This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That One Guy with a comment about the problems with the latest court ruling against Elon Musk:
Heads I win, tails you lose
Problematic law is passed:
A) Company or individual rushes a legal challenge out so they aren’t accused of waiting too long and having their challenge thrown out as a result. However because they rushed it their filing has one or more serious flaws and is thrown out as a result anyway.
B) Company or individual carefully crafts their legal challenge, doing exhaustive research to make sure that their challenge takes into account legal precedent and applicable laws, a process which takes a while and means their legal challenge takes a week, weeks or a few months depending on the size of the relevant legal minefield that needs to be navigated and is accused of taking too long with their filing and having it tossed as a result.
I loathe being on Elon’s side on anything and especially on a case like this where he’s suing because his AI was removing clothing from pictures of real people but I simply cannot agree with the judge’s reasoning in shooting down his legal filing against the law due to the absolute mess it’s likely to cause and the significant power judges would have to decide what counts as ‘too late’ on legal filings.
Elon may be a world-class asshole and loser but taking a hatchet to the legal system and inventing out of whole cloth new requirement to undermine his legal filings is crossing the line because other people have to deal with the resulting havoc and unlike Elon those people might not deserve or be able to deal with the mess.
In second place, it’s an anonymous comment about the new time limit on Microsoft’s cloud gaming offering:
What kind of “ultimate” gamer plays less than 15 hours a month? I’m guessing many gamers would exhaust a 5-hour limit in one day. Microsoft are sending a clear signal here: cloud gaming is not to be taken seriously.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous comment about Paramount astroturfing support for its merger:
What would it even mean, really, to “move Paramount out of California?” Pack up all their multitudinous studio shit and flatbed-convoy it to Texas (or wherever else)?
How much would that cost their dumb asses?I kinda want to see them do it, just to see them have to deal with the self-inflicted headache.
Next, it’s Nimrod with a simple comment about ICE’s pathetically low vetting standards for new hires:
It’s probably easier to get a job with ICE than it is to vote by mail.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous comment about the DOJ refusing to dismiss its reflecting pool case with prejudice:
Somebody should tell the DoJ that doing something without prejudice is kind of woke.
In second place, it’s MrWilson making a small edit to another comment about the macho nonsense from Hegseth’s DOD and other federal agencies:
But I guess that’s what happens when an entire political ideology is
obsessed with penisesled by dicks.FTFY
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with one more comment from MrWilson, this time in response to another commenter who corrected our use of “less” when it should have been “fewer”:
To be fair, “fewer” is used for things you can count and Republicans can’t count fictional illegal voters, so…
Finally, it’s Stephen T. Stone with a reply to that comment:
If Republicans could read, they’d be very upset with you for implying they can’t count.
That’s all for this week, folks!