Wouldn't the establishment of a new precedent require the Supreme Court to overturn their previous ruling though? I'm not super familiar with the judicial system, so perhaps someone could tell me if I'm on the right track here with this hypothetical series of events

1. Charges filed
2. Defense motions to dismiss case on grounds that police don't have to protect anyone
3. Prosecution counters that that's not necessarily what they are arguing here
4. Judge at the lowest level with jurisdiction decides to allow the case to proceed based on prosecutions argument that they aren't litigating settled law
5. Trial
6. Defendants found guilty
7. Defense files an immediate appeal and a stay of sentence because they still feel like their clients are protected by precedent
8. Repeat until Supreme Court gets a writ of certiorari asking them to take up the appeal
9. If SCOTUS accepts the case, they will decide if A) the defense IS actually protected by precedent in this scenario B) whether previous precedent is constitutional and C) the ultimate fates of the defendents 9.1 If SCOTUS does not take up the case, the lower court's decisions are affirmed and that becomes legal precedent.

Is that a probably series of events? Obviously the suit being allowed to continue and the defendents being found guilty are huge assumptions, but, assuming they come to pass, am I on the right track here?

I'm looking to reenter the dating pool in the near future and this has been on my mind, especially in light of Roe and my location in middle America. Would you be willing to share your personal experience with the procedure? Everyone says it's very easy, but I gotta be honest, it makes me nervous.

My interpretation, though I do not understand the greater context of this character, is that he is referring to homelessness in general in the first panel, but dealing with a homeless person in the second. Which is to say, that ignoring the systemic problems which result in homelessness does not preclude acts of charity for the rich to make them feel better/tax write offs/a genuine belief in doing good/image rehab. The rich get whatever benefit they sought from the exchange, the specific recipient of their charity gets a hopefully life-changing boost, and down the road a landlord evicts a family after raising their rent 100% over a few years, thus replenishing the pool of the underclass. In fact, by demonstrating these acts of philanthropy, the wealthy provide ammunition for ideologues who want to gut social welfare by pointing to these generous acts of the elite.

So, I don't see the split or twist that occurs between the two panels that others have commented on. To my mind, both of the panels tell a consistent story. A wealthy man is determined to ignore homelessness when he sees a beggar. He then gives the beggar a pittance and continues along his way, wilfully ignoring the systemic issues that allow homelessness to occur (and which, as a wealthy fat cat type character, perhaps he could do something about if he had the will to do so).

Idk if that was the initial intent, but it's my headcanon now.

Blackgate.com - the remnants of Black Gate magazine, which was published from 2000-2011 and then continued in digital form since. It focuses primarily on vintage literary fantasy, though occasionally the an article will be published in films or new fiction. Of particular note to nerds is the Cinema of Swords column by Lawrence Ellsworth, who fantasy fans may be familiar with as the Principal Narrative Designer for Baldur's Gate 3. I'm not so immersed in the fantasy world that I understand most of what is discussed on the blog, but it is a nice taste of the old Internet, one which might resonate with other fediverse users.

I assumed something like shredded wheat.

Seconding the other poster. Excellent write up; you distilled every rebuttal point I would have made to OP perfectly.

"Billionaires have started 'quiet killing', here's why Forbes says signing up as tribute is a GOOD THING."

I'm circle jerking here, but Lemmy needs content so I'm gonna inflict it on y'all. It's just nice to hear that the genesis of this project is a bunch of creative people experimenting and seeing what sticks rather than some suit writing "Live Service" on a white board and circling it a bunch. Maybe a dollar sign or two.

This is a factually accurate statement, but it reads like you're encouraging someone to get into smoking cigarettes, which is (I thought) a myth invented by DARE types. Hey OP, speaking as someone with a 15 year off and on addiction to nicotine, steady on your course, bud.

I feel like this is the sort of thing that should make an appearance on LGReviews' YouTube channel at some point, if it has not already.

I don't understand diddly about the specifics of this article (I'm a member of the normie minority on this site who is neither working in IT, nor interested in the field), but I gotta say, I loved how it was structured and written. In a sea of AI generated crap, or simply parroting talking heads and calling it news, I found the way they laid out the article in two parts ("this is what happened, followed by "this is our subjective opinion on those events based on the wider context") to be very refreshing.

I hope this does not drastically affect their operations negatively. I've been trained by everything else to assume that this will result in negative impact for customers, but, as someone who literally just upgraded their home theater setup, I'm going to be salty if they lose their focus on providing the definitive experience for home video releases. Obviously, Criterion isn't the only game in town for that sort of thing, and you could argue they miss the mark with some of their releases, but any loss of a vendor for what is becoming something of a niche hobby is a kick in the rear.

You deserve the hose for this, because now I can't stop thinking about it.

I'm no legal scholar, but my read on Thomas is that he is, at the end of the day, a constitutional originalist. He is also a scumbag, but the opinions of his that I've read tend towards similar things: i.e. what does the Constitution/Founding Fathers say about this issue? Of course, most of the time, that ends up generating some wacko opinions because he's generally unwilling to deviate from at 1700s era mindset. In fact, he seems to immerse himself in that mindset in order to form his opinions.

For example, if you read the majority opinion he wrote, Thomas defines the case very narrowly on Constitutional grounds. Basically, the payday loans companies argue that the consumer protection agency is in violation of the Constitution because, unlike most other federal agencies, its director is imbued (by Congress, mind you) with the power to withdraw up to a stuatory cap of funds from the Federal Reserve every year "as [they] determine fit to meet the agencies operating expenses". The loan companies say that this is in violation with the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which states, " no money shall be drawn from the Treasury except in consequence of Appropriations made by Law".

So, Thomas's approach to this disagreement is to determine what an "Appropriation" is, as it might have been defined by the people who wrote the clause. To do so, he, I shit you not, consults a dictionary from the period, like the intro to a lazy term paper ("Merriam-Webster defines appropriation as...). He also gets into the historical case law of Britain, rather extensively, as he believes (probably accurately, frankly) that that's the best way to understand what the authors of the constitutional had conceived as they wrote the document.

After all of this, he winds up with several examples of executive agencies which do/did not fund themselves via the standard appropriations bill process (Customs Offices and Post Offices being the primary examples used). So, he concludes that it's clear that the Founding Fathers had a broader view of how to find the government than ONLY annual appropriations bills, even if the literal text seems to indicate otherwise.

Also, he points out that the whole thing kinda falls apart in the sense that the creation of this agency was an act of Congress, with stuatory funding regulations drawn up by Congress, which was then signed by Obama into law. So, Congress made a law that said this particular agency is allowed to bypass the appropriations clause in x y z ways. Thomas has a stack of historical records which show that this was something the founders not only were aware of, but actively sanctioned via how the Post Office and Customs offices were set up at their establishment. So, he has no choice but to conclude that this agency is in line with what Jefferson et al had in mind. Thus, tough shit payday loans, bribe a congressman to change the law because ain't shit can be done from a judicial perspective. Which, I imagine is probably what Thomas told these companies' bag men when they showed up to secure his opinion.

Thank you for your service

As a small, optimistic caveat to the above, Biden's pardon does work for anyone who was charged in Washington DC since they don't have a state body representing them. So, yes, typically anyone with a federal marijuana charge is also likely the subject of many more serious charges, there is a population of people that may have received immediate relief at the time, which is good.

Biden has done what he is able to do. He proclaimed presidential pardon for federal marijuana charges in late 2022. However, the executive branch has no authority to impact state level charges, which would likely be the vast majority of people affected by marijuana policing over time. In a world where government works as intended, state level organizations should take their cues from what the federal government is doing, but, as I understand it, they are not necessarily beholden to slavishly adopt the federal posture. Perhaps someone with a deeper understanding might illuminate us further.

Is this mean t as a replacement for, or in addition to the Adaptive Controller kits that were in the news a few years back? This seems like a logical end point for that program (i.e. I remember the adaptive controller looking relatively unpolished in comparison to this product). Another commenter pointed out that the actual cost of the adaptive controller is greater than the sticker price would indicate since you need to add peripherals to the base $99 controller to achieve functionality, but hopefully it's still a feasible option for folks that maybe can't quite swing a $300 purchase.

Man I hope the Red Letter Media boys put together a retrospective in his honor

Keep up the good work!

I overheard a conversation between two old guys at the Omaha VA discussing one of their relatives coming out as nonbinary. The sentiment was, in essence, "well, are they gay or what? Idk what these damn kids are doing anymore..." After some internal debate, I piped up and explained the sexuality and gender are two separate topics. To these guys' credit, they seemed to take it in stride, if a little befuddled by it all. Considering the other options and prevailing opinions of many of the patients around here, I'll take a couple of Vietnam vets' bewildered acceptance of non-cisgendered people over ignorant hate seven days a week, and twice on Sunday.