Bing used to be better than Google for a time but it has gotten worse too to the point where I use Google again. Edge is, IMO, unfairly maligned. It’s a perfectly good browser, although Microsoft begging me to use it is quite annoying.

My guess is that they’re not particularly outrageous but they are damaging in a nonpartisan way (or else Biden could have released them). Maybe the unreleased information is about Epstein’s work with intelligence agencies, something that neither Democrats nor Republicans would want to release and individuals with access wouldn’t feel a moral obligation to leak.

But that still doesn’t explain why Trump doesn’t just say so without revealing any details - it seems less damaging than total stonewalling.

But the money is actually pretty good.

It was me.

Do people actually like pizza with the crust so flaccid and the cheese so melty that it drips off? A good slice doesn’t come apart before you can eat it.

(Any innuendo is deliberate.)

I’ve never understood how being a wanker to someone whose job it is to sort issues out somehow nets you a better end result.

I saw a guy yell at an airport employee who kept telling him that she couldn’t legally let him on the plane because the cabin door was already shut. He kept at it until a supervisor showed up, contacted the pilot, and let him in. I get where the guy was coming from (because he loudly proclaimed that he was missing a connecting flight through no fault of his own) but it was still weird to see him get something by being angry which he probably couldn’t have gotten by being nice.

I think the emphasis of the article was more on people who resent having to spend two more cents in any circumstances than it is on people who can’t round.

True, but I still think it’s interesting to consider if some of these people wouldn’t have been willing to vote for something with consequences. Or if some people who didn’t vote for this would have been willing to vote for something with consequences.

The legislation passed in a 52-48 vote, with five Republicans – senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and the former Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky – joining all Democrats in favor.

I wonder which of these Republicans would still vote for this if it weren’t an empty gesture.

The PSF is (presumably) already required to comply with Federal anti-discrimination laws. Am I misreading the text or does it not actually create any new obligations for the PSF if they were to accept the grant?

This severe conflict of interests is unlikely to get the attention that it should because objecting to paying soldiers is not a good look for someone who wants to be re-elected. But I hope that I’m wrong, because the potential to compromise America’s security interests is huge here.

Oh, now he has gone too far! There’s no way the American people will stand for this.

I wonder if the political situation at the national level could be improved by reversing the long trend of increasing federal power. Reduce federal spending, reduce federal taxes, and let states manage their own policies on both economic and social issues to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible. They can handle disaster relief using the money that would go to state taxes instead of federal taxes. Many of the battles being fought on the national level now would simply go away. There will still be people unhappy with their state’s policies, but moving to another state is a lot easier than moving to another country.

(It won’t happen.)

A shoehorn.

I don’t know enough about the risks to confidently say whether or not a ban is a good idea. (But what I do know leads me to keep using nonstick pans.) However, what jumped out at me in this article was this:

“Whether or not California passes a ban, Pfas is on the way out because consumers are demanding it,” Salter added. “If lawmakers represent their constituents then they’ll pass a ban, and if they represent billion dollar companies then they will oppose it.”

People freely choose whether or not to use nonstick pans, so how can passing a ban possibly represent constituents even in principle? A law regulating the negative externalities of pollution makes sense as something that constituents might want, but is the concern here really about the harm done to one person by a different person in a different house using nonstick cookware? It seems to me that laws like this are about protecting constituents from themselves, which is often justifiable but not really representative.

(A ban on pfas in other contexts where people don’t expect to find it does make sense as something that could represent constituents.)

Handcuffs can leave signs, but I’m not sure how examining a body could indicate that the person had been blindfolded. Were the bodies returned with blindfolds on?

kills fish

Stop staring at me with your dead eyes!

I grew up in a big city so I didn’t learn to drive until I was 23, and once I did, I realized how much I had been missing. A car with a full tank of gas really does feel like freedom to me, so I enjoy having a car that is good at being a car. I’m not particularly interested in aftermarket modifications, but I am willing to pay more for a car that is fast, handles well, and looks good.

You’re right in general, but 1:50,000 implies an average lifespan of 137 years, unless I’m missing something. I think 1:15,000 is a more reasonable estimate.

I was still a kid (under 18) when I had a green card so maybe I didn’t get the official lecture for that reason, and then my parents didn’t think it was important enough to tell me.