Let me share a passage from the dissent in a Supreme court case known as Plessy v Furguson. The majority of the court had just ruled that it was OK to force blacks to use seperate railcars from whites. Not only that, but it was OK for for the government to force railway companies to have such a rule. With this backdrop Justice Harlan spoke in dissent, arguing for true equality under the law. In the screed for justice, he wrote:

There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race. But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of the black race in Louisiana, many of whom, perhaps, risked their lives for the preservation of the Union, who are entitled, by law, to participate in the political control of the State and nation, who are not excluded, by law or by reason of their race, from public stations of any kind, and who have all the legal rights that belong to white citizens, are yet declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach occupied by citizens of the white race.

Thats right folks. There was a period of us history where even your pro equality arguments were steeped in racism

More to the point. Even if you (for some reason) set asside the hole issue of slavery; there is still the whole Jim Crow era, where we litterally codified rasism into law.

I can’t see how option 3 happens. Different states have ruled in different ways; and this is a very important mattered. I can’t imagine any Supreme Court declining to hear this case; let alone a Supreme Court that is as obsessed with judicial supremecy as this one is.

In the days after after 10/7, we heard Israeli diplomats talk about how it was their 9/11. On the one hand, I get the comparison and how it explains the shock 10/7 has had on the Israeli phsyce. On the other hand, I get the 9/11 comparison and how it explains the emotional response of launching an impossible military canpaign that will result in a generation defining 20 year quagmire.

Seriously. Any time someone uses a 9/11 comparison to justify Israel’s response, the immediate followup should be “how did the American response work out”?

It depends on how the blur is done. A lot of the simple blurring teqniques have publicly available tools for reversing. If you need to hide information by blurring, make sure the blur you are using was designed with that in mind (as opposed to being an artsy feature)

Those services are scams. At least in my state, the court’s website includes a boilerplate form to fill out free of charge.

Having said that, even if there is no dispute, if you have sizable co-mingled assets/liabilities (such as a house and mortgage, effectively comingled retirement savings, etc), you should probably still get professional help even if you agree in principle how to divide them.

Admit fault … in a private meating with the parties offended by the faulty statement. Will he give a national speach walking back the statement he made in a national speach?

This was not a mis speak. This was not a mistake. Biden made a political calculation for how to talk about the conflict. He is trying to appease both sides of the issue by changing his position depending on who he is talking to.

Calling a fetus a child makes as much sense as calling a bee a fish. Incidentally, bees are known to the state of California to be a type of fish (for the purpose of California’s endangered species act).

It is easier to expand an existing program than it is to create a new one.

One of the lessons I have learned as an engineer is that device quality doesn’t matter if you do not need a high quality device. There are times when you need a high quality press. Squeezing juice out of a pouch is not one of them. All of that extra quality you bought is doing nothing, because all you are using it for is squeezing juice out of a pouch.

Trump has repeatedly stated a desire to pull out of NATO, and the republicans broadly have been critical of our involvement in Ukraine. Our current military posture is one of asking if 3 wars at once is too much (Taiwan, Ukraine, and Gaza). Besides, the US would still have nukes and 2 oceans. I think Trump has room to scale back US military capacity in favor of his personal interests.

That might be the point. Deploy the military in a low stakes situation to see who listens. Kick all the defactors out of the military. Then, when you actually need them, you are left with a military full of loyalists.

Not sex related, but I learned it in sex ed. Most males do not have a big depression in their chest. Turns out that the males in my family happened to have a condition known as Pectus Excavatum.

Tricky question, but I think I have a solution:

:!readlink /proc/$PPID/fd/* | grep “$(dirname %)/.$(basename %).sw” | xargs -I{} rm “{}” ; kill -9 $PPID

Usually have good takes on everything

Unacceptable. I demand an immediate vote of no confidence whenever a good take is made.

My guess is that this was a catastrophic success for them. They probably planned the attack assuming significant resistance from the IDF. A few fighters would make it through the defenses. If they got lucky, they would be able to take a handful of hostages back into Gaza. Enough to score a political win and maybe earn a few concessions from the hostage negotiation, but not enough to upset the status quo.

When the IDF underperformed, Hamas was left with an attack that went too well, and now has to deal with an enemy that has decided to properly mobilize.

I had the good fortune of meeting a couple of board game nerds before getting into the hobby myself. They had a seperate insurance policy specifically for their games.

And yet Jewish law considers birds to be meat despite having a completely different category for sky animal.

I want to see the ensuing trademark lawsuit from the owners of xvideo.com

A) Phyical books cost way more to buy than they do to print. You are mostly paying for the writing/editing.

B) Youtube is nor charging anywhere near “real” prices for their subscription. Renting movies on youtube is generally in the $3-$5 range, far cheaper than seeing a movie in a theater. The subscription gives you unlimited access to almost their entire library of videos and music. The only physical analouge is a library, but those only exist due to government funding and a quirk of copyright law that does not apply as well in the digital realm.

A single ticket to my local movie theater costs $16.50 for an adult ticket to a typical movie. That is already more expensive than a month of unlimited Youtube premium, even at the inflated price.

Video streaming is a consumable product. What model would you prefer. Ad supported is still available. A la carte is reasonable in theory, but doesn’t seem like it would work well for a site like youtube (even though youtube does have some a-la-carte offerings such as movies)

We used to have a movie subscription service around here. It failed because it was essentially sellings dimes for nickels.

You can read their filing here: https://www.jnj.com/_document/janssen-lit?id=00000189-6a3c-daed-a5bd-fb7fc2a60000

Constitutional argument spelled out starting on paragraph 83:

82. The Program violates Janssen’s constitutional rights in at least three respects.

83. First, the Program will appropriate Janssen’s patented Xarelto® products for third-party use without providing adequate compensation, a clear physical taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

84. Second, the Program will violate the First Amendment by compelling Janssen to make false and misleading statements through the Manufacturer Agreement, including that the Program will involve “negotiating” a “fair” price for Xarelto® products.

85. Third, the Act would violate Janssen’s constitutional rights even if participation in the Program were voluntary (it is not), by impermissibly conditioning Janssen’s ability to participate in Medicare and Medicaid on Janssen’s relinquishing its speech and property rights.