If someone else posts a better comment that renders mine superfluous, I’ll often delete mine. But if someone else has already replied to mine, I’ll leave it for the sake of context but downvote it so the better one gets more visibility.

See the Silurian hypothesis:

The Silurian hypothesis is a thought experiment, which assesses modern science’s ability to detect evidence of a prior advanced civilization, perhaps several million years ago.

If any of the polygraph operators are opposed to Patel, this would be a convenient way to get his actual loyalists fired without evidence.

I wouldn’t be surprised if forces on the ground deliberately downplayed the damage when reporting to Trump so he wouldn’t endanger them all with further escalations.

But if anyone knows that already, it’s FBI staff.

The Russian equivalent of “you can’t fire me—I quit!”

Sure, it looks like foul play—but it’s also a perfectly natural reaction to driving a Tesla.

Fish.

My apartment building turns 100 this year.

There are three factors that might prevent you from using an online platform to share your opinion:

• The government might impose content restrictions on the platform

• The owners (or delegated moderators) of the platform might impose restrictions on its users

• The users of the platform might use its tools to police the opinions of other users.

“Freedom of speech” normally just applies to the first. Is that what you mean when you say you’re not “allowed” to speak freely?

Dont say Prometheus

Ok… it was Προμηθεύς.

It means he wants to see how people react to him saying it.

Who would even follow Elon Musk?

Candidates looking for funding.

I can’t see a significant percentage of Trump’s MAGA supporters abandoning him in favor of Musk. But I can see Musk being a divisive figure among the non-MAGA Republicans, with some refusing to work with him while others are happy to take his money.

The most likely outcome is nothing.

The second most likely outcome is a fracturing of Trump’s opposition, further weakening their ability to impede him.

If they weren’t such incompetent idiots I’d suspect it was a ploy to create a controlled opposition.

You could restrict it to cases where the victim and defendant belong to significantly different demographics, then.

You could expand that to a general principle for all criminal cases: select one judge that matches the demographics of the defendant as closely as possible, one that matches the victim, and one that differs to an equal degree from both.

He was originally jailed for life but at an appeal doctors told the court the rapes arose of sexual frustration arising out of his marriage to an “ambitious and demanding” wife. The sentence was reduced and he spent only about two years in jail.

Why are rapists seemingly the only category of offender judges always manage to find sympathy for?

These days elders are printing screenshots of emails (and wondering why they’re cut off).

The best dog whistles come with plausible deniability included.