Had a few deck boards that were completely rotten through. As in step in the wrong spot and the foot is going through the deck. And a few others that were just half rotten.

Previous owner, I swear bought the cheapest deck paint. Or not even deck paint and just bought outdoor paint and gave the deck a coat before selling it. Within a year it was completely worn off. Luckily due to hail damage insurance is paying for a sanding and painting of the deck (and other things too, but that's irrelivent)

I still have one more I need to do tomorrow.

Donald Trump is promising more payments to voters just ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections — this time, to more than 20 million seniors, giving them $90 each to help pay for Medicare premiums.

The announcement, made late Friday night by Trump on social media, comes after the president last month said about 1 million people would get rebate checks of $500 for Affordable Care Act premiums. He has also promised on the campaign trail to send every American adult $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections.

That pledge — which would require approval from Congress — would likely cost more than $1 trillion, adding to the deficit and worsening inflation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/10/trump-taiwan-sovereignty-china/688356/

Comments

Alberta separatists have gone to D.C. offering fresh water and oil in exchange for American support – and Republican operatives have provided tactical assistance inside the province. Behind the cross-border effort to sway Alberta’s secession vote

Source: https://comicskingdom.com/rae-the-doe/2026-10-03

I made up the title b/c the URL is to the court's finding. Doesn't have a title per se.

TLDR (ruling is 38 pages, so this is BRIEF gd!)

Driver was stopped for following too close. Officer gave warning, but no citation. Officer ran ALPR history, then searched car based on ALPR. Driver admitted to having marijuana in the vehicle, which officer said he didn't care about, and was only after hard drugs. ALPR history had driver driving a long distance for a short visit to the state.

Court ruled:

1. Traffic stop was legal and justified by observed violation. Officer had reasonable basis to stop driver.

2. The subsequent search was NOT constitutional, since officer did not have a warrant for ALPR data, and had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Result from ruling,

(Driver) has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location data which tracked her movements over several weeks. .... The ALPR search was an unreasonable governmental intrusion of protected privacy rights.

Vehicle search result was quashed.

There's lots more nuance in the linked filing. Also citations. It's really good IMO. It balances the privacy of the driver's vehicle with the legit justification for the stop. It also notes how "persistent, dragnet surveilence" differs from other kinds. Kudos to judge Sara Hill for really good nuanced ruling, esp around pg 28+ of the ruling talking about constitutional issues.

It's long but totally worth a read. The case does not set a binding precedent.

The legal situation is FAR from perfect. But I hope just once we can have a thread where a ton of ppl don't immediately go, "this good privacy news is useless b/c it does not solve every single problem every single time!" It is evidence in favor of a slow but meaningful shift in ALPR jurisprudence. It stands along side recent SCOTUS rulings that also do that, like Chatrie v United States and Carpenter v United States.

Comments

I made up the title b/c the URL is to the court's finding. Doesn't have a title per se.

TLDR (ruling is 38 pages, so this is BRIEF gd!)

Driver was stopped for following too close. Officer gave warning, but no citation. Officer ran ALPR history, then searched car based on ALPR. Driver admitted to having marijuana in the vehicle, which officer said he didn't care about, and was only after hard drugs. ALPR history had driver driving a long distance for a short visit to the state.

Court ruled:

1. Traffic stop was legal and justified by observed violation. Officer had reasonable basis to stop driver.

2. The subsequent search was NOT constitutional, since officer did not have a warrant for ALPR data, and had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Result from ruling,

(Driver) has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location data which tracked her movements over several weeks. .... The ALPR search was an unreasonable governmental intrusion of protected privacy rights.

Vehicle search result was quashed.

There's lots more nuance in the linked filing. Also citations. It's really good IMO. It balances the privacy of the driver's vehicle with the legit justification for the stop. It also notes how "persistent, dragnet surveilence" differs from other kinds. Kudos to judge Sara Hill for really good nuanced ruling, esp around pg 28+ of the ruling talking about constitutional issues.

It's long but totally worth a read. The case does not set a binding precedent.

The legal situation is FAR from perfect. But I hope just once we can have a thread where a ton of ppl don't immediately go, "this good privacy news is useless b/c it does not solve every single problem every single time!" It is evidence in favor of a slow but meaningful shift in ALPR jurisprudence. It stands along side recent SCOTUS rulings that also do that, like Chatrie v United States and Carpenter v United States.

A star fall

Timelapse: https://bsky.app/profile/ballshapedman.bsky.social/post/3mwyv7hpge226