MollieTheMare
No bio...
User ID: 875
MollieTheMare
14d ago
This opinion also covers Little v. Hecox which was a case on the same question out of Idaho.
Mostly accurate. The majority found that it was essentially same question, but the specific facts were less favorable to the three dissenters. In the dissent they argue that Little v. Hecox was moot, and focus on entirely on West Virginia v. B. P. J..
Gorsuch has a concurrence in B. P. J.
My general impression is that this is both to to square with Bostock v. Clayton County, and to set the ground for potential future cases where the question of: Does Title IX require schools to exclude transgender girls from girls’ teams. My speculative read, is that, the funding clause argument Gorsuch makes suggests that since it's not explicitly notified to the funding recipients that Title IX forbids the use of biological sex for grouping, using biological sex is allowed. This might also suggest that since it's not explicitly notified to the funding recipients that Title IX forbids the use of some other definition of sex, using some other definition is allowed.
Speaking of nuclear apocalypse, though.
Plan B is the real one here. Implementation probably involves going to war with a near-peer, nuclear-armed superpower so sophisticated they are on the edge of ASI.
You probably do need a credible path for how a full-scale conventional conflict avoids escalating to nuclear exchange and then avoids escalating to nuclear apocalypse, if that's an at-all viable Plan B.
It would be quite ironic if the way AI managed to kill all of us is that we were so afraid it might go to a fast takeoff that we decided a nuclear apocalypse would be better than risking it.
More options
Context Copy link