There had to be a balance in editorial content

This rule was was the Fairness Doctrine, and it was in effect from 1949 to 1987. So it's fair to say that Reagan got rid of it.

if the station supported Candidate A, Candidate B had to be allowed equal time.

This is a different rule called the Equal Time Rule, and it's still in effect today.

Recently this rule was in the news when Stephen Colbert interviewed Senate candidate James Talarico on his (now concluded) show, without offering the same interview time to Talarico's primary opponent Jasmine Crockett. I believe in the end the interview was cut from the over-the-air broadcast to comply with the rule. (The interview segment was published on YouTube, which is not subject to the rule.)

What's funny to me is that the algae problems started when they switched off of DC tap water and installed the pump system that draws in Potomac River water. Back in 2011-2012. Before Trump was ever a politician.

Yeah. The "Spanish" flu is actually a product of Kansas.

...

Use esoteric knowledge of jet streams to firebomb the Pacific coast of the United States with balloons.

This headline is seriously misleading. The court did not "strike down" the entire law.

The law says that users of illegal drugs cannot purchase guns. The court said that the law cannot stop a person who uses marijuana a few times per week from buying a gun. Because marijuana usage is common and normalized now, a gun ban would violate that person's right to keep and bear arms.

This decision does not automatically get Hunter Biden off the hook, because Hunter Biden's case involved a much greater variety of drugs. Hunter will certainly try to litigate this, but success is not certain for him.

You might have right of way, but they have guns, and a somewhat justified paranoia about small vessels.

The concept of "stand on" in the international navigation rules is slightly different from right if way as you might apply to a car crash.

I was taught, if you are the "stand on" vessel, you have a duty to maintain steady course and speed. Stay predictable. The last thing the nav rules want is for two vessels to both make course alterations and turn into each other.

I should also add that rule 2 requires all vessels to maneuver when necessary to avoid a collision. Even the stand on vessels.

This is a reminder to American service members:

Your oath of allegiance is to the United States, not to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris. You have a duty to obey lawful orders issued under the authority of the commander in chief. But it is your duty to disobey unlawful orders.

What that actually looked like:

And they are all welcome back if they can satisfy the Linux Foundation that they're not affiliated with a sanctioned entity on the SDN list.

If transgender people don't exist, then exactly whom are they trying to kick out?

What the fuck is Justice Jackson doing ?

Here's one analysis:

Jackson gets this application because it's from the 1st circuit, and she is assigned to initially handle all shadow docket matters from the 1st circuit. By writing this admin stay, she potentially keeps the full court from stepping in and doing it for her. And this way she gets to set the 48 hour limit. This could cause the whole case to be decided one way or another a lot faster.

The supreme court let the trans passport case sit on the shadow "emergency" docket for 48 days. This stay gives the 1st circuit approx the weekend to make their decision, then the 48 hour deadline puts some oomph on the rest of scotus to make their decision.

If Justice Jackson did nothing, and 5 votes on the court intervened to issue a stay at 1 am, then there would be no 48 hour limit.

Yeah. This sounds a lot like some PM type thinks they're gonna get rid of control panel, and they just don't know what all is actually in there.

And not to mention the custom control panel applets hanging around out there from who-knows-what vendors.

Ladies and gentlemen, vote for democratic socialism. It's the fiscally responsible choice.

This is probably "felony murder". The rule here is that if you are committing some kind of felony, and someone dies as a result, then you are guilty of murder for that person. This bypasses all of the usual intent filters between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter.

Classic example: you and a friend decide to hold up a bank. It goes sideways and a bank security guard shoots and kills your friend. You are guilty of murder because your friend died because you both decided to commit a felony.

The charge is aggravated second degree harassment with hate crime enhancement.

The complaint is that the defendant took pictures of the vandalism of the NYT building, where red paint was splashed on the building along with messages protesting NYT's coverage of Gaza. Think along the lines of, "you're complicit. Etc etc."

The defendant didn't do any vandalising, just "harassed" whom? The NYT? By posting photos or messages to a social media account.

The hate crime part is presumably charged as some kind of antisemitism angle.

Overall this seems like a pretty slam dunk first amendment deal, but I didn't get all the facts. In order to stand up against the 1A, the harassment case has to look more like "yelling fire in a crowded theater" than it does now.

Facts about this:

1. Bags, with contents, were left on board the lower descent stages of the lunar modules. They remain on the moon to this day.

2. There was at least one incident on Apollo 10 where feces escaped and was floating around the cabin.

Part of the radio transcript:

How the heck do the YouTubers I watch sustain themselves on $330 / million? That seems really unsustainable when they only very rarely break 5 million.

Ukraine gave up those nukes in exchange for security assurances. If Russia is going to go back on its assurance, then Ukraine should be able to go back to the nukes. Fair is fair.

As a former SSR that held nuclear weapons on its territory before 1968, they even oughta be free and clear with respect to the non proliferation treaty.

Just to be clear: with a marginal tax rate, if your income is $10,000,001, you pay $0.70 tax for the $1, and the rest of the $10,000,000 is taxed according to the lower tax brackets.

The first $50,000 of that $10 million is taxed just like the guy that only made $50,000.

The US tax system is slightly more complicated than this, but there's no situation where you can get stuck with a huge additional bill because you edged slightly into the next higher tax bracket.

she acted as an agent of China’s government and did not notify the U.S. attorney general as required.

The crime is not the speech. And propaganda, even foreign propaganda, is not illegal. The crime is being an unregistered foreign agent.

If you do work for a foreign government in the United States, you have to register as such with the US government.