Tried setting up an account on feddit.online and logging in but getting a connection error.

Can log in via browser fine, no vpn. Have a + in my email so maybe that’s causing it? Or need to wait for registration to propagate ?

The writers this season aren’t even trying anymore.

Removed by mod

Both.

It’s much harder to prove this for things like neurodivergence but easy to do so for things like autoimmune conditions, type-1 diabetes, MS, etc.

And the fact that they’re co-morbid isn’t coincidence!

http://me-pedia.org/wiki/RCCX_Genetic_Module_Theory

The RCCX genetic module is a chimeric region that stays linked, adapts, and spits out mutations in response to environmental factors. Most complex gene cluster in our genome, in the most complex region, and state of the art techniques still struggle to sequence it in all its detail still. Recently shown to be behind sex biases in immune conditions by MIT. But personally I think it’s fascinating and meshes well with the Gaia hypothesis.

People hold strong, defensive opinions about all kinds of things, funny how you don’t react this way to those too.

It’s pure carnism defense mechanisms in action. If you ever wonder how MAGA supporters can be so detached from reality, remember you’re doing the same thing.

The truly self-righteous position is thinking you have a right to their bodies.

I can fuck with this. Spookier if you consider humans.

Neurodivergence (and all immune-mediated conditions) are increasing in response to the environment which results in people like Greta who directly resist the damage that’s causing the increased incidence.

Be careful, radical centrism is the worst kind of extremism and dulls your surroundings.

Irish / Celtic population is known for being curly too

Cumbernauld

We had the driest period in 100 years a month or two ago, didn’t rain for 5 weeks or something. Back to 18-20C and only raining half the time so better than usual I guess aye

That’s what capitalism is.

Anarchists still believe in trade.

We had AI before LLMs and that was even dumber. AI is fine as a name if people stop equating it with human intelligence.

Yep summer in Scotland just means it rains slightly less and doesn’t get dark at 3pm

Yeah that winter sounds fun.

Try 7 months of dark at 3pm and grey overcast and mild drizzle everyday.

Sir 48% of voters approve of trumps actions so far. Those red state AGs will be championed for selectively applying the constitution as Trump sees fit. I’d expect prayer in schools and banning of protest will be the first to go.

? I didn’t. I repeated the same thing I’ve been saying for the past 5 comments and the dissenting opinion from Jackson. Even the site you linked me says it applies as I’ve stated so wtf are you talking about? Are you a bad AI?

The Court’s opinion specifically addressed whether multiple states could get broad nationwide relief without showing concrete harm for all non-plaintiffs.

It sets a binding precedent that narrows when lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.

That means it does have general implications for all future injunctions

Supreme Court opinions - even on the Shadow Docket - do have precedential effect, so lower courts will treat this as binding guidance on how to craft injunctions going forward.

Jackson’s dissident seems pretty clear?

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting. I agree with every word of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent. I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point: The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.

It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called “universal injunctions” is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says “do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,” what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution—please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish. But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary has no choice but to deny it.

Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law, no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.

The majority cannot deny that our Constitution was designed to split the powers of a monarch between the governing branches to protect the People. Nor is it debatable that the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional scheme is to ensure fidelity to law. But these core values are strangely absent from today’s decision. Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. The majority’s ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate. The very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness. With deep disillusionment, I dissent.

It affects all nationwide injunctions not just this one.

This ruling changes when and how lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions for any future case.

Courts can still block federal policies - but now they must limit injunctions to the actual plaintiffs or a certified class.

Those articles say it does apply to nationwide injunctions in general so Wdym?

The court decided that nationwide injunctions, or court orders that prevent the government from enforcing a specific law or policy, are unconstitutional.

You’re assuming the midterms will save you but that assumes he won the election fairly. Which he didn’t based on the suppression tactics he down alone; before you get to the dodgy voting patterns and gerrymandering.

Yeah technically but still makes it a lot harder, more expensive, and longer; especially for the unlucky ones in red states who now have unequal access to justice. Giving them plenty of time to do whatever the f they want. Already bumrushing people at breakneck speed on the streets and shipping them off to random countries what do you reckon they’ll manage in their remaining 3.5+ years.