Ooooh my god, it’s so bad. Here’s the case view from the Supreme Court of Florida. Their findings are in a PDF under “Findings & Recommendation”.

On July 28, 2025, Judge Jordan presided over a plea hearing in a felony battery case involving a 33-year-old black female defendant. This was a negotiated plea where the defendant and state agreed that the defendant would complete 30 hours of community service. While discussing possible sanctions with the defendant and her great-uncle (who is also black) who was present at the plea hearing, Judge Jordan inquired:

THE COURT: Sure. [great-uncle] do you own any land where I could have her work it for 30 hours?

[GREAT-UNCLE]: (Laughing)

THE COURT: All my family’s farming. They’d love me out there. You ever—You ever chopped cotton before? You know what that is? You take a hoe and you knock out the weeds. That’ll—That’ll straighten you up real quick doing that stuff.[1]

All right. Well, no pulling weeds for your great-uncle then. So, let’s move on.

[1] Judge Jordan explained to the panel that he comes from a farming background where he spent summers in his youth working his relatives [I can’t believe I get to sic the fucking Florida Supreme Court] farm fields in Texas.

Upon questioning by the Panel, Judge Jordan acknowledged that this was the first and only time he has ever inquired whether a person appearing before him had ever “chopped cotton.” Judge Jordan also acknowledged that his questions and comments in this instance were ill-considered. In particular, Judge Jordan acknowledges that he failed to consider how his comments, as a judge considering whether to order a black defendant to “work the land,” immediately followed by a reference to “chopping cotton,” could have been interpreted (and indeed were interpreted) as inappropriate, especially in light of the historically demeaning stereotype associating black people with picking cotton.

There were other incidents outlined in the report, but this is the one the headline is referring to.

What the fuck are you dipping your pork rinds in

James and the Giant, Fleshy MRI Machine

Clearly staged by luring the cat in with bubble wrap. Just the MSM manufacturing consent for cats to leave their natural, detached, cardboard homes and settle for these soulless, government-controlled, socialist Khrushchevkas.

That’s a good point, although I have no idea if that actually matters since you IIRC have to affirmatively consent under the GDPR. I try not to add more browser extensions than I strictly need to (and try to only use very popular ones) to try to have some small defense against fingerprinting (even though that’s rough to avoid these days).

Browser extensions like Consent-O-Matic also grant yet another piece of software access to nearly every aspect of my digital life – facilitated mainly through the browser – although it being under the MIT License, recommended by Mozilla, and developed by researchers at Aarhaus’ CAVI offset that risk a lot.

As long as uBO blocks them, that’s good enough for me.

But both are legal.

Well no, not at all. Please read the order itself (bottom of the linked Wikipedia article). It’s specifically ordering the state’s militia to do this. And it’s not even a generic order to the militia; it directs specific, named officers to raise X number of troops under their command for the extermination. The governor is vesting this authority in specific people who died long, long ago. By 1976, the order wouldn’t have been actionable by anybody even as written (let alone by actual legal standards under which anyone would definitely be convicted); rescinding it was purely a ceremonial act of goodwill.

It definitely still would not hold water if it were telling citizens (or even generic militia members) they could freely kill Mormons, but it’s not even that murky. The loophole not only doesn’t exist in practice, but it doesn’t exist even in writing.

Couldn’t say. I only just recently started using it and haven’t run into problems so far.

Not only that, but sorting by ‘New’ on Lemmy’s All is a viable strategy for finding worthwhile material, so I assume at least some people do (and I could stand to more often).

On Reddit, if you’re a real human person, you’re probably either doing that in a specific subreddit or, if you have nothing better to do, searching for a gold nugget in a pile of manure.

Excuse me, we don’t question Trump’s tac(o)tical genius here. This is only temporary pain while he guides us to a land of oil and freedom.

If you’re reading lines while doing lines, you may be an ambivert.

It’s sad but true: until such a time as the US markets bounce back, Trump really did rape those children and try to cover it up. About 3500 more points to go.

Bit of clarification: Xenacoelomorpha is the phylum that the genus Xenoturbella is under.

Someone left a tag at the top of the Xenacoelomorpha article advocating a rewrite, which I could probably quickly investigate (or even just check WoRMS) if I weren’t currently a lazy lump of dead weight. Without assessing the tag’s merits, I’d at least advise treading lightly as a heuristic.

Yeah. I don’t keep up with the goss.

That’s not likely why they wouldn’t walk away. Murder is illegal federally, but that’ll only come into play if e.g. they crossed state lines in perpetrating the murder.

In all likelihood, the person would be tried in Missouri’s courts – charged with first-degree murder. No judge or jury is going to buy that they actually, in good faith, believed it was their duty to enforce an obscure, long-neglected, controversial executive order from 1844 which directed the military (and not the general public) to exterminate Mormons in the state. If they seriously did (and their lawyer would have to show some very robust evidence), they might get the exceedingly rare insanity plea and go to a psychiatric institution instead. Or, if they were somehow that plain stupid, there’s always ignorance of the law not being an excuse; their intent was still to kill somebody in cold blood. But otherwise, raising this issue as if it’s a loophole is going to piss off the judge and/or make them way less sympathetic to the jury – and possibly even solidify premeditation which first-degree murder requires.

Your link is malformed and leads to https://lemmy.world/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre. Here’s one to Wikipedia if that’s what you were going for.

As someone who has a fair bit of experience with coding and with charlatans, don’t trust the one in the OP. They just joined Lemmy today, and they’ve been spreading unfounded conspiracist FUD. Learn IT stuff if you value your privacy most; the OP has no fucking idea what they’re talking about and gives zero practical examples to illustrate their point. Programming knowledge has rarely if ever been anything more than a tangential aid in maintaining my privacy.

Well you can’t just dribble that tea over the brim of the cup; you’ve gotta spill it. Is there a post somewhere about this Fediverse drama?

That’s the logic I was avoiding, because although it’s heuristically likely in real life that there’s only one culprit – and that you could get Bowl 9 with ingredients a, b, c, d, e, f, and g to show it’s definitely h or i if you don’t get sick – there’s also a chance you have diarrhea on that Bowl 9 and gain very little information. There’s no conclusiveness to the variable isolation, so it’s not sound from an information theoretic perspective.

Actually, if you assume a comically unlikely worst-case scenario where all of the ingredients cause diarrhea, that sort of recursive algorithm might be the most amount of diarrhea you can get while still gaining information on each bowl.

Oh, no, you phrased it fine; I read 8 bowls and 8 bouts multiple times and somehow still misinterpreted the experiment. It was only after I wrote down and submitted an example setup that I snapped out of my own illiteracy. I realized every possible counterexample was assuming “no diarrhea” trials.

They said they got diarrhea 8 times over 8 bowls, but they never said how many ingredients they used. (Edit: Fuck)

Assume nine ingredients exist: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i

• Bowl 1: a + b + c + d + e + f + g + h + i: Diarrhea
• Bowl 2: a: No diarrhea
• Bowl 3: b: No diarrhea
• Bowl 4: c: No diarrhea
• Bowl 5: d: No diarrhea
• Bowl 6: e: No diarrhea
• Bowl 7: f: No diarrhea
• Bowl 8: g: No diarrhea
• Bowl 9: The one the OP is referring to “tomorrow”, which could have h, i, or h + i

That’s a perfectly feasible if disgusting way to have a bowl from a poke truck if you’re doing it solely for an experiment. And that’s just one setup; there are more convoluted ones you could do that have fewer ingredients but mixed together so your bowls aren’t just one combination. I just chose the counterexample that’s easiest to construct mathematically and which logically uses the fewest steps to eliminate each ingredient.

Edit: Wait, sorry, I misconstructed this because I misread it even while quoting it. Fuck, if they got diarrhea each time, then yeah, they’ve properly eliminated nothing.