I am a parent, and was more on the “questions are good” side. Also, how is it that a Pixar movie would be the first time their kids would be exposed to the concept of gay people. They say Bluesky is a bubble, and yet…
That would make more sense if the TIC etc claims were somewhat weak. You said they were embarrassingly frivolous. That should have triggered an attempt to expand the mental map. It didn’t, which raises big questions about their level of representation in any field of law.
Similarly, Biden got approximately zero credit from the supposedly anti-war left for that withdrawal.
They said if I voted Dem in 2024, we’d end up in a war in the Middle East. I did anyway, and now here we are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And you wouldn’t need to find one such company, but a series of them. Because companies that ignore local laws don’t last very long.
This is exactly right.
Age verification / online ID check legislation literally forces companies to collect MORE data on children (and everyone else) not less.
We desperately need privacy, antitrust, and algorithmic justice legislation.
Not censorship bills like KOSA and expanded surveillance.
Saw a trailer for Lanterns before watching The Pitt this week.
When I heard Kyle Chandler was playing Hal Jordan, I expected something like Coach Taylor. That doesn’t seem to be the plan here, but I still like what I saw.
cc: @dmoren.com @gte.bsky.social @moltz.bsky.social
This seems as likely to be about a "reunion" episode of guest-stars on The Rookie as a new series. More likely, even.
Maybe. OTOH, two days ago a Dem lost a primary by 48 points, primarily based on being too cozy with ICE. That’s the kind of thing that could stiffen the spine. 🤞
Let me be clear: I’m glad Kristi Noem was fired. But we still have to abolish ICE.
Turns out lawlessness is not a winning strategy. See you at Nuremberg 2.0
Once again, I think 13 Justices is the wrong way to do it. It appears like "packing" the court. If you go with *100* Justices, who handle cases on panels of 9, you fix the underlying problem of a small number of justices. www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/t...
I can fit through openings that are at least twice my width. Am … am I a cat? 🧐
Fuck off no he has not
This.
There's also the issue of what kinds of errors people are good at catching. The mental tools that are good at telling a human is wrong, or lying, can be terrible at doing the same with an LLM that is primarily designed to generate plausible answers.
Also, "unsparing criticism" isn't fun, but it comes with the territory of having your writing on such a major platform. It's certainly nothing like the level of harassment and violence that trans people have to deal with.
In principle, of course, the First Amendment lets you say this with or without 230. In practice, it’s unlikely most platforms would take the risk of permitting you to say it without a liability shield.
Man. The number of conversations I’ve been in in 2026 where I’ve had to point out “…you get that the institution that you are expecting to enforce this norm in your future post-reform scenario is the Department of Justice, ie THAT Department of Justice, right?”
This is bigotry, pure and simple.
open.substack.com/pub/erininth...
LRT: it’s always the two groups. One the law protects but does not bind, on the law binds but does not protect.
It seems all Kansas-issued trans drivers' licenses are invalid, effective tomorrow
It is now illegal for trans people to drive a car until they surrender their license at a DMV (that most will need to drive to) and have it reissued with the wrong gender marker
This was never about woman's sports
No one who is at all concerned with the national security of the United States can possibly support Trump. This is simply a hideous betrayal of the country and its future in exchange for a bribe.
The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to spend taxpayer funds, and no law allows the president to halt if he feels some US states aren’t being “good stewards” of the money.
In case there’s any confusion on this, the Impoundment Control Act forbids it.
Taxation without representation.
I think they’d do whatever they’d do if the President did something like that. And I’d be a little surprised if Trump hasn’t already done it, or at least in the ballpark.
That’s harsh, but probably fair.
I am not willing to watch the speech. If I did watch it, I would not play this game. I think it would result in a fatal case of alcohol poisoning. I wish you luck.
The Dem establishment has been happy to use the specter of an authoritarian threat to democracy as fundraising rhetoric, but they’ve mostly behaved as though they don’t quite believe it — as though if they keep acting normally, things have to return to normal.
True. I'm just saying I don't think she's interested in the job of being a judge as you or I would understand it. She wants to help Trump and get appointed to a higher court. She's also bad at the job, but that's not why she didn't let the media intervene in this case.
Which is not to say you're wrong, of course.
