UrLogicFails

Archive.today link

Some key excerpts:

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced Wednesday that transgender women are not permitted to use bathrooms in the Capitol that match their gender identity

The policy [...] will also apply to bathrooms in House office buildings, changing rooms and locker rooms.

Johnson’s statement — which was made on Transgender Day of Remembrance, recognized annually to memorialize trans people who died due to anti-trans violence — comes days after Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) introduced a bill to bar transgender women from facilities on Capitol Hill that match their gender identity, a response to the election earlier this month of Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-Del.).

McBride blasted Mace’s legislation earlier this week, calling it “a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing.”

Mace was threatening to force a vote on the matter prior to Johnson’s decision to formally announce the new policy; the congresswoman wanted the terms to be included in the rules package for the 119th Congress and said she would force a vote on the bill if that did not come to fruition.

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

House Speaker Mike Johnson signaled support Tuesday for a Republican effort to ban Democrat Sarah McBride — the first transgender person to be elected to Congress — from using women’s restrooms in the Capitol once she’s sworn into office next year.

A resolution proposed Monday by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina would prohibit any lawmakers and House employees from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.” Mace said the bill is aimed specifically at McBride, who was elected to the House this month from Delaware.

At least 11 states have adopted laws barring transgender girls and women from girls and women’s bathrooms at public schools, and in some cases other government facilities.

[Mace] added that Johnson assured her the bathroom provision would be included in any changes to House rules for the next Congress.

Archive.ph link

Some key excerpts:

The satirical news publication The Onion won the bidding for Alex Jones’ Infowars at a bankruptcy auction, backed by families of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims whom Jones owes more than $1 billion in defamation judgments for calling the massacre a hoax.

The Onion acquired the conspiracy theory platform’s website; social media accounts; studio in Austin, Texas; trademarks; and video archive. The sale price was not immediately disclosed.

Jones was angry and defiant as he broadcast live with Donald Trump ally Steve Bannon, vowing to challenge the sale and the auction process in court. Jones said he would move to a new studio, websites and social media accounts that were already set up.

The Onion consulted on the bidding with some of the Sandy Hook families that sued Jones for defamation and emotional distress in lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas, lawyers for the families said.

Jones has been saying on his show that if his supporters won the bidding, he could stay on the Infowars platforms. The bankruptcy trustee named First United American Companies, a company affiliated with one of Jones’ product-selling sites, as the “backup bid,” in case The Onion purchase falls through.

You can also find the (somewhat less informative) official announcement on The Onion's website.

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

A contingent of Democratic lawmakers rallied Tuesday evening to vote down a controversial bill that would have granted President-elect Donald Trump broad powers to censor and punish his political opponents.

Despite previous bipartisan support, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act — which would allow the Treasury Department unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit it designates as a “terrorist supporting organization” — hit a roadblock in Congress in the form of Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, who led the charge against the bill in large part due to Trump’s reelection.

In a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, 145 Democrats and one Republican voted “nay” — barely enough to deny the bill the two-thirds majority it needed to pass under “suspension of the rules,” a procedure used to fast-track bills with broad bipartisan support.

An earlier version of the bill had passed the House with near unanimous support before it languished in committee in the Senate.

Under the provisions of the bill, the Treasury secretary would have been authorized to unilaterally designate any nonprofit group deemed to be a supporter of terrorism, giving the group just 90 days to respond to a notice. After those 90 days, if appeals were unsuccessful, the group would be stripped of its tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status. Such a measure would likely cripple any nonprofit, and even if an appeal was successful, critics said, it would leave a mark that could scare away donors.

In the run-up to the vote, a number of Democrats spoke out in opposition, including members of the Squad such as Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Cori Bush, D-Mo.

The majority of Democrats in the House agreed, despite most of them having supported the previous iteration of the bill. Just 52 Democrats wound up backing the bill

It’s unclear if or how the bill’s supporters — including its author, Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and co-sponsor Brad Schneider, D-Ill. — plan to advance it. The bill could easily return in the next legislative session. But the rallying of Democratic opposition and the loss of a Democratic co-sponsor indicate that it is unlikely to enjoy its previous bipartisan backing, according to Kia Hamadanchy, a senior policy counsel with the ACLU.

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

Up for a potential fast-track vote next week in the House of Representatives, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, also known as H.R. 9495, would grant the secretary of the Treasury Department unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit deemed to be a “terrorist supporting organization.”

The resolution has already prompted strong opposition from a wide range of civil society groups, with more than 100 organizations signing an open letter issued by the American Civil Liberties Union in September.

“This is about stifling dissent and to chill advocacy, because people are going to avoid certain things and take certain positions in order to avoid this designation,” Hamadanchy told The Intercept.

The current version — which was introduced by Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and co-sponsored by Brad Schneider, D-Ill., and Dina Titus, D-Nev. — is paired with a provision that would provide tax relief to American hostages held by terror groups and other Americans unjustly imprisoned abroad.

Hamadanchy said combining the two provisions was likely a ploy to push the nonprofit-terror bill through with as little opposition as possible.

The law would not require officials to explain the reason for designating a group, nor does it require the Treasury Department to provide evidence.

“It basically empowers the Treasury secretary to target any group it wants to call them a terror supporter and block their ability to be a nonprofit,” said Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council Action, which opposes the law. “So that would essentially kill any nonprofit’s ability to function. They couldn’t get banks to service them, they won’t be able to get donations, and there’d be a black mark on the organization, even if it cleared its name.”

The bill could also imperil the lifesaving work of nongovernmental organizations operating in war zones and other hostile areas where providing aid requires coordination with groups designated as terrorists by the U.S.

If it proceeds, the bill will go to the House floor in a “suspension vote,” a fast-track procedure that limits debate and allows a bill to bypass committees and move on to the Senate as long as it receives a two-thirds supermajority in favor.

The new bill on terror designations for tax-exempt nonprofits, however, would slash through the pesky red tape — constitutional checks and balances — of due process, presumption of innocence, and other protections afforded to defendants accused in criminal court of providing material support to terror groups.

“The danger is much broader than just groups that work on foreign policy,” said Costello. “It could target major liberal funders who support Palestinian solidarity and peace groups who engage in protest. But it could also theoretically be used to target pro-choice groups, and I could see it being used against environmental groups.

I appreciated seeing these links since it was hard for me to remember the strike friendly link.

I know my instance does not federate with some of the larger ones. So I would understand if a mod wanted to repost this themselves

I saw someone talking about this online recently and I wanted to bring the discussion here too.

Libraries can be supported by a number of means including website traffic, social media likes, newsletter sign-ups, visiting events/ programs, and, of course, checking out books.

I have had a long history with my local library and it blows my mind, sometimes, the services they offer that people don't know about.

When I was a kid, I largely got into reading because of a monthly book club our library ran. Before that, I had never enjoyed reading books outside of a select few series because I wasn't encountering books that spoke to me; but the librarian that ran the program was very savvy and picked great books that children could enjoy. To this day, I am still grateful for that program.

They also have programs aimed at adults that can range anywhere from book clubs to classes, and even very interesting author talks from time to time.

You can also borrow all sorts of exciting media aside from books. You can rent movies/ TV shows, music, and even video games these days. This is really fantastic for movies/ games that you think you'll only want to enjoy once or twice and don't need to own. It's also worth noting that your library can have some pretty rare media that can be hard to find online or in stores.

Additionally, your library can sometimes have large niche equipment on hand for you to use too. I've seen some libraries with 3D printers and some with projectors you can borrow. A lot of time you only need to use these large appliances once or twice a year. In cases like this, it is much better to borrow from your local library.

Finally, your local library can just be a fantastic third space. When I was a kid, the library was a great place to meet up to work on class projects, not just because they had lots of information on hand and a Wi-Fi connection; but because they had all sorts of places you could set up and work. There were conference rooms, tables, benches, and even armchairs for reading (though those weren't very useful for group projects).

If you haven't visited your library recently, I highly recommend checking it out. It may have more to offer than you remember.

If you are interested, I have also included the original skeet that inspired me to make this post here.

Or, if you are proud of your costume, what did you dress as?

I just finished watching Star Trek Discovery a day or two ago and it didn't really hit me until I was reading about Calypso, but it feels like the show-runners are very pessimistic about the concept of a Federation. I am not sure if this is considered old news, but I would be interested in examining the show-runners' outlooks more closely.

While the collapse of the Federation is in a way no fault of its own (the Federation didn't cause the burn); the idea that all it would take would be a scarcity of gas to break up the interplanetary union feels counter to the original ideals of Star Trek's optimism.

The idea that teamwork and ingenuity can overcome most adversity feels integral to Star Trek (at least to me), so the idea that running out of fossil fuels is all it would take to split up the Galaxy's largest symbol of unity feels out of place.

This is an especially powerful slap in the face when in Season 5 they have developed the Pathway Drive after only a few years of working together again. It felt as though there was truly not a strong enough reason for the Federation to collapse and be on the brink of destruction than the fact the show-runners really like the Federation falling apart.

You could make the case that it also has to do with the destruction of most of their fleet, but in Season 1 basically all of Starfleet is destroyed, and that's hardly even referenced again.

As an aside, in the five seasons of Discovery, I think the Federation has fallen (to varying degrees) four times.

1. Reduced to a single star-base and a handful of ships by the Klingons
2. Completely overtaken by Control
3. The collapse after The Burn
4. Becoming the V'Draysh in Calypso

In regards to the V'Draysh concept, I am willing to cut the writers a little slack, because from a meta perspective it feels like Calypso was originally intended to go between Season 2 and 3. This is fully a guess on my part, but I suspect at the time of writing/filming Calypso there might have been a more vague idea of what was wrong with the Federation in the future and the method of time travel to the future may not have been locked down yet. I would not be surprised if the V'Draysh was going to be the Federation in Season 3 and the crew would somehow find themselves on Discovery after it waited in place for 1000 years.

Having said that, though, the writers decided to canonize Calypso as taking place after Discovery ends, so it could be considered a fourth collapse (though technically the V'Draysh are never canonically recognized as the Federation, so there is some wiggle room).

While these are much more minor points by comparison, I would also like to address the phaser design in the future as well as the Progenitors philosophy differences between Season 5 of Discovery and TNG.

While a minor gripe, I thought returning the phaser form factor to a more gun-shaped form was also indicative of the show-runners' head-space.

Phasers went from looking like futuristic laser guns in TOS to looking something like an electric razor in TNG. While this made them less "cool," it signaled a priority on peace and diplomacy. While phasers were weapons, their presence was solely utilitarian and not for intimidation.

Discovery's return to the gun-shaped phasers feels like an out of universe emphasis on "coolness" and action, and an in-universe departure from the emphasis on diplomacy.

You could make the case that this now scrappier Federation no longer had the luxury of diplomacy to rely on, but it still feels pessimistic to think the Federation would abandon their ideals in times of hardship.

As I said, I know it's a comparatively minor gripe to put so much weight into a relatively small prop, but I feel like there is a lot to be said about design language and what it implies about the world of the show.

Finally, there is the issue of the Progenitors. I am positive I am not the first person to say this, but there is a definitive shift from the Progenitors wanting all their disparate species to come together in the unifying pursuit of knowledge to them saying "whoever gets here first is the best and can use this godly power however they want."

This shift from the ideal being universal brotherhood to focusing on being the best species reflects the show-runners' own lack of priority on the concept, which is reflected in their repeated destruction of the Federation.

I understand the idea of wanting your show/movie to be "gritty" and "realistic" (see every DC superhero movie after The Dark Knight), but it's out of place in a show as optimistic as Star Trek.

I'm not sure such an open-ended question can be definitively answered, but why didn't the Discovery show-runners believe in the Federation?

I've noticed a rise in enamel pins over the past few years and enjoy them as a compact and durable piece of art.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to use the pins I have amassed over the years; hence my question of what you do with your pins.

I've been watching a lot of Star Trek lately and wanted to make a fun space themed wallpaper (and icon pack) for myself.

For this project, I painted each of the planets and debris on separate layers in Procreate and designed the ship/window wallpaper in Illustrator. While lining up each layer was a pain, having them move independently was crucial to give the wallpaper a sense of depth.

Surprisingly, getting the clock widget and weather widget to look right was much harder than anticipated. I couldn't find any open source customizable clock widgets; and Breezy Weather was not as customizable as I had hoped. In the end I think the results turned out great, though.

While this isn't news about new technology, I thought it was an interesting look about how predatory EULAs can still hurt us even years later in seemingly unrelated ways

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

After a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant, Disney is trying to get her widower’s wrongful death lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he signed up for years earlier.

Tangsuan was “highly allergic” to dairy and nuts, and they chose that particular restaurant in part because of its promises about accommodating patrons with food allergies, according to the lawsuit filed in a Florida circuit court.

They allegedly raised the issue upfront, inquired about the safety of specific menu items, had the server confirm with the chef that they could be made allergen-free and asked for confirmation “several more times” after that.

After about 45 minutes, Tangsuan “began having severe difficulty breathing and collapsed to the floor.”

“The medical examiner's investigation determined that [Tangsuan’s] cause of death was as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system,” according to the lawsuit.

He is seeking more than $50,000 in damages and trial by jury “on all issues so triable.”

In late May, Disney’s lawyers filed a motion asking the circuit court to order Piccolo to arbitrate the case — with them and a neutral third party in private, as opposed to publicly in court — and to pause the legal proceedings in the meantime.

The reason it says Piccolo must be compelled to arbitrate? A clause in the terms and conditions he signed off on when he created a Disney+ account for a month-long trial in 2019.

Disney says Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it adds, is “immaterial.”

“Piccolo ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate ‘all disputes’ against ‘The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates’ arising ‘in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis,’” the motion reads, arguing the language is broad enough to cover Piccolo’s claims.

“There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement which would support the notion that Mr. Piccolo agreed to arbitrate claims arising from injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort which ultimately led to her death,” [Piccolo's legal team] wrote in the 123-page filing.

They confirmed he did create a Disney+ account on his PlayStation in 2019, but he believes he canceled the subscription during the trial because he hasn’t found any charges associated with it after that point.

“In effect, WDPR is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+,” they wrote.

The court has scheduled a hearing on Disney’s motion for October 2.