situation where healthcare costs more for most people. Access to healthcare has gone down. And the quality of healthcare seems to be slipping.

But, the left yells that more people have access to healthcare than ever before.

They didn’t really get more access, they just changed how much they pay for healthcare and who pays for healthcare.

I’m reminded of a show I watched a few years ago.

In the show, the couple set out to find out if they could live as a couple at menial labor.

He got a job, but I do not believe she did. His job did not have healthcare benefits. He was working at nearly minimum wage.

She was prone to getting UTIs. About 6 months into this experiment, she came down with what she knew was a UTI.

So they went to the ER to get treated. They ended up with a bill in the thousands.

They held this up as a reason people can’t live on such low wages.

They cheated for their story. First, she could have gotten a job. If they were as good as he said they were, they should have been able to work their way out of that starting wage/position. They didn’t.

Second, the cost of an ER visit is pretty high. The cost of an urgent care visit is much lower. My last urgent care visit included minor surgery. My total cost, before insurance, was less than $200.

The cost of diagnosing a UTI and prescribing an antibiotic is around $100. There are telehealth options available today that are even cheaper.

By making a shitty decision, they cost themselves over $1500 in medical bills, which could have been less than $125.

Conclusion

Make sure you hold them to using the right terms. Don’t let them redefine words to confuse and conflate the different issues at play.

In the shadowed depths of night, where silence reigns,
A network, once vibrant, now fades in gloom,
Its circuits, dead, like spectral, ghostly chains,
No longer does it herald or consume.

Oh, how the whispers of the web did cease,
The humming ceased, the lights went dark, then cold,
In digital demise, there found no peace,
But tales of loss and legends yet untold.

The servers, once alive with fervent quest,
Now rest in mute, an eerie, silent crypt,
Where bytes and bits, in deathly dirge, do rest,
And all connection to the world is stripped.

Thus, in this void, where once the data flowed,
The network fails, and in its death, is silent.

— Grok 2

In 1983, CCITT and ISO merged their network definition to create The Basic Reference Model for Open Systems Interconnection.

This is the “famous” seven layer model. Which works for ISO standards but is a poor match for the Internet.

The three layers we are interested in are:

1. Physical layer
2. Data link layer
3. Network layer

1 Physical Layer

The physical layer defines the electrical, mechanical, and procedural interface to the transmission medium. WTF?

Ok, let’s look at this in terms of some real examples. If you have a computer that is more than a few years old, it will have a network connection in it or a port that a network connection can be attached to.

The most common mechanical connection, the socket and connector, is the RJ-45. This is the thing that looks like a big telephone connector. Oh yeah, many of the youngsters don’t remember every plugging a phone into the wall.

This connector consists of 8 connectors. The location and form of these connectors defines part of the mechanical system.

The other part is that those 8 connectors are attached to four pairs of wires. The pairs of wire are twisted and bundled into a single cable. Each of the 8 wires are numbered, and the mechanical definition of the RJ-45 defines which wires are attached to which connector, at both ends.

When I say “numbered”, the physical reality is that the wires are color coded.

The electrical definition defines which wires are used for transmitting and which are used for receiving. It defines if the signals are ground referenced or differences between two wires.

Everything about how to connect the physical devices and how to transmit a signal are specified at Layer 1, the physical layer.

2 Data Link Layer

This layer defines how data is transmitted over the L1 physical network. It defines what how to use the physical layer.

For example, Frame Relay is a data link protocol for connecting distant devices. Each Protocol Data Unit (PDU), consists of a flag field, an address field, an information field, and a frame check sequence, or checksum field.

The information field contains the actual data (information) that is being transmitted.

The Frame Relay standard states that the information field must be at least 262 octets (bytes) and recommends that it support at least 1600 octets.

It is important to note that a length of 262 cannot be (easily) expressed in a single byte. This means that the length field must be at least 2 bytes wide.

While Frame Relay is still in use, today, it is not as common as it used to be. There are better options.

A much more common L2 protocol is Ethernet. This is called a Frame. The Frame consists of a preamble, start frame delimiter, destination address, src address, tag (or zeros), type or length, payload, CRC and a gap.

As originally defined, an Ethernet packet had a maximum length of 1500 octets.

Packet Size

In networking, we talk about sending a packet. A packet is a more generic term for “frame”. We have packets at the data link layer and at the network layer.

Every packet contains enough information to identify the source and destination of the packet, the length of the packet, and the payload. There will often be a header to identify more about the type of the packet.

As a packet moves through a network, it might be “fragmented” as it passes through a network segment which has an MTU smaller than the packet size.

There must be enough information to reconstruct the packet, even when the packet has become fragmented.

Fragmenting is something we want to avoid, if possible.

To that end, a part of the connection process is to discover the MTU for each device.

Consider a simple network segment. A network segment is a piece of the network that is connected at L2.

We have devices A and B. Device A is using a fiber physical layer and device B is using a copper physical layer. B is attached to switch 2, switch 2 is connected to switch 1, and switch 1 is connected to device A.

If all four devices are using old style Ethernet frames, then the MTU will default to 1500. A simple database backup is 3.3 GB. This means we will have to transmit at least 2,305,845 packets.

This requires each device to handle 2.3 million interrupts.

On the other hand, if we were to use jumbo packets, then we reduce this to around 384,307 packets. This is a huge savings in load on the network segment.

The two switches, as L2 devices, are going to either be store and forward switches, or simple hubs. Nobody uses hubs anymore. So they must be switches.

Each switch receives the packet, storing it, then transmits that packet on a different port.

The switch must be able to store the complete packet/frame. If it can not, it will drop the packet.

When designing your network, you want to make sure that all the switches on the network support the largest MTU you might be using.

Devices A and B will discover what their MTUs are. The smaller will rule. The switches, on the other hand, are transparent. They do not get a say in the MTU discovery.

What this means, is that you can have devices on the network that respond to simple testing, such as sending pings, but which fail for larger packets.

Conclusion of Rant

I accidentally purchased a switch (L2) when I was intending to purchase a router (L3).

This should not have been an issue. I intended to use some switches, regardless.

The specifications look good. MTU is documented as 12000.

I plug everything together and start testing. My first network test is always “ping”. If ping isn’t working, nothing else will work well enough.

That worked perfectly.

Then I attempted to login to the remote site using SSH. This silently failed, before timing out with destination unreachable.

Ping works, SSH doesn’t?

This makes no sense.

Until I found it. SSH does a key exchange with my RSA public key. The key size is 1679 bytes. This is larger than the supported MTU of switch 2 at 1500.

The network fails, silently.

So I have email out to the manufacturer, hoping for a positive response.

I wish this were easy. It isn’t.

At issue is the number of people claiming that Donald Trump is a convicted felon.

Like most things legal, the answer is never simple. The reason is that many laws have internal definitions that do not match the definitions in other parts of the law. And there is the use of the common vernacular.

First, the common vernacular, and the language used by the court, is that a person is convicted when they have been adjudicated guilty. This is when the jury returns a guilty verdict or a judge, in a bench trial, finds a person guilty. This also applies to certain pleadings of the defendant, such as a pleading of guilty or nolo contendere plea.

By this definition, Hunter Biden and Donald Trump are both convicted felons.

Second, in some places in the U.S.C., they define “convicted” to mean when found guilty, when sentenced, or both. 41 USC § 8101(a)(3) uses this definition. Chapter 81 of 41 USC is the chapter on a drug-free workplace.

In other words, the definition of convicted, when talking about a drug-free workplace, uses the “when found guilty”.

The Kicker

The Criminal Resource Manual (CRM) has the following:

So what does this mean?

In my NON-lawyer opinion? Donald Trump is a convicted felon who is seeking reversal on appeal. Until he is sentenced, he is not convicted per international law.

In addition, the judgement is currently stayed, pending the outcome of the appeal.

Hunter Biden is a convicted felon who has been pardoned.