RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
Married to a tomboy, so I have that going for me, which is nice.
User ID: 3756
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
11hr ago
If he's worried about that, he would be correct. The smart move is remaining silent.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
11hr ago
All my examples come from IRL interactions in Chicago. It happens with randos, it happens with people I meet socially.
I am so, so tired of the "it's just some loud weirdos online" argument that you're responding to. No, I am talking about real-life examples dealing with blue-triber whites where they can't go 5 minutes without making some kind of snide comment about rednecks/chuds/white trash/whatever the preferred term of the day is for the residents of Red America. Trying to discuss the weather leads to it. Trying to discuss local events leads to it. There is no escape.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
11hr ago
It has some really interesting ideas, but I found the execution underwhelming for the same reasons as you.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
12hr ago
How did you arrange to be hanging upside-down at some point with each woman you've dated?
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
12hr ago
On X, I've seen this referred to as zero-sum hypercapitalism, and as you note, it results in the tiniest inefficiencies being ruthlessly engineered away wherever possible. Optimization uber alles, but "optimization" from the big line go up forever view, not any kind of human flourishing view.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
3d ago
New York v. Tanella, 374 F.3d 141 (2nd Cir. 2004) or Texas v. Kleinart, 855 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2017), are probably the kind of thing you're looking for, but those are admittedly other circuits.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
3d ago
Always so cringe when a woman LARPs as a badass,
There is a particularly cringeworthy strain of white millennial woman who seems to believe that swearing a lot and listening to rap makes them an MMA champion.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
3d ago
Hell, the right's problem seems to be that they won't come to the aid of their 'heroes' once they've been expunged of all their usefulness and 15 minutes of fame.
It appears that Daniel Penny got hired by Andreessen Horowitz.
One of the biggest signs of the changing times came when an ICE prosecutor with a blatantly racist Twitter account didn't get fired when it came out.
Interesting. I'm familiar with that account and it's a spicy one. I can't say I'm all that surprised it was an attorney working for ICE, although the method of discovering who it was reeks of parallel construction.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
4d ago
I recently realised that I'd been doing Romanian deadlifts rather than actual deadlifts
I had wondered along these lines when you previously posted your weight/reps on deadlifts.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
4d ago
Huh. Before this conversation I would've confidently said that Costco sells it in the pharmacy section. I must be thinking of CoQ10.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
5d ago
None of this is perfect, there's still a ton of early career gatekeeping and prestige games, especially around the highest end jobs. But we're not comparing it to perfection, just to the example offered by OP: research science.
I was going to point out the many Striver Merit Badges you're overlooking in your analysis that are needed to approach the highest end legal jobs, but yes, by comparison, it's far more meritocratic than research science at universities.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
5d ago
I don't know if they're astroturfed, but there is no shortage of written material by people trying to rationalize them getting screwed out of 6 months to 2 years+ (depending on location) of their lives.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
5d ago
I have a heinous clavicle fracture from exactly what you'd expect
Is there something obvious that usually causes those? Football, rugby, lifting, trying to saddle a bison, manually stimulating a horse?
My goals are about the same as last year:
Do a spring hiking trip around 100ish miles (about a week)
Do a summer hiking trip around 200ish miles (around 2-3 weeks)
Read a bunch of books
Do a trail race in the fall
Right now I need to work on putting some weight back on, which, despite being in my 40s, is harder than it seems since I can't have lunch. My chicken and rice lunches were very good at adding some pounds.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
5d ago
Congratulations on making it out!
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
10d ago
I am quite convinced that the deeper issue is in women having a totally irrational fear of being "trapped" because they aren't making their own money.
I have heard from several different elder millennial lady attorneys (obvious sample bias) that their Boomer mothers verbally beat into their heads that they had to have their own income and never be dependent on a man. As an outside observer, their marriages seem to be... fraught.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
10d ago
Picking and choosing to preserve just the taboos that overwhelmingly benefit women over men isn't a sustainable pattern in the long term.
Modern U.S. society will head straight for its grave rather than break from that pattern.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
10d ago
My prior is that people accused of wrongdoing will almost always deny the thing they're accused of.
There is a fun (not fun) variation of this as a public defender: people will freely admit the horrible thing they've done to any cop who will listen, and then once arrested, will swear on their mother's grave to their attorney that they're innocent and being railroaded, and that their attorney is a piece of shit working for the prosecutor when the defense attorney can't do anything about the prosecutor using all those voluntary and damning statements.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
10d ago
Model > bank branch manager > yoga teacher > therapist is an interesting progression. Usually it goes more like "model (or some other role making a living off being young, attractive, and female) > yoga teacher or massage therapist > realtor."
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
10d ago
If someone pops up on a dating app that hasn't been jaded to all hell, you've got a VERY small window of time to match with them and get them face-to-face and then try and convince them to get off the app entirely.
One of my favorite (in a dark humor kind of way) pairings is the "I was on an app for one time for 15 minutes and met the love of my life, so apps are great for dating" fresh-faced woman with the "1000-yard stare multi-year veteran of trying to date from apps" man.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
10d ago
Everyone is addicted to hearing "but what happened to characters after!!!"
Not just that, they're addicted to "BUT whut happ'n to the characters before?!" See the obsession with lore and prequels as well. I want a well-written self-contained story, which is anathema to Hollywood and many viewers, so it's another reason I've chosen to exit tv/movies/streaming/etc.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
19d ago
I think I've figured out how to use my phone less and not carry it everywhere: getting a phone I strongly dislike (instead of mildly dislike).
I got a new phone because my old phone (6yo Pixel 4) was getting unstable, the battery life was getting absurdly bad, and Verizon offered me a $0 Pixel 10 Pro with a 3-year price contract (I'm not changing carriers, so makes no difference to me).
I strongly dislike the new phone, primarily because it's larger and heavier. The original Pixel was the perfect size. The 4 was too big but overall tolerable. This one is even worse. It is uncomfortably large and heavy in a pocket and I feel like I need a purse to haul the stupid thing around. So far it's been easy to leave it at my desk (work or home) and not take it places.
With my old phone, I would usually not take it along when doing stuff with friends, so I had plenty of the "sitting quietly while everyone else is deeply absorbed in their phone and not talking to anyone" experience. I guess I'll get to have more of that.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
19d ago
The judge will often get some ideas that neither party had and ask to be briefed on the issue before he rules. But from what I can tell he doesn't necessarily buy his own arguments since he ultimately finds them lacking once they've been fleshed out.
This is one thing for a trial judge (whether state or federal district) to do, but it's another for an appellate court, especially a secondary one. By that point, there has been extensive litigation, and lower courts have made rulings based on the presentations of the parties.
The SC would probably prefer to rule in an anticipated issue now rather than have it come up later in another case, and it makes sense that they'd give the parties a heads up so they can prepare accordingly. I'd rather they get it right the first time than make bad rulings because procedure says they have to.
There is the danger of advisory opinions, but in general I agree. Citizens United came about after a first round of oral arguments, orders for more briefing, and then more oral arguments to end up with a broad ruling, and I think that's the much better way to go.
However, the Supremes do the "ruling on the narrowest possible procedural grounds" trick all the time in other (fully-briefed, not emergency docket) cases. Roberts is the king of such opinions. Gattsuru can probably provide a laundry list of times the Court (or circuit courts) have pulled that trick in firearm cases. That's exactly what they did in Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. Philadelphia. And then there are times I swear they grant cert on cases with terrible procedural posture just so they can more easily manipulate the outcome.
Here, where it's a ruling on a stay regarding a preliminary injunction, it strikes me as especially bad to change the arguments at the highest level. There hasn't been full briefing by the parties, no amicus briefs, and no oral arguments. It's on a short timeframe with a limited record. That should be the time to stick to the exact arguments presented and issue narrow rulings.
As a body, they aren't shy about making it clear that they can do whatever they want.
We're in 100% agreement on that part.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
20d ago
I suspect there's some Calvinball going on here regarding the party presentation bit. Getting to the Supremes and then having them change what the argument is about (by asking for supplemental briefing on an issue which tells everyone exactly what they want to hear) is putting a heavy thumb on the scale. Plus, I'm not even sure it was necessary.
The 7th Circuit opinion is here. Page 15:
We turn next to the meaning of § 12406(3)—“unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” The administration exhorts us to accept the Ninth Circuit’s reading of this subsection. In Newsom, the Ninth Circuit interpreted “unable” to mean that the federal government was “significantly impeded,” and “regular forces” to mean “federal officers.” 141 F.4th at 1052. The district court in this case, by contrast, concluded that the definition of “unable” is “not having sufficient power or ability; being incapable.” And it determined that “regular forces” means the soldiers and officers serving in the regular armed forces. We need not fully resolve these thorny and complex issues of statutory interpretation now, because we conclude that the administration has not met its burden under either standard.
Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts, under the facts as found by the district court, there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws. Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities. At the same time, immigration arrests and deportations have proceeded apace in Illinois over the past year, and the administration has been proclaiming the success of its current efforts to enforce immigration laws in the Chicago area. The administration accordingly is also unlikely to succeed on this argument.
So the 7th Circuit already said interpreting "regular forces" as "federal officers" means the government loses at this stage (arguing about a stay of the preliminary injunction, not a decision on the merits). Why the Supremes wanted to redefine the argument and specify that "regular forces" means military would really only have one goal: making it nigh-impossible for the national guard to be federalized. There's no reason to go that far if the government already loses on the most generous interpretation of the standard.
This is special pleading.
Every time one of my clients wants to argue that the judge should let them out of pre-trial detention because they have kids (this is always most amusing from guys with many prior felonies), the immediate rebuttal is, "why weren't you thinking about your kids before you (allegedly) committed this crime?" I have had judges point-blank ask clients this, and I've yet to hear one with a good answer. This person didn't accidentally end up in the midst of an ICE enforcement action. So if her being a mother of three is supposed to be dispositive that her intentions were good, why didn't she think about that motherhood before entering the fray?
More options
Context Copy link