@luker1213.bsky.social
A broken clock, etc.
November 12, 2025 at 3:16 PM
A broken clock, etc.
I hate the NYT so much...
November 12, 2025 at 3:14 PM
I hate the NYT so much...
That sounds not real. Isn't that sov cit thing?
November 12, 2025 at 2:29 PM
That sounds not real. Isn't that sov cit thing?
Right, it's not an allegation; it's evidence.
November 12, 2025 at 2:27 PM
Right, it's not an allegation; it's evidence.
Hold the voters accountable? WTF?
November 10, 2025 at 2:17 PM
Hold the voters accountable? WTF?
Oh, buddy....
November 10, 2025 at 1:45 PM
Oh, buddy....
That's slightly less crazy than I thought. it's POSSIBLE to do interpolation/imputation responsibly, but unless it's a vanishing minority of the data, it's not going to teach the bigger model anything,
November 10, 2025 at 1:21 PM
That's slightly less crazy than I thought. it's POSSIBLE to do interpolation/imputation responsibly, but unless it's a vanishing minority of the data, it's not going to teach the bigger model anything,
Wow... just wow.
November 10, 2025 at 4:41 AM
Wow... just wow.
They should take that back, like the Germans did to Jan Hendrik Shoern.
November 8, 2025 at 7:30 PM
They should take that back, like the Germans did to Jan Hendrik Shoern.
The president has presumptive immunity for all official acts. Say... in his/her/their role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces enacting violence on America's enemies...
November 8, 2025 at 3:25 PM
The president has presumptive immunity for all official acts. Say... in his/her/their role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces enacting violence on America's enemies...
As I understand slumlordism, the idea is to borrow more than a building is worth then default on the loan. Squeezing the tenants is a bonus along the way and naturally you don't spend anything on repairs.
November 8, 2025 at 3:22 PM
As I understand slumlordism, the idea is to borrow more than a building is worth then default on the loan. Squeezing the tenants is a bonus along the way and naturally you don't spend anything on repairs.
I think they just think this is cool and good and like it this way.
November 8, 2025 at 3:12 PM
I think they just think this is cool and good and like it this way.
Slumlordism at scale.
November 8, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Slumlordism at scale.
I was just reminded that there is appeals court (which I guess is what you were talking about) as well as a lower district court (which is what I was thinking of).
That makes some kind of sense.
That makes some kind of sense.
November 8, 2025 at 3:34 AM
I was just reminded that there is appeals court (which I guess is what you were talking about) as well as a lower district court (which is what I was thinking of).
That makes some kind of sense.
That makes some kind of sense.
I see. Thank you
November 8, 2025 at 3:32 AM
I see. Thank you
Didn't the first court order the payments? Why the rush to make them act?
November 8, 2025 at 3:29 AM
Didn't the first court order the payments? Why the rush to make them act?
Someone explained to me in another thread: administrative stays, which overturn the lower court's order brought up for appeal, are almost always granted. It keeps things unchanged until a hearing can be held in the lower court.
So it's routine and usually fine, just happens to be nuts here.
So it's routine and usually fine, just happens to be nuts here.
November 8, 2025 at 3:28 AM
Someone explained to me in another thread: administrative stays, which overturn the lower court's order brought up for appeal, are almost always granted. It keeps things unchanged until a hearing can be held in the lower court.
So it's routine and usually fine, just happens to be nuts here.
So it's routine and usually fine, just happens to be nuts here.
Status quo "from the suit." Right, and the lower court's order was to send the payments (and I guess that was some temporary thing pending a ruling). Alright, I follow. Thanks.
November 8, 2025 at 3:07 AM
Status quo "from the suit." Right, and the lower court's order was to send the payments (and I guess that was some temporary thing pending a ruling). Alright, I follow. Thanks.
Part of my question is "WTF is she thinking?" I am not going to *buy* the legal argument, even when I know what it is.
November 8, 2025 at 3:04 AM
Part of my question is "WTF is she thinking?" I am not going to *buy* the legal argument, even when I know what it is.
I see. And that's the way with administrative stays, I suppose. But wouldn't paying the benefits be less disruptive and more status-quo preserving?
November 8, 2025 at 2:58 AM
I see. And that's the way with administrative stays, I suppose. But wouldn't paying the benefits be less disruptive and more status-quo preserving?
I don't think Justice Jackson is doing that or that Ken would say that that "makes sense." And that's the part I'm confused about.
November 8, 2025 at 2:53 AM
I don't think Justice Jackson is doing that or that Ken would say that that "makes sense." And that's the part I'm confused about.
I don't get, even legally. Is it a "We have to assume the Government is telling the truth and acting in good faith" thing?
November 8, 2025 at 2:48 AM
I don't get, even legally. Is it a "We have to assume the Government is telling the truth and acting in good faith" thing?
