"The Orville" used a song from "The Last Unicorn" as a leitmotif for one of its impossible romances, and it's had me in a Mood for hours. Then. Of course. They made a sequel to that episode for the next season.
The love angles it chooses are so satisfyingly complex. The captain and first officer being in love with each other but refusing to pursue it because of their positions is practically vanilla at this point.
literally just enjoy the video, it's funny, who cares if it's staged for comedic effect or if they just happened to have a camera turned on and pointed at them at that time
The world is run by lawyers who think distributing rules section-by-section as separate PDFs is preferable to HTML documents, but I'm supposed to believe the criminals are the bad guys. #1L
(context) https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=ga&set=RPC
Very seriously starting to feel like I was spoiled by my first law school professor being a pretty cool person. Unless this new prof is just having me read this stuff in order to think about its persuasive character (it's for a writing class), I'm in for some shit.
But that's the thing. The writing class is very well publicized and a 1L requirement, so it's probably also where they stuff in the "what it means to be a good lawyer" content. #1L
I don't even want to waste my breath on this bullshit, but people with authority believe in this so strongly that they won't even keep it to themselves.
This professor also assigned a video preaching against the dangers of motivated reasoning. Pity "I'm a good lawyer and those newbies aren't worth shit" isn't considered a motive. #1L
Christ Al-fucking-mighty, if I'm forced by someone with a job to read one more screed about how people without jobs would have jobs if they were "Better, More Resiliant People", I will go postal.
Literally, this report says many people who graduate law school aren't getting hired because they lack "sufficient" IQ, "sufficient" EQ, and (new!) "sufficient" CQ (Character Quotient).
They volunteer-surveyed lawyers with jobs who, uh, have perverse incentives to justify the unemployment rate. #1L
Cats don't like laser pointers. Laser pointers create a frustrating, incomplete hunting sequence that will even drive dogs to unhealthy obsessive-compulsive behavior. Laser pointers should only be used to redirect cats who aren't getting along away from each other and for attacking police helicopters that keep you up all night.
Time and again people need reminding that "cheating" in a single-player game is a nonsensical notion, that DRM doesn't work and it's a bad idea anyway: https://intfiction.org/t/how-to-prevent-people-from-downloading-the-game/57203
plague
How do you explain to normal people that they don't have immunity to the current SARS 2 variants, especially after they've been told time and time again that this would all be over if only they got the jab? How do you explain that an mRNA vaccine isn't like a sterilizing vaccine? How do you explain that the "flu-like" symptoms are literally the work of the immune system, and that most people won't feel the damage inficted on them by the virus as it ravages their circulatory system, utterly destroys the blood-brain barrier thus making its way into your very mind? How do you explain that this thing fucks up your immune system so badly it can no longer fight off those viruses it was keeping at bay, reactivating illnesses such that they may strike again? How do you explain that the damage accummulates with each infection, that even if you're "healthy" now you're more vulnerable for your next infection? How do you explain that the eugenics they've normalized will be their own undoing?
Courts' inability to admit fallibility is a pretty big flaw in a system that (post-hoc*) justifies itself on the myth of "due process." Instead of "We don't know. Must we procede?" it is "We don't know. How do we proceed against The Evildoers?"
*It's just rationalizing the continued existence of a system that systematized and automated kings murdering subjects, but y'know. #1L
One of the problems with any legal system is its incapacity to say "I don't know." The parties can cast doubt on certain things and let the trier of fact make conclusions from there. The court has various quasi-superstitious rules about what counts as evidence and what doesn't which basically amount to "she's suspicious because she has shifty eyes."
But the court itself can't go "I don't know; what is an equitable next step from there?" It cannot truly admit fallibility. #1L
I stumbled on a Shakespeare in the Park production of "Henry V" sometime before the Battle of Agincourt. It played the Frenchmen especially for laughs, but I find I couldn't follow it too much. The guy who played Henry did his famous "band of brothers" speech without a hint of bravado and it was an extremely good take. It was asking his friends to be happy, not get them prepared to die through battle zeal.
Resident Copyright Hater. 1L at Seattle University.
Toots about technology, anarchism, cycling, and Plagiarism.
My feed is diary-driven, so activity and content varies. Will include heavy stuff like US/WA politics or mental health. Not lewd, but not prude.
Trying to press Send less often than I did on Twitter. Book threads are exempt because they are active reading; they are my thoughts prompted by the work, not summaries.
Current Mood: Who Knows?