Most people in first world countries will probably understand 'L' and 'R' anyway. But hypothetically, the problem could probably be solved by adding another letter, the same way we know that 'T' is for 'Tuesday' and 'Th' is for 'Thursday.'

(tw i guess) Just had a very interesting conversation with someone who seemed otherwise smart and friendly. He genuinely believes that people are choosing to be trans for attention.... without having ever talked to a trans person himself. Also legitimately believes that the government is ruled by lizard people, and that covid just never existed(???).

Apparently for some people, when "none of the mainstream media is willing to tell you this," that makes the information more credible to them. Bizarre.

P2W games are like, "You got 2 free skips! Let's try using one now on this 5-minute timer." & You know I'm waiting the full 5 minutes because after the tutorial every cooldown is like 8+ hours.

This has been a thing in the US for a while unfortunately. We acknowledge that food, shelter, clean water, and reasonable healthcare are basic human rights for prisoners, but when it comes to regular poor people? Suddenly we're a nanny state and they're abusing the system by... being alive, I guess.

Sorry, Zoning Violation is my brother. I'm xXG4M3R_G0D_420Xx. Easy mistake to make though.

Umm the actual court order the article refers to is super generous to the plaintiffs lol. Whoever's representing them made such basic mistakes that I'm not even sure how they passed the bar exam:

The Plaintiffs' first cause of action lists--in a single paragraph that spans four pages--fifty
different state (and DC) consumer-protection statutes.

(This is a no-no in every federal court in every state.)

In either event, the Plaintiffs concede that they've failed to meet the requirements of Mississippi and Ohio law--even as they ask us not to dismiss those claims.

(Wtf? lol)

we agree with Burger King that a reasonable person wouldn't have interpreted Burger King's TV and online ads as binding offers.

(This is well-settled law and taught to most first-year law students.)

Require public middle schools to include mandatory courses or seminars about empathy, emotional wellbeing, and basic social skills.

or

Put them with the other white-supremacists on a square of land and let them be an independent territory, on the condition that anyone who wants to leave must be allowed to leave to the US. And point and laugh as they realize only white men would want to live in a society that arbitrarily puts white men at the top.

or

Kindly ask the media to stop using the same 5 "scary SJWs who want to kill all men!!!!" to convince half the country that they are being persecuted by all women and minorities everywhere.

(disclaimer: results may vary.)

I'm not a lawyer (yet) as I haven't taken the bar exam, but I remember learning this in law school.

I can't find the original court filing that all these news articles are reporting, but presumably, this is a special kind of suit seeking a "declaratory judgment" - a suit asking the court to prevent a harm before it happens.

Cornell Law School discusses it in a somewhat lengthy read but put "simply", for standing in this kind of case, the court would want to see:

a concrete controversy (as opposed to a hypothetical one, e.g. you can't seek a declaratory judgment "in case my neighbor decides to hit me"),

between adverse parties (some random citizen can't sue you for breaking a promise you made to your grandma),

that is ripe (where enough has already happened that a decision right now wouldn't require much speculation),

not moot (has to be able to affect the current case, for example, declaratory judgment isn't appropriate to determine "should he have done that?"), and

the court's decision is needed to prevent imminent harm (has to be relatively certain that a party would be adversely affected if the court doesn't prevent it from happening).

Here there could be issues of ripeness: the court might not want to act on the mere possibility that Trump will be found guilty of insurrection etc. Courts don't like to tell people what they can and can't do unless a real situation makes it necessary, otherwise the court would risk encroaching on powers that belong to the other branches of government.

I get this in theory but it gave me the hilarious mental image of someone gathering their phone, keys, wallet, going to their local polling station, showing their ID, walking to the voting machine, then thinking, "Oh no, I'm allowed to vote for TWO people?" and immediately bolting out the door.

A sizable portion of the population would convince themselves that the sky is green, if that was their party's official position.

And a sizable portion of politicians, of a certain moral character, would take the official position that the sky is green if someone paid them enough.

On an unrelated note, I wonder which party is heavily sponsored by the oil and gas industry?

Galaxy brain idea: Just encrypt your messages manually. Agree on an algorithm and trade keys in-person, then send each other encrypted files that you decrypt with a separate program (and for added privacy, on a separate device that doesn't have network access). It's not convenient at all but the idea is hilarious.

There's an urban myth at my university that two students did this to test rumors that the school emails were being monitored, and after a few weeks later IT emailed them asking them to stop.

The "high-tech solutions" were sustainable energy, banning mass animal farms, and regulating industrial pollution.

And even if we did come up with a big tech solution that works for now, literally every business would then think, "Nice, now we don't have to care about our carbon footprint," until even our tech can't keep up anymore and we're back at square one.