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.

No. Sadik Baxter stole from 5 cars and was arrested at the scene. His accomplis is the one who fled and killed someone in the process.

No. Sadik Baxter stole from 5 cars and was arrested at the scene. His accomplis is the one who fled and killed someone in the process.

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.

Mythbustets do not meet the standards of professional science. The point is that not all science needs to be done at standard set by professionals.

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”?

I actually read the 7 page opinion, because normally there is at least some shred of reasonableness in these crazy opinions. But this one … those 7 pages have nothing.

I’ll just leave this little nugget from the end:

The points we have made above provide some clarity about the legal standards and framework for this sensitive area of Texas law. The courts cannot go further by entering into the medical-judgment arena.

The really telling part of all of this is that there was no reason for this to be a thing. The state attorney general chose to fight this specific case. Then chose to send a letter to every hospital saying the injunction did not actually protect them, and chose to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

None of that had to happen. He could have let the extreme cases go through while fighting to remove women’s rights on the more “controversial” cases, but instead chose to make a test case out the most extreme interpretation of his extremist ideology.

Despite this, the court seems willfully blind to the fact that the reason for needing an injunction is that the state is acting in demonstorable bad faith.

Side note. Remember when the US SC ruled that this law could not be challenged because the state was not going to be the one enforcing it?

This is a civil case, not a criminal one. His 5th amendment protections are much weaker. If he says that his testimony may support criminal charges, then he is allowed to take the 5th. However, in a civil trial, the fact finder is allowed to draw a negative inference from that.

Having said that, none if this is relevent. He already testified during the State’s case, which is the only time he would need to invoke privilege. Since this is the defense case, they get to simply not call him.

Unless one of his co-defendants subpoenaed him, which is also not the case.

The allagation is that Panera did not adequately communicate the contents of the lemonade.

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.

Neutral and Israel alligned countries have been calling for a humanatarian pause on purely humanitarian grounds. Even if you don’t care about the hostages, that Hamas was willing to offer them means that they had an interest in such a pause as well; making Israel the only obstacle to it happening. That is to say, the severity of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is squarly on Israel’s shoulders. The most charitable reading of the situation is that they have determined that the tactical advantage of blocking a humanitarian pause outways the civilian lives they put at risk by doing so.

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.

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.

US Jews aren’t that closely alligned to Israel; particularly if you are talking about the current Israeli leadership (which a significant portion of Israelis also aren’t alligned with). Further, the preferences of US Jews is pretty corralated to their political party; where Jewish Republicans are far more pro Israel than Jewish democrats.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/21/u-s-jews-have-widely-differing-views-on-israel/

The above survey is old, but I don’t think the story has fundamentally changed.

Across all US Jews (as of the time the survey was conducted)

40% rate Netenyahus leadership as good or excellent (25% of Democratic Jews, 80% of Republican Jews)

34% Strongly oppose the BDS (anti Israel Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) movement. (28% Democratic Jews, 54% Republican Jews)

33% Thought that Israel was making a sincere effort to peace. (20% Democratic Jews, 66% Republican Jews)

32% Thought that God gave Israel to the Jews. (22% Democratic Jews, 60% Republican Jews).

When people talk about the “Jewish” position for Israel in thr context of US politics, they are really talking about the Republican position.

They are a loud rounding error that gets amplified by the current media landscape.

No. The alternative is to not use a float. Testing if a float is even simply does not make sense.

Even testing two floats for equality rarely makes sense.

What is the correct output of isEven((.2 + .4) ×10)

Hint: (.2 + .4) x 10 != 6

If you are using floats, you really do not want to have an isEven function …