It’s a common shape in the universe: large spherical mass in the center, plane of objects rotating around it.

Imagine a new object orbiting Saturn in a random direction. At some point (two, actually), it will cross the plane of the rings. Eventually it will crash into an object. The average of the impact will be closer to the plane. Eventually, it will either align with the plane or its orbit will be unstable.

Is this one of those cat ladies I’ve been hearing about?

Illegal human ‘Locust’

WTF… I really want to live in a world where people in power are at least afraid to say things like that publicly.

I think more ironic than bad.

I think this still eliminates class action suits. According to the article quotes, they still define the court and terms under which you can sue.

It is illegal. That’s what the lawsuit is about.

Way down yonder?

Oh, absolutely. I’m sure that they are infiltrated, which is why they keep getting caught. If you and I can figure out what they are up to, then I’m guessing the FBI and all their fun toys know what’s up.

They have evidence against all of them, but it’s better to wait until they can really put them away for a long time.

I just can’t take all this free speech that’s happening right now

That was my first instinct, but no… The specific inclusion of 14 & 88, together and in that order?

Walmart just did it to be noticeably less than competitors, who often would price items ending in .99, .98, or .97.

Not stupid, just lucky that you haven’t had extensive dealings with these people

What does this mean? Does this mean they’re trying to do something like Yelp and hold those reviews hostage?

I think there may be a challenge or challenges that you haven’t pinned down yet. First is: what problem does this solve?

Second is, how will people know that they are housed under the same roof, so to speak? A small instance dedicated to NBA basketball may be interesting, but if it seems disconnected then people would be wary. Small specialty instances can be shut down without warning for all sort if reasons.A consortium of instances may help with this issue, as long as it is immediately clear through common branding that they are part if the same group.

Third is that different communities have different needs.

Don’t worry, deceptive sales are still allowed everywhere else…

This is a weirdly commonly held belief among far right accelerationists. They think that the race war is inevitable, and if there is enough social disruption, social order will break down, people will turn to the militias, and guess who runs the militias?

The US electrical grid is shockingly vulnerable. Transfer stations can be disabled from a distance by rifle fire. There is no practical way to guard or physically secure every single one. A disabled transfer station has the potential to cause a cascade failure that could cause catastrophic failure of the grid. The USA has just three grids, Eastern, Western, and Texas. So terrorists have figured that attacking the power grid is the easiest way to cause maximum disruption with a single bullet.

The thing is, each of the grids has failed in the past, and while there was some disruption for a couple days, there has never been a social breakdown. The other thing is that the dummies who plan these attacks keep getting caught before they can do any damage.

As I read it, the article is comparing the two shows exactly to show why they shouldn’t be judged the same. But maybe I just don’t get it.

This is a huge step. Plastic recycling is a scam literally designed by advertisers to sell more plastic. Much plastic marked as recyclable is not; much cannot be recycled in most areas; much that is technically recyclable cannot be recycled due to cost related to contamination.

It’s something like 70-80% of Aluminium is recycled globally. For plastics, that number is around 8 or 9 percent.

Thanks, I added the source above.

I’m just surprised that he admitted to possibly losing

I’d never heard of the Loper Bright case. This looks as bad as Citizens United.

The high court rejected a doctrine granting deference to regulatory agencies in interpreting laws when Congress hasn’t clearly defined the scope of the agencies’ power.

That doctrine, known as Chevron deference, was named after the 1984 Supreme Court case in which it emerged, and it offered an answer to a recurring question: What happens when Congress passes a law granting power to a federal agency but fails to precisely define the boundaries of that power?

In such situations, the doctrine of Chevron deference instructed federal judges to rely on the interpretations made by federal agencies, as long as those interpretations were reasonable, since agencies typically have greater expertise in their subject areas than judges.

Dissenting, Justice Elena Kagan noted that federal courts had cited Chevron deference 18,000 times, making it “part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.” She warned of “large-scale disruption.”