Which, as requested, provides an actual buff. And increments your game wide kiss counter.

Andrew

This is just unprofessional. He deserves to be addressed with the same respect as anyone else. He should be referred to as Mr Windsor.

Moved on?

The house is out of session, and speaker Johnson is refusing to swear in representative-elect Grijalva who would be the last vote needed to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files.

How the fuck is this actually permitted?

It’s not. Those messages are a blatant violation of a law known as the Hatch Act.

In theory, this is enforced by the office of special counsel, which is an independent federal agency. In practice, Trump fired the head of the OSC back in February, and appointed one of his cabinet officials to the role.

In theory, this was completely unlawful, as the OSC was setup by Congress post Watergate [0] specifically to be independent of the President. Indeed a lower court ruled as such; but was overturned on appeal. The problem is that the Supreme Court has recently embraced a view of near unlimited presidential power, including explicit rulings against the constitutionality of laws preventing the president from firing heads of independent agencies. [1].

The court also ruled that the president has near complete immunity to commit crimes (Trump v US 2024). That ruling gives the president literally complete immunity for “core” acts such as issuing pardons. So, he could pardon everyone involved.

In theory, the recourse here is impeachment. But there isn’t much stomach to impeach him again after his prior impeachments failed to remove him from office. Those impeachments being for: withholding military aid to Ukraine because they wouldn’t investigate the son of his political opponents; and directing a violent insurrection on January 6 to try and remain in power despite loosing the election.

[0] Where then president Nixon directed a break in of the headquarters of his political opponents.

[1] Although, I will note, the Court has made a point of clarifying that the Federal reserve is fine. Undoubtedly because they care about the amount of money they would loose in the economic carnage of that particular agency loosing independence.

Good news! The top is actually a separate piece. https://www.amazon.com/Prints-Casual-Cotton-Dresses-Spring/dp/B079K73S9R

Although not quite as cute as I thought.

Serious question: does anyone know where I can get that dress? I don’t need the money; just the dress.

The university is bringing me up on disciplinary charges.

You can fill out a form and send it to your HR/payroll department to adjust your withholdings at anytime, and they are supposed to do so no questions asked.

The employee not paying their income tax does not actually have an adverse impact on the employer, so they don’t care. Of course, the employee still has the legal obligation to pay; but breaking tax law is pretty inherent with tax protest.

We apologize. With nice, cheap, words.

I had a similar realization when studying undergrad linguistics.

One of the classes had us read Chomsky’s “Remarks on Nominalization” paper. The overwhelming sense I got from it was that the author did not understand X-Bar theory, despite knowing that Chomsky was the one who came up with it (and not realizing at the time that this paper was essentially Chomsky’s first paper on the subject).

I will also say that it is a credit to his writing that the paper still holds up pretty well; even if it spends an entire section coming up with bad answers to what was literally a syntax 201 homework assignment.

Also, it’s not like the food gangs steal is getting thrown into the sea, or smuggled into Egypt. It is getting eaten by people in Gaza.

When there is a shortage of food, the people with the guns eat first. That is not fair; but it is a waste of energy to be upset at those people instead of the people who made the political decision to have a food shortage.

Except NFTs didn’t do that.

NFTs only represented ownership to the extent institutions looked to NFTs to determine ownership.

Are you saying that Israel and the US acted in bad faith when they agreed to Hamas’s more limited counter offer; then pocketed the front loaded benefit of the hostage release before reneging on their half of the agreement?

That would be like agreeing to negotiate so your enemy is not prepared for a surprise bombing campaign. Or bombing the country that volunteered their territory to host negotiations because they were hosting your enemies negotiators.

Or claiming a desire to negotiate while killing the enemy negotiators.

The 20 point plan was never agreed to by anyone. Trump proposed it. Hamas agreed to release the hostages; surrender control of Gaza to a body of Palestinian technocrats.

Disarming was not part of the agreement.

checks undetectable.ai

Of course their business model is an AI powered service to make your AI slop get classified as human by AI detectors.

My cats are just like “y’all are being noisy. I’m going downstairs to take a nap”

This won’t fly with food. Companies are no longer allowed to use “may contain X” as a catchall. They now need to deliberately add X to their product.

https://snacksafely.com/2022/04/company-will-add-trace-amount-of-allergen-to-all-products-to-skirt-safety-regulation/

To err is human. But to err a million times a second takes a computer.

They could, however, change the procedural rules that require 60 votes with a simple majority.