Transcript and summary (cw: gemma4) alternative (cw: muse-glimmer). Will caveat that this was as much to test a new service I've been working on than to vouch for its precision: in particular, there's some audio gating and dechunking errors, so the transcription timers roll over on the hour.
Roe v. Wade is a popular allusion, but it's a really bad comparison. The right didn't spend decades trying every legal variant they could think of. The day after Roe v. Wade dropped, every single county in the country just treated abortion as legal through the first half of gestation. The closest immediate challenge was Danforth, and the restrictions there were either well outside of Roe's text (spousal approval, parental approval for minors) or within an area Roe specifically entertained (a methods-based ban on saline injection that the medical community had just started disfavoring in preference to prostaglandin and, the next year, D&E). Thornburgh was the sort of waiting period law and information-passing that The_Nybbler would consider an outright blessing compared to what New Jersey does for his interests. Hell, Akron did a specific thing Blackmun gave as acceptable (hospital requirements) and lost on it anyway because they had ill motive about it.
Most were just plainly outside of Roe, and not even arguably. Several major SCOTUS battles focused on federal funding, like Beal, Maher, Poelker, and the Hyde Amendment, but Roe never held that public facilities had to perform abortions. Connecticut v. Menillo had a state court invalidate a pre-Roe conviction for an unlicensed 'hobbyist' abortionist, and SCOTUS had to step in to say that Roe didn't mean randos could just go around pretending to be doctors for the purpose of abortion. Bigelow v. Virginia (in addition to being one of my go-to examples for why New Jersey can burn in hell) was about a statute that dated back to 1878, and turned on the First Amendment question.
It was only after replacing almost the entire SCOTUS bench and producing a widespread new judicial philosophy over two decades that we saw Casey, and even Casey was still futzing with the edges of how interest-balancing was done. It took another decade before you started to see serious efforts to actually go after its central ruling, and another two past that to actually overturn Roe.
Don't get me wrong; those were legal games. But they're a separate class from politicians in multiple states responding to Bruen the week of with press conferences explicitly stating they were going to make carry permits useless to carry anywhere (and then adding injury to insult by not issuing carry permits either), or Masterpiece Cake Shop by trying to support even dumber activist lawsuits with clearer malicious intent against the exact same target, or Calce after Caetano.
gattsuru
1d ago
The March 2024 tornado outbreak is probably more illustrative as a comparison. It did recover faster than Gary Indiana, and given the 'worked delayed by gunshots' bit, there's a pretty plausible partial casual contributor (though not one with a counterargument given Kentucky), but it's not quite the vast gap you'd expect from the news reports.
gattsuru
1d ago
Yeah, it's really worth spelling out how fucked up a lot of this is.
It took thirty years for Ames v. Ohio to overturn a 'background circumstance' rule that only applied to majority groups, and Ames still hasn't actually gotten her hearing on remand to see if it counts. United Steelworkers v. Weber and Johnson v. Transportation Agency just spell it out: discrimination one way is fine, still standing law post-Ames. SFFA theoretically meant a lot, and coincidentally schools are bending over backward to obfuscate their selection processes.
California is currently in the process of arguing that 34 USC 12601 just doesn't apply when the unconstitutional behavior is happening to people they don't like, they've already won once on the TRO, they're near-certain to win on the preliminary injunction, and they're definitely not going to be sanctioned for it (or for violating the duty of candor about the contents of one of their own expert witness declarations).
Even for stuff that should be uncontroversial, it's a mess. Oncale had Scalia defending hostile work environment law as applied to everyone, at least in the context of being sodomized with a bar of soap, and several circuit courts twisted it into a 'if you were perceived as gay' case. It's not the most unreasonable interpretation given Oncale's facts, but it's still very much not everybody -everbody.
gattsuru
2d ago
Setting aside any journalistic bias (though I do wonder if ProPublica is as credible here as on abortion)
I'm a little cautious about stating anything too specific given ProPublica's involvement (and, more notably, that Biden shows up twice in an article about an award in 2022, while Trump shows up seven times). That said...
... these are embarrassing. Inexcusable.
The macroscale industrial problems look pretty bad and I can't come up with an alternative explanation, but a lot of the individual stuff -- especially conveyors, but maybe the smaller fires and interlock failures -- could be pretty plausible teething issues... if they were small number incidents. Absolutely unacceptable in a final assembly plant, but you'd be amazed how easily shit gets everywhere in these environments; it's very much an exercise in directing it.
Of course, they might have been repeated and recurring, given that the timeline looks like several months or issues.
People lose their jobs over less. They might well have lost some here; I don’t think we’d hear about it below Gezen’s level.
There's a couple stop-work orders, and given the scale and timeline involved that's usually in the tens of jobs, albeit probably lower on the totem pole.
gattsuru
2d ago
Huh. I wonder what extent that drives a lot of the differing reactions : I've worked with trans women that would be the spitting image of that link, modulo a purple sweater if it's winter, and even a lot of fairly obnoxiously political trans women tend closer to its look than to drag.
Historically, there was a lot more overlap between day-to-day trans people and drag, largely downstream of WPATH v6's three-to-six-month lived experience requiring hyperfeminine behavior by someone not yet allowed to do anything but clothing, but that's faded pretty aggressively over a decade ago.
gattsuru
2d ago
Where did you source all of this? As in, how do you know it?
Uh... combination of Clayton Cramer bringing up the 1970s introduction and iteration of federal CSAM law really surprising me, then trawling wikipedia, Lord's biography/tell-all, and a written history of obscenity law that I'm afraid I can't remember the name.
It doesn't seem to relate. Shooting porn is different from a romantic relationship, and she's obviously not a normal case.
The porn itself, weirdly, seems to have been the least of it, and mostly bad in the sense it made return to a normal life even harder. It just meant that California's system was not just carefully overlooking excusable relationships, but ignoring pretty central examples of what it claimed to object to, undeniably. The earlier sexual abuse feeding sexual poor choices, the abortion, the fucked up relationship with her stepfather, coercive use of hard drugs, and what Lords herself described as lashing out were what made a cause celebre, and they all pointed much broader than . Only a few were romantic, but they were all sexual or sexual-adjacent.
On top of that, the Wikipedia article states she lied about her age, and demonstrates more than enough premeditation in her actions for her to be held accountable.
That's fair, and in fact part of why no one on the production side was ever convicted, and (afaict) the only convictions were of people reselling the films well after the scandal. Didn't really soothe social conservatives, though; that she premeditated toward these directions was part of the criticism, in the same sense that modern social conservatives would object to a 14-year-old smuggling and taking testosterone.
Mental illness is mostly genetic, and trauma is mostly non-sexual, and sexual-trauma is mostly non-romantic (rape), so it makes no sense to fly past heritability to trauma, and then fly past actual sources of trauma like poverty and low status, to sex, and then conflate young romantic relationships with specifically being raped or forced into sex.
Fair. It was the 80s and 90s; academic psychology definitely wasn't doing good.
That said, a number of the claims were and remain pretty plausible -- people who reporting physical injury or extreme coercion during first intercourse and then became extremely sexually 'frigid', or who were told and became hypersexual, or who were incapable of having platonic relationships because they perceived everyone of a sex (or everyone) as only interacting with them to get into their pants, or dwelling around a romantic relationship with someone that once made them drop everything and since abandoned them once they were too old for their tastes.
There's a serious selection bias, here: the shrinks were tautologically only talking to people who talked to shrinks, and while they largely weren't selected from people who had been molested, they were selected for people who had Problems and that tends to get more of the rape cases than the 15-year-old lovers ones. But that's material to be argued, and it was at best seen as something supporting Romeo-and-Juliet laws with oversight.
Finally with the Gutmacher institute ... it's some kind of floppy eugenics or dysgenics to care about teen pregnancies specifically. I'm not for it. I think you do eugenics the right way or not at all. Best case scenario most of those pregnancies were dysgenic so it was crypto-eugenics to oppose them. But this isn't very effective when you also have a welfare state and don't regulate their births after age 18 anyway. So compared to the massive negative externality of criminalizing straight men, it doesn't pass. But I don't think this was the motive at any rate, it's just a way to evaluate the policy.
To an extent, but I think you're measuring off the norms of the current political alignments rather than those of the 1980s and 1990s. Both the health risks and the long-term family formation risks were a big matter for Moynihan-and-Reagan-era politicians, who did genuinely put a lot of effort into the problem, if admittedly not very effectively in hindsight. The norm outlived them, but it's got more grounding than you'd think.
gattsuru
2d ago
Even under modern law, obscenity as a concept is screwed up. Mishkin is still standing law and has been used by appeals courts post-Miller, and it means obscenity can vary not just depending on the geographic location of the consumer, but sometimes even by the interests of the person creating or circulating it. If I were to forward around a bunch of vore to this forum, it can't be obscene; if I did so to a vore fetishist forum, it would be.
In practice, prosecutions are extremely limited and typically focused on a tiny band of very extreme content, typically by people with aggravating behavior (eg, animal abuse) or written or drawn underage content. But it's one of those big landmines.
gattsuru
2d ago
[cw: very uncomfortable discussion of the history of legal prohibitions on child abuse. Caveat, I like my men older and hairier, so I'm non-representative on several different fronts.]
Moreover the historic and current reasoning behind the age of consent is well-documented.
I have tried to have debates on it and I can't. There are no good arguments in favor of high ages of consent as far as I can find.
It's a bit of a mess because the historical norms are based on chastity/purity concerns for girls, physical injury for boys, and corruption of a minor for both in the literal sense of encouraging bad actions, mixed with a handful of shame on the family unit. Since chastity-as-a-property died off, and corruption of a minor was slowly reframed in these contexts as speaking ill of the fundamental character of the victim, physical injury ended up trying to serve as a (poor) bridge through the 1960s and 1970s. That's how you get stuff like the Breendoggle, where very serious and pedophile-not-ephebophile-specific child abuse was happening openly and people waved it off as just an old man being weird, or some of the really creepy minimum-age-with-parental-consent laws. Where norms did show up, they were present in the sense that this was something as shameful to the victim as the perpetrator.
((That last bit was made worse because a lot of 1940s and 1950s studies on actual pedophiles-not-ephebophiles relied on self-reports from interviews with offenders, who unsurprisingly claimed to have been 'seduced', and generalized it to ephebophile contact. You may now throw up in your mouth a little bit. Psych studies have never been very robust.))
The modern social norms are downstream of a handful of social analysis hitting at several different rungs.
The concept of child physical abuse as causing long-term psychological harm started in the 1960s, but over the next decade there was a sudden and broad deluge of early child sexual abuse by people it seemed to have screwed up really bad, starting from incest and then bringing in other trusted adult figures, along with enough confessions by people on the supply side of the sexual abuse that the reports couldn't be handwaved away as confabulation or attention-seeking. This is what you're putting in the "trauma" bin. Psychiatrists put together the theory that serious abuse by trusted figures who applied shame or coercion changed how the victim saw the world, and this seemed to show up everywhere from suicidal ideation to depression to difficulty forming friendships to norm abuses to extremes of over- and under-expression of sexuality. Some of this is probably confounded to hell and back (a repeated discovery was prostitutes very often having a history of being molested as a child, which is plausible for causative reasons... but also coincides with almost half of those from a very-poor upbringing in this time period reporting being molested), but the only real serious discussion is how much is downstream of the physics of the abuse and how much from the coercion and shame.
While the trauma/harm approach was clearest for <14s (the pedophiles-not-ephebophiles), the literature had enough cases for late teenagers that it was illustrative, if not predictive.
Second, you've got the growth of pornography, and how it highlighted types of conduct that weren't really visible before. Before the 1970s, CSAM was largely seen as vice (by consumers) and corruption of minors or obscenity (by the manufacturers); even where severe aggravating conduct was present, the imagery would have just been evidence of that crime, rather than a crime itself. With cameras and early printing materials becoming available as personal tools, though, it became apparent that there was demand for younger persons not just by actual pedophiles-not-ephebophiles, but also by manufacturers that saw them as easy marks.
The caps at the higher end are really recent -- there's a reason that in the UK into the 1980s, you could have a newspaper with photos of a topless 16-year-old delivered to your front door and it'd be only be noteworthy because The Sun was considered a schlocky tabloid, and the US had 16-year-old models or 'high school juniors and seniors' as a common media subject up until the 1960s. Though I'll note that they weren't the standard, either, even when not prohibited.
This eventually culminated in the Traci Lords scandal in the United States. She was 15 when she began 'production', continuing for multiple years. While California was somewhat unusual in having a state CSAM law and that law going to age 18 from its initial enactment, the bit where she was very well-known for multiple years and a sizable amount of material before anyone actually started enforcement was a wake-up call that both state and federal law was toothless.
Worse, her case was pretty much a perfect storm of everything that social conservatives had listed in their parade of horribles. She claimed to be 'consenting' (and was, by the standards of the time, well-paid), but that she also had no understanding of the genuine ramifications of working the field, had zero alternatives, and a massive power disparity that the manufacturers were pretty happy to (by their own legal defense unknowingly) exploit. Her off-screen boyfriend was seven years older than she was, when she was 15. She claims that her drug use didn't coincide with or cause the abuse during actual sex scenes, but that's... something social conservatives were skeptical about, and at minimum she claimed she was plied with alcohol and cocaine when 'modeling' turned into 'nude modeling'. In her personal life, she claimed to have been raped or molested at the age of 10, had some sort of fucked up relationship with her stepfather, and been impregnated and had an abortion by 15; she publicly claimed that the industry had exploited her naivety and teenage lashing out, and that her attempts to leave and get a normal job had been badly undermined until federal law and the scandal forced her out.
When the scandal came out, it resulted in the modern record-keeping requirements and bumped the federal age limit from 16 to 18. While it originally issued under the theory the top end of the age limit was meant to avoid issues where a 15-year-old might have been hard to distinguish from a 16-year-old, enforcement quickly standardized as Lord's full story came out.
Lastly, you've got the Guttmacher Institute and related studies in the 1990s finding that under-18 pregnancies clustered such that a large number of fathers were several years older than the mothers. Qualitative data was a lot less clear, but what was present suggested a massive amount of interaction that was abusive on top of the age gap. This is definitely paternalistic to some degree, but it's a space with a broad disparity of power, serious impact on normal upbringing, and a lot of potential abuse. It was a lot easier to ignore age of consent's exact gap when the central case was a 17-year-old and his 16-year-old girlfriend, than when it was a 30-year-old giving a 16-year-old cash or an ultimatum, and there was enough of the latter to be a serious statistic.
In short, those last two had the ephebophiles-not-pedophiles ended up looking real bad. Not every single one -- afaict, Lord's porn star boyfriend seems to be about as sympathetic as a statutory rapist passing a 15-year-old pot can get, at least compared to the James Deen sorts -- but enough that the norm established pretty quickly and broadly. And because it's so new and shallow, it's deeply uncomfortable to discuss or analyze at depth.
gattsuru
3d ago
I can't find the contract award specific on govspending, which isn't unusual for this class of stuff, but may be a sign it's not available for the public, which is pretty common for military stuff. Alternatively, this report says "according to ACC officials, the contract for the Mesquite facility was issued as a task order under the property management contract for the Scranton Ammunition facility and not as a separate contract", which would make specifying the requirements harder, so it may just be extremely poorly drafted. Or both.
That same document does show (pg 6) a letter of concern in October 2024 and a stop work order in August 2025, which points to there being some metric. That said, there's also just a general any-cause ability for the feds to stop payments for work not yet completed, as many contractors who have performed well have learned at significant cost, so it doesn't mean a ton.
gattsuru
4d ago
We've been agitating for criminal and police reform for years if not decades, and nobody listened until the riots started. We've got two relatively centrist proposals in congress right now unless things have changed since the last time I looked. Unfortunately, if we don't make it outrageous or biased the inertia of the system is too great to actually change anything. Do you think Mitch McConnell would ever have allowed that bill if it weren't for George Floyd and the subsequent reaction?
Maybe another part of the polarization in this country is that you have to dial it up to 11 to ever change anything whatsoever. If the right had listened to us years ago, would we have had the riots we had? Will the right listen to us now on trans rights, or is it going to take a trans woman getting raped or murdered on camera and more rioting before we can do anything about that issue?
Probably not. Sonmez was fired, but it took a six-day tweetstorm (and, frankly, a psychotic break), presumably with a bunch of warnings, and she had past bad conduct and punishment (including a previous incident involving a tragic death). Horwitz got a short suspension for plagiarism (copying two paragraphs about a legal regime), not a firing. Achenbach's hard to tell since it's a MeToo era case, so no idea where to put it except to say he was only suspended. In other cases, people just duck out of the business in a 'you can't fire me I quit sense': Cooke was definitely worse, and 'Ratfucker' Weigel wasn't worse and resigned or got a suspension, depending on which time you want to go with.
If you include other major press, you can find examples, even union shops like McNeil from the NYT or government-adjacent groups like Williams at NPR. But they're a different CBA or legal regime.
Of course, that leaves us debating whether a major newspaper has its hands tied because the staff behaved, or the previous owners were nutjobs letting bad behavior go reign free, long enough.
I notice that the arbitrator did not point to a part of the contract defining or limiting the bounds of "gross misconduct". Instead, she made a comparison to someone not covered by the policy to begin with, and described his situation in the last favorable manner.
gattsuru
4d ago
Oh boy! Time to be disappointed in society, maybe a little stressed out.
Fair strike. This is a smaller and less doom-scrolly one, but in turn, it's still pessimistic. I was actually trying to write up the silencer shop stuff last week, and that's more optimistic, but it also just turned into this giant nest of conflicting legal theory instead of anything interesting.
Thiessen was the bar to clear. If the Post had booted him, or if Attiah had been obviously more extreme, I expect the arbitrator would have gone the other way.
Ignoring for now that Thiessen was not subject to the text of the Social Media Agreement or collective bargaining agreement, the allegations here are that he :
- "Harris voting women are what's wrong with America"
- "got a point" to a "Fck all the media and the liberal democrats" and (ai-gen? badly-done?) needlepoint involving the word "stupidfucks"
- reposted a call to 'make this sick libtard famous' for a woman who reposted a comment calling Kirk a "yt supremacist" and "reimagined Klan member"
- "You're not a Christian minister buddy"
- "Fire them all" in response to "Whoever shot Charlie Kirk, thank you!"
- "Let’s identify this ghoul and make him unemployable" to a video of someone using a megaphone to 'sing' "we got charlie in the neck"
- "Fire him" to "Once again Charlie Kirk you reap what you sow."
- "What’s her name and where does she work?" to "I'm just really glad Charlie Kirk just go himself fucking shot.... so no one should give a fuck that he's dead."
- "Dishonorable discharge is in order" to a video that begins with "fuck Charlie Kirk"
- "Expel them" to... well, you can watch the video.
These might have been inadvisable. I could argue that at least some of the efforts were disproportionate. I can believe an arbitrator thinks they have similar violations of rules.
I don't believe that they're similar violations of rules. And I note that the arbitrator neither did actually show that, nor summarized them accurately.
gattsuru
4d ago
but I am not sure we're allowed yet to say it aloud. It beings with "nu"...
I'm hoping it happens, but it's best-case scenario is multiple years out for new construction, and the power factor stuff can be difficult: AI data centers shouldn't be very prone to microsurges, but it seems like they're still fighting technical problems on that.
power prices (which I assume is BS too, local utilities are usually under local control and can just ration the power if they want to)
They can ration in the same sense that they can deny construction permits, but utilities boards are a lot less responsive to direct votes.
But this wouldn't move the public opinion in any way.
Fair.
gattsuru
4d ago
Could be, and I don't have the tooling to check Ohio numbers on those. Would be stupid to pay them less than a McDonald's and sit them in front of million-dollar servers, but wouldn't be the first stupid thing.
gattsuru
4d ago
The ongoing "jobs" they create are usually something like eight security guards working part time for $18/hour with no benefits.
Ohio's about the lowest cost-of-living state that has a serious data center presence. It's hard to get great numbers given "data center guard" includes everything from armed and security-cleared to glorified stor-all clerk, but at least from a quick check all the big name AI ones look to be starting at 30/hour and better benefits than I've got now.
There's just not many jobs there.
gattsuru
4d ago
As best I can tell from reading the decision the incorrect quote of Kirk didn't come up in the firing context at all.
The termination letter gives examples that don't include the incorrect quote; the strict text of "Your public comments on social media regarding the death of Charlie Kirk" do.
As a white man myself, I don't feel disparaged by either post.
That's nice, but the test is not traditionally resolved by finding one person with thick skin.
The only other basis given for the firing was the alleged security threat due to other people threatening Attiah for her posts on the topic. I generally think it would be a bad precedent to set that you can get fired because other people communicate threats against you.
Fair, and agreed.
More generally, I think this illustrates the advantage of having a union!
I think it illustrates the advantage of having a union for Attiah. Even in the rare winnable case for a conservative, there's limited way to get the union involved or punish it where it encouraged the unlawful firing, short of winning the case first (and sometimes not even then).
gattsuru
4d ago
The water numbers are wholly made up, but they would be a serious problem if true, and there's been a lot of people pretending that they're true. I can aggressively claim that AOC is a liar -- she's a politician, her mouth is moving -- and recognize that just because people believe her doesn't make them liars.
The electrical consumption and power density concerns are genuinely unusual: some of the larger AI-driven data center plans involve gigawatt values, compared to tens of megawatts for a conventional server farm data center or normal manufacturing plant. The only really comparable industrial plants are the biggest aluminum smelters, and the US has largely stopped anything on that scale. For the most part, this hasn't impacted rates themselves directly, but it's lead to a number of areas being under surge pricing over more of the day, and it's likely to take a few years to fix. Some of this is overstated, since it's been a hot summer and you'd expect increased surge pricing anyway, but the impact does exist.
That's sometimes lead to onsite gas turbine builds, which are genuinely loud.
Some of it's concern about corporation, rather than data centers specifically: see AOC v. Amazon in 2019 for less principled example that rhymes closely, but there have been genuine problems in much of the Rust Belt with various organizations promising a ton of great things in exchange for support today, and those great things getting sidelined with the next business downturn. AI coming after bitcoin and such doesn't help.
((A smaller number are video game fans who want to buy RAM sometime this decade.))
But it's mostly an objection to the technology using whatever arguments are available. Some of that's principled, if not necessarily a principle I agree with: there are genuine problems with the use of AI for spamware, scamware, and employment war crimes; there are some economic concerns that are serious; there's a lot of copyright and intellectual property claims that people make with a straight face. A larger number are anti-these-vibes. And others are just generically anti-big tech.
gattsuru
4d ago
Washington Post v. Karen Attiah
An arbitrator has asked and answered:
As remedy for its violation of the CBA, The Post is ordered to reinstate the Grievant and make the Grievant whole, including full backpay and lost benefits.
Mrs. Attiah is the Washington Post writer who rather famously and falsely claimed that Charlie Kirk had said "Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously" in the immediate aftermath of Kirk's murder. I was going to say ex-, but that's not the case anymore. It's now established rule that the Washington Post can not fire someone merely for dancing publicly in the blood of a recently murdered man to disparage people on the basis of race and gender, and making false claims while doing so.
In this case, at least.
There's a legal formalist perspective where this is defensible. The Post may have included all of Attiah's post-shooting posts in the strict text of the termination letter, but they only quoted a couple posts, so maybe the arbitrator felt that the rest weren't sufficiently plead. Though she does spend enough time to repeat, without noting as false, the false attribution of the quote to a dead man. The Post did argue 'security concerns' at length, and the extent that rhymes with a heckler's veto isn't a great policy matter to rest on. The comparisons to Dave "Ratfucker" Weigel and a random contractor not covered by the stated policies might be pretty nakedly different conduct given context, but perhaps if you squint hard enough and there's no other comparisons, you get stuck with the bad approximations. Attiah isn't a government employee, but she is a union one, so as tempting as the obvious Damore comparisons get, they do have limits.
But it's still the floor, now.
gattsuru
6d ago
I think it would help if the electrical problem was solved (or, as I think is likely over the long term, net-positive, since increased and movable load encourages development of cheaper base power), for the really minor 'follow whatever current thing is on the news' opposition, but yeah. There's a pretty significant number of people who are opposing them from an artist, intellectual services worker, writer, and video gamer perspectives, where the electrical supply and water concerns are just arguments as soldiers. And then there's the general nimbyist perspective.
Arguments-as-soldiers doesn't make the argument wrong, but it does change whether and how it should be reviewed.
gattsuru
7d ago
The technology does generalize surprisingly well, but it's the space with the least good returns on investment and the hardest economic overhead.
gattsuru
7d ago
Pearson v. Port of Morrow is mostly about agricultural nitrate use and bad filtering approaches by the Port during wastewater treatment (and, allegedly, overt dumping). Amazon's just not mechanically plausible for more than a couple percent of nitrogen in the system; they're just not that big a source of incoming wastewater and they can't be concentrating that heavily. They settled for 'go away' money.
The Morgan County story looks to have turned out to be the normal effects of construction, and hard to distinguish what portion (if any) is specific to the data center construction.
gattsuru
7d ago
Ah, thanks. Think the original supports the emergencyist-exist and "stonetoss author hasn't been shot in the head yet" conclusion, too.
gattsuru
7d ago
This is an area with complex caselaw, mostly in the sense that no one wants to bring a marginal case, rather than the judicial holdings actually blocking the law or invalidating it as applied to these cases. In practice, that means it doesn't matter from a legal realist perspective, but from a legal formalist perspective, the situation is much more mixed than you'd expect. Even the central SCOTUS cases include excretory functions despite few people having a watersports kink, for example.
And the real test is going to be public indecency, which SCOTUS has largely treated as a separate and much more favorable standard than obscenity.
I'm sure there are a few gooner types with weird fantasies about unicorns with hard cocks
I have some fantastic news for you about the brony and furry fandom. If you want more detail, I can even provide recommendations. But in practice that would fall under Mishkin v. New York, in ways that a statue in public would not.
Link's Awakening's a little weird because it's very vague about whether the island is remade the next time the Wind Fish dreams (or the people inside it are reincarnated/remade a la the Marin/seagull). But you saw a good bit of that sort of Labyrinth style complicated ending for a while, with A Link To The Past (Navi and the bad future go away, but so does everything good you did in that future), Wind Waker (Hyrule's wish is lost), and Twilight Princess (Midna goes away). But that said, Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom were both optimistic to the point of an awkward fit with the rest of the story, especially TotK.
Some of it's a not-unreasonable reaction to Newberry Award syndrome, because so many downer endings in even many great video games got pretty glurge after the fifth or sixth time, but it's definitely been a bit of an overreaction, especially at the younger end of the age range.
That said, while more complex or downer endings are more uncommon, they're not completely gone.
More options
Context Copy link