I’m not sure where you got the idea they “acknowledged” this as their reason. It’s a wholly unsupported theory based on nothing but some random opinion in the NYT (although I do love the notion that this opinion somehow “got lost amid the excitement” as opposed to simply being uninteresting).

It doesn’t even make sense. You don’t need an opposition filibuster unless the majority of the party is “fringe” (straining the meaning of fringe). There are plenty of other ways to bury a bill or – worst case – excuse a couple defectors.

Are you sure that’s not the FORTRAN meetup?

People probably mistakenly assumed the law was in good faith and would do something like ban hanging crosses around the classroom, not ban covering up part of your body. Calling head coverings “religious symbols” is flatly dishonest. Next up anybody who doesn’t eat bacon at every meal will be fired for forcing their religion on others.

If you don’t want to see bots like this one, go to settings and uncheck “show bot accounts”

This is just to say

I have eaten
the nuggies
that were in
the icebox

and which
you were definitely
saving
for dinner

Forgive me
they were delicious
so mushy
and so warm

–
Apologies to William Carlos Williams

I feel like there may be a subtle statistical error in judging the overall will of “Democratic voters” based on rough observations of attendees of a Mamdani rally.

Does work for Tampa though

A European starling called “The Mouth” was able to mimic sounds well enough to reproduce a drawing in the spectrograph:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCQCP-5g5bo

What I’m not seeing is any explanation for why the DNC … is accepting help

Cuomo is running as an independent. He is running against the DNC.

Well they saved “258 million” people from fentanyl overdose in 100 days; finding half of them jobs in a week should be no problem.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pam-bondi-fentanyl-258m/

Capitalism isn’t unique in perpetuating injustice, but it certainly excels at it, with passive exponentiality and unprecedented scalability.

Regarding comparison to planned economies, I was solely referring to resource distribution. Planned economies (including the planned aspects of mixed economies) typically have significantly more equitable distribution of resources than capitalism. Certainly there is still massive inequality, but it is far less than capitalism. E.g. the Gini index for USSR/Russia basically doubled when capitalism replaced communism.

Amplifying that last point:

• Capitalism amplifies and perpetuates injustice. E.g. descendants of both enslaving and enslaved are receiving exponentially multiplied effects of actions 100+ years ago.
• Because wealth is power, concentrated wealth often receives far better than average returns by rigging systems in its favor.

Even ignoring these perversions, capitalism is terrible at answering the economic question, “for whom to produce.” This isn’t much of a change relative to previous systems, but it compares unfavorably in this regard to planned economies.

bought in exchange for political capital

That’s a very uncharitable assumption of his motivations.

Dropping out of an (FPTP) primary is like awkward manual runoff voting. Once you clearly aren’t winning, you drop out so those votes can flow to the next preferred candidate.

People voting for Buttigieg switched to Biden because he was the most similar candidate. Of course Buttigieg would support the candidate that best matches his policy preferences – and the preferences of voters.

We find that a 10% minimum wage hike translates into a 0.36% increase in the prices of grocery products. This magnitude is consistent with a full pass-through of cost increases into consumer prices.

Reminds me of the book Beyond the Veil of Stars. People travel between worlds by putting their minds into alien species, some of which are quite foreign (e.g. a rodent with multiple bodies), and folks get pretty messed up.

Immigrants’ devious criminal plot (Key and Peele)

Those “richest people” lists are based on publicly known wealth, which is almost exclusively public stocks. There is a lot of dark money out there.

For more context, this is in part the result of a 2021 settlement with the state of Washington over them doing the opposite: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/27/1040968238/greyhound-warrantless-searches-lawsuit-settlement

The settlement only forces this behavior in Washington though, so good on Greyhound for deciding that it is the right policy everywhere.

That is not the correct form of a syllogism. The second premise should be “Some C are A” leading to the conclusion “Some C are B”. With the structure you provided, it is easy to produce invalid conclusions from true premises:

• All planets are round
• Some fruits are round
• Therefore: Some fruits are planets

Whereas a correctly structured syllogism might be:

• All coconuts are round
• Some fruits are coconuts
• Therefore: Some fruits are round

Slappy the Firbolg Barbarian