Wow. Her claim is so monumentally wrong on a factual basis. Remarkable.
Posts by Mark Stout
"We are pleased to share more than 125,000 U.S. Supreme Court records and briefs. These materials which span nearly two centuries of American law are now freely accessible online."
"Includes records and briefs spanning cases from 1830 through 2019."
Russia’s Federal Security Service said it had thwarted a planned bomb attack on a law enforcement facility in the Stavropol Krai, blaming a German citizen born in 1969 who it said was acting on orders from Ukrainian intelligence.
meduza.io/en/news/2026...
'Texas A&M philosophy professor Martin Peterson is leaving the university after administrators told him in January that he couldn’t teach Plato’s Symposium in his philosophy class; they said the ancient Greek philosopher’s work violated the system’s restrictions on gender and sexuality content.' 1/3
FT Exclusive: Stockholm’s military intelligence head said Moscow is systematically manipulating data to fool Ukraine’s western allies into believing its economy has withstood the strain of its lavish war spending and western sanctions. ft.trib.al/uloekqX
The operation.
I can neither confirm nor deny.
Do you mean Yuggoth?
Hear, hear!
Such a great book.
Reporting I saw said that the money had strings attached for NPR to do new things and could not be used to save the jobs of anyone obliged to leave NPR because of the loss of funding.
With one negative downtick to 35% in August, 1968 Johnson remained at or above 40% approval per Gallup for the rest of his term.
President Trump's approval rating (37% per NBC) is pretty much exactly what President Lyndon Johnson's was when he announced on March 31, 1968 that he would not run for reelection (36% per Gallup).
Amen brother.
True but my suggestion was that he wouldn't have been in a position to do it if not for the Cold War.
I'm quite enjoying (and benefiting from) the general and nuanced discussion this has sparked.
In spades!
Never seen me and Oliver Reed in the same place, have you?
Yeah, Churchill, for instance, gave his Iron Curtain speech the year before.
Without that already strong presidency, Trump would not have been able to reach to the authoritarian heights that he has already done. It's sort of a sick "standing on the shoulders of giants" scenario. I think. Anybody with real expertise have thoughts?
I've been semi-idly thinking about whether we'd be in this crisis of democracy if not for the the Cold War. This isn't my field of historical expertise but my impression is that the presidency started getting super strong because of a requirement to act quickly in case of a strategic nuclear attack.
Whatever you think of it, Clinton’s whole thing with humanitarian intervention might qualify.
I had to download an app to buy a single cup of coffee at some coffee place in New York last year. Insane. I hope the place went under. I don’t want anyone to follow their lead.
One of my favorite things is finding gems unrelated to what I’m researching
A Texas guy in the ‘70s related to a local paper that during the 1916 border mobilization, he witnessed the 1st NH Inf band play “Marching Thru Georgia,” causing a nearby GA unit to threaten to attack. Regulars intervened
In Virginia gerrymandering fight, Republicans claim Obama's with them. He isn't - www.reuters.com/legal/govern...
1/ People complain about how law reviews make you provide citations for absolutely everything, and I get that it can go overboard at times. But it is not infrequently the case that "everyone knows" something, so no one bothers to check it, even when that thing isn't quite right.
"A federal judge ruled in late March that the detention center must give free access to, as the AP summarized the order, 'timely, confidential, unmonitored, unrecorded outgoing legal calls.' Days later, guards cut off the phones entirely....After the phones were cut off, 'the beatings began.'"👇
In a dramatic scene that unfolded in the wee hours this morning, members of the House defeated a ploy by the administration and Speaker Johnson to ram through a 5-year reauthorization of FISA Section 702. Here’s what happened, and what will/should happen next. 1/20
I agree. I don’t see how this is new. (Of course, IANAL.) The FBI seems to have been allowed to search that collected data already, so why does their ability to use an LLM on it make things legally different?
So at the risk of maybe overreading this and making an educated guess, I think I can guess what specifically Wyden is talking about.
I think it's about use of AI (LLMs) by FBI to surveil American communications without a warrant