My headcanon is that the ban on genetic engineering is mostly an Earth law, rather than a Federation law. Which makes sense if the reason for the law is Earth's experience with augments, as Phlox points out that other species have used it without the same dire consequences. This jives with the fact that only humans living on Earth are ever depicted as being bound by the law. It's not a perfect theory, but it does explain why Bashir's father was imprisoned but the Darwin station researchers were not.

What do you suppose the president has the power to do in this case?

Although Shupe’s limited copyright registration is notable, she originally asked the USCO to open a more significant path to copyright recognition for AI-generated material. “I seek to copyright the AI-assisted and AI-generated material under an ADA exemption for my many disabilities,” she wrote in her original copyright application.

Shupe believes fervently that she was only able to complete her book with the assistance of generative AI tools. She says she has been assessed as 100 percent disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs and struggles to write due to cognitive impairment related to conditions including bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and a brain stem malformation.

I'm sympathetic, but writing a book is not something most people do regardless of their disabilities. Writing is a talent, and most people don't have it. So it makes no sense to invoke the ADA here.

When I was in school ~20 years ago you needed at least 2 years of a foreign language to graduate. Pretty sure that's still the case.

I'm an older millennial and have never even bothered to get a driver's license.

The spork is the cement of our civilization, with which we escape from hunger, using IFIC as our guide: Infinite foods in infinite combinations.

I disagree and here's why.

The 10th amendment does not constrain the state governments, and this is not an ex post facto law.

States are not required to enforce the laws of other states, and generally do not have any legal standing to challenge other states' laws.

It is generally not legal for a state to prosecute someone for actions that took place outside of their jurisdiction.

On the contrary, it's free expression that should not be mislabeled as hate speech.

Costello said he is not concerned by the lawsuit threat. And he said he does not regret his work for Giuliani and Bannon, even though they stiffed him. He said he believed in that work, maintaining that his former clients are being persecuted for their politics.

And the tiny amount of sympathy I felt for this assclown melted away like cheap hair dye.

Mass civil disobedience.

I don't think so. Examples of it happening demonstrate that it can happen. OTHO, examples of it not happening does not demonstrate that it cannot happen.