@nick_evans (my native city!)

in reply to @nick_evans

@guncelawits excellent! to eat accompanied by Dr. Brown’s Cel-Ray soda.

@LouisIngenthron @darwinwoodka i’ve got to try it…

in reply to @LouisIngenthron

@lmorchard ding ding ding!

in reply to @lmorchard

@darwinwoodka obviously you are not from this city!

in reply to @darwinwoodka

this ice cream shop could only be in one city.

Photo of toppings available on an ice cream shop menu: Banana, Brownie, Butterfinger, Caramel, Chocolate Sauce, Chocolate Chips, Cinnamon, Cookie Dough, Fudge, Graham Cracker, Gummy Bears, Heath, M&M, Oreos, Marshmallows,
Marshmallow Sauce, Old Bay, Peanut Butter Cups, Peanut Butter, Peanuts, Pretzel, Sweetened Strawberry/Pineapple Photo of toppings available on an ice cream shop menu: Banana, Brownie, Butterfinger, Caramel, Chocolate Sauce, Chocolate Chips, Cinnamon, Cookie Dough, Fudge, Graham Cracker, Gummy Bears, Heath, M&M, Oreos, Marshmallows, Marshmallow Sauce, Old Bay, Peanut Butter Cups, Peanut Butter, Peanuts, Pretzel, Sweetened Strawberry/Pineapple

from an excellent analysis by @AshaRangappa asharangappa.substack.com/p/th

Text:

The worst part of this case is that it becomes
obvious that there was a moderate position
that the justices could have taken that would
have achieved the majority's purported goals.
The Court could have simply said that any
official act - even one in the outer perimeter
of the president's duties - has presumptive
immunity. That presumption can be rebutted
if the government shows that the action was
taken with a corrupt motive or for personal
gain. That would have discouraged politically
motivated prosecutions, reinforced the rule
of law, and helped protect the executive
branch. It also would have preserved the
difference between lawful and unlawful acts. Text: The worst part of this case is that it becomes obvious that there was a moderate position that the justices could have taken that would have achieved the majority's purported goals. The Court could have simply said that any official act - even one in the outer perimeter of the president's duties - has presumptive immunity. That presumption can be rebutted if the government shows that the action was taken with a corrupt motive or for personal gain. That would have discouraged politically motivated prosecutions, reinforced the rule of law, and helped protect the executive branch. It also would have preserved the difference between lawful and unlawful acts.

@realcaseyrollins most of them now identify as ex-GOP i think.

in reply to this

in the most amusing timeline, it turns out he was radicalized by ex-Bush-Administration Never Trumpers.

you can love the human without admiring the candidate.

is it fair to define a subgenre of pop music that includes only Barry Manilow and Neil Diamond?

yesterday wasn’t a bad day to die of natural causes at age 96.

“Russian Government Forces Apple to Remove Dozens of VPN Apps From the App Store” @nickheer pxlnv.com/linklog/russia-vpn-a

pokemon go is a psychotomimetic.

from asiatimes.com/2024/07/chinas-s

might Congress actually rouse itself to put the rogue Supreme Court in its place? via @ddayen democrats-judiciary.house.gov/

it is in both of our interests that we make common cause, but i am so very angry at you.

@scott Biden’s 100 day speech in 2021 was very admirably economically populist, but I don’t remember specifics. But his turn towards economic populism in 2021 came after his election. It strikes me as new and important that he’s making it a center of his campaign.

in reply to @scott

Brandolini’s Law is why the business-efficiency case for LLMs doesn’t really make all that much sense. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandoli

“In Detroit, Biden pitches his 100-day plan for 2025: Restore Roe v. Wade. Pass the John Lewis voting rights bill and Freedom To Vote Act. Eliminate medical debt. Raise minimum wage. Pass the PRO Act. Ban assault weapons. ‘Keep leading the world’ on climate change & clean energy.” x.com/sahilkapur/status/181191