I don’t have a problem with them having a policy to keep meetings to a manageable length. I have a problem with the fact that they can just choose to apply it arbitrarily.

Reminds me of Pierce’s will

Making progress, yes. Catching up? Probably not. It will likely take years to undo all the damage they’ve done. And we’re only a year and a half into the term. They’re far from finished.

My favorite part of this is that A) everyone stayed in-character as this unfolded and B) they brought the cat back on stage for the curtain call.

I suppose that depends on the goal behind the labeling. If the main goal is to call out when AI-generated content was used in lieu of paying actors and animation artists, then yes, they should also be forced to disclose when voice-over and non-realistic animated characters were AI generated.

If, however, the goal is to simply inform consumers that the person they’re looking at on the screen is not a real human, then I don’t think those things are a big concern.

It’s not really clear from the story what the intended goal is.

Back in the late 90s, when I was about to finish my degree, I actually sent in an application to the FBI. It’s entirely possible that years of watching X-Files had some influence on that decision.

Despite that public opposition, the theory does appear to be gaining some traction in Washington. In a letter last week, Congressman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce called for a briefing on whether the U.S. government sees evidence for Chinese influence in the data center debate.

Translation: “Please provide some reasonable basis for us to claim that public opinion is a hoax perpetrated by a foreign power, so we can do whatever the fuck we want and make tons of money.”

“Boys’ club votes to confirm that girls are yucky and dumb” is all I see.

I don’t think it’s entirely that simple. They sold it in 2008. It wasn’t worth $10M then because nobody was planning to build a giant datacenter on it, and the economy was in the toilet thanks to the subprime mortgage bubble. Still, $15K for an 88 acre parcel seems crazy cheap even then. And since the original donation stipulated that it was to be held in trust and used to build a park, I’m curious why they were legally allowed to sell it at all. That’s what the group fighting this is pointing out, but the local judge has dismissed the case and refused to issue an injunction while they appeal.

Yeah, unfortunately my options for how to allocate investments are limited by our plan provider. I’ve been taking them out of any funds that focus on US tech stocks and opting for international.

It’s not just apathy. Many states have been actively taking measures to make it more difficult for people to vote. Because they don’t want the wrong people voting.

According to documents reviewed by 404, the conditional language in the original deed granted the land to the “Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation, a Texas non-profit corporation, to be held in trust for future use as parkland by Williamson County, Texas.”

But in the years since, ownership of the property kept changing hands. Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation granted it over to a different non-profit called the Williamson County Park Foundation in 2003 before they gave it to the City of Taylor outright a month later. So far, so good. But in 2008, the city sold the land for $15,000 to the Taylor Economic Development Corporation (TEDC). It sat unused until last year, when the TEDC sold the plot to the company currently developing the data center, Blueprint, for a cool $10 million.

I’m certainly no lawyer, but that seems like a lot of shenanigans to get around a condition of the original donation.

I’ve been re-allocating my 401(K) investments for a few months now to try and soften the blow when it hits, but I’m not sure how far-reaching this will be.

Fun fact about Lee Greenwood: he recorded an alternative version of his biggest hit, “God Bless the USA” where he just swapped out all the references. It’s called “God Bless You, Canada”. Dude is such a hack.

Roddenberry tried to bring it back in TNG. Reviews were… mixed.

Aside: IMHO, recording anyone in public should always be allowed. The fact that it’s men recording women shouldn’t matter in the slightest. You have no expectation of privacy when you’re in public.

That isn’t actually the issue, if I’m understanding the story right. The title is just click-bait. The real issue is that they were approaching women and talking to them, then using those recordings as part of an online “seduction training” course (I’m rolling my eyes even as I type that). So basically, they’re using the videos commercially without the subjects’ consent, which is illegal in lots of places.

So let me see if I have this right:

• Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and ordered to pay restitution (he’s appealing this)
• Trump frequently and publicly called her a liar and ended up in court again, and was found guilty of defamation. Ordered to pay restitution again (say’s he’s going to appeal that, too)
• So now they’re trying to charge her with perjury because she said, in a deposition, that nobody was paying her legal bills, and it later became known that Reid Hoffman paid some of her expenses.

I can’t see how this can go well for the justice department. There’s no evidence that she was lying. It’s very possible she either didn’t know about the money from Hoffman at the time, or that the funding was secured after her deposition. Either way, a judge already ruled that it wasn’t relevant to the case. IMO, this will almost certainly get thrown out for being vindictive prosecution. IANAL, though.

If you’re referring to the Citizens United ruling, you should know that it did not establish that corporations are citizens, at all. It simply allowed that money spent by corporations on political candidates is a form of free speech, and it got rid of a bunch of limits on political spending. Which is certainly bad enough, but it in no way paves the way for a company to be a citizen or have a vote.

You should read a little more closely before you draw conclusions. Your skimming missed the part that directly contradicts you:

Waldorf didn’t oppose abortion, but she had never considered that the law could apply to her.

Aside from that, it doesn’t even mention her personal voting record, only that she was raised by Republicans.

Kind of difficult to vote if you aren’t registered, despite what Republicans would have you believe.