It seems like that it is all contracts managed by the the Office of Industry Partnerships, within DHS's Science and Technology Directorate, which exists, per its website, to "engage industry and facilitate partnerships with private sector innovators to advance commercial technology solutions that address homeland security challenges."

This is consistent with the explorer having a drop down filter for "Program" with options exactly matching three of the four programs listed as OIP programs o their webpage, excluding "Targeted Broad Agency Announcements”, which from the description OIP participates in but are specifically for some other particular DHS component (which, might handles the actual contracting, which would explain why the data wasn't in the OIP leak, OTOH, the list of current opportunities in that category on the web is empty, so its possible that it is a category that exists in theory but is not actively being used currently.)

This is very much not all DHS contracts, and even the claim that it is "ICE/DHS" contracts seems mostly misleading clickbait trading on the degree of attention to and awareness of ICE even though these contracts are through and for a non-ICE component of DHS.

> Clearance is fundamentally discretionary, though; it's a risk assessment. I don't think you have even a due process right to it.

Security clearance is subject to due process protections (at least, insofar as it is a component of government hiring and continuation of employment), because government employment is subject to due process protections and the courts have not allowed security clearance requirements to be an end-run around that.

> The executive branch asserts that there is such a zone. But the truth is likely that many, if not all, 4th Amendment rights still apply in many situations within that zone.

Technically, the entire fourth amendment applies. BUT All the fourth amendment requires is probable cause for warrants, and that searches and seizures be reasonable. It doesn't require warrants for searches or seizures (although courts have found that that is usually necessary for reasonableness), and it doesn't require probable cause for searches or seizures without a warrant (though courts have found that that also is usually necessary for reasonableness.)

What the courts have allowed is the use of the border zone to justify exceptions to a lot of the things that are usually required for reasonableness. This isn't, technically, an exception to the Fourth Amendment, because searches still need to be "reasonable". Its just proximity to the border makes searches "reasonable" that wouldn't be anywhere else.

> He was acquitted of assault, but he admitted on camera to a violation of 18 USC 111.

In this specific case we are discussing, he actually was charged with (and acquitted of) a violation of the provision you reference 18 USC § 111, which is a misdemeanor when done by simple assault [0], after the US Attorney failed to convince a grand jury to indict for a felony violation.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111

I don’t see anything that looks remotely like a normative argument about what browsers should or should not do anywhere in my post that you are responding to, did you perhaps mean to respond to some other post?

My point was that the decision to remove XSLT support from browsers rather than replacing the insecure, unmaintained implementation with a secure, maintained implementation is an indicator opposed to the claim "XSLT isn’t going anywhere”. I am not arguing anything at all about what browser vendors should do.

> XSLT isn't going anywhere: hardwiring into the browser an implementation that's known to be insecure and is basically unmaintained is what's going away.

Not having it available from the browser really reduces the ability to use it in many cases, and lots of the nonbrowser XSLT ecosystem relies on the same insecure, unmaintained implementation. There is at least one major alternative (Saxon), and if browser support was switching backing implementation rather than just ending support, “XSLT isn’t going anywhere” would be a more natural conclusion, but that’s not, for whatever reason, the case.

> Provide numbers. Sanders, for instance, funded his proposed system by (among other things) taxing capital gains at the level of ordinary income.

Not tax penalizing non-capital income is sort of an essential reform in the era of increasing automation anyway; I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there. The average middle income family isn't making a substantial share of their income in forms taxed as long-term capital gains, so that seems...unrelated to the focus of your argument.

> I'm critical of the US system, but I have exactly the opposite diagnosis you do: my concern with the system is that, by the numbers, it appears to function by driving way too much spending on "actual" care.

It does both (particularly, in the “actual care” angle, as regards low-benefit, high-cost measures near the end of life.) We have a system based on denying and economically incentivizing younger people to avoid and defer care, but then doing much less of that with (most of) the elderly.

> Again, you can just do the math on this. You're making an argument about the macro costs of our system --- I think those costs are fucked, too. But I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about the actual experience of an ordinary middle-income family with private health insurance.

Yes, you can just do the math, and changing nothing about the US except transition to a European style universal system, the median family would face lower aggregate tax, out-of-paycheck, and out-of-pocket costs than they do now, with less health insecurity around unexpected events (either health or employment), unless the tax increases necessary were deliberately and perversely targeted to avoid that.

That’s a direct consequence of the difference in the macro-level costs: they aren’t separate, orthogonal concerns. People just have a hard time accepting that the US health care system is structurally constructed right now to waste vast hordes of money preventing people from accessing health care, but that’s exactly what it does.

> Yes, a challenge for major structural alterations to the American system is that the median American family is probably better off under this system than they would be under any of the European-style systems: the wage premium enjoyed by many Americans and the lower tax level offsets the cost of insurance and copays.

The US spends nearly as much in taxpayer funds as a share of GDP as other developed countries (and vastly more on a per capita basis), with even more in private costs on top of it. It is simply dishonest to say that the "wage premium enjoyed by many Americans and the lower tax level offsets the cost of insurance and copays", because neither the US wage premium nor any lower tax burden are attributable to differences in healthcare systems, but rather are in spite of the far greater burden of the US healthcare system.

OTOH, it is true that a major challenge is that people respond with this line to any proposed major structural changes to the US system.