This is a good idea where students can run the AI detector on arbitrary writing. But in a school that uses AI detectors the way the schools I attended used plagiarism detectors, the detector runs only whenever the student submits something for an assignment. Options for the student to follow your idea include:
submitting school announcements, then "resubmitting" their actual response for the assignment. (students should double check that the assignment system allows resubmissions!)
using different AI detectors than the school might use on student assignments, because a different AI detector will still illustrate the same point
convincing teachers to run school announcements (or the teacher's sample responses) through the school's AI detector (e.g. by making fake assignments for the teacher's internal testing)
or it could be your twisted interpretation of my words. Either way, you’ve assigned motive to me.
Yeah, it's not like you've been doing those things starting from your first comment on this page, where some of us learned about your existence for the first time. What, do you teach your children not to assign motives to other people? Next, you'll tell us that your political brethren don't have any agency?
Crocodile-cry me a river.
Courts can and should opine on the motivations of the parties who are sued and the parties who sue. Not only would the accuracy of historical and precendential records be incomplete without motivations, but many laws have more severe penalties for intentional violations than for unintentional violations.
Zero mentions of "race" in the article. Zero mentions of "racist" in the article. Zero mentions of "black" in the article. Ctrl-F for African. 1 result, in the quoted name of an organization.
Timothy Geigner:
One of our founding fathers that brought “freedom” to America was also a slave owner. He wasn’t alone.
The Trump administration doesn’t like being reminded of that history.
You:
Why do you turn a contract dispute into a polemic on race?
The polemic is coming from inside your house. You're really weird to interpret an implicit "the Trump Administration is racist" as "a polemic on race". When someone whispers about racism, you think they're screaming in your ear. You're weird like how when a reporter asked Trump:
I got a question about something big overseas thing over Prince Andrew arrested by the police there. Um, related to something with Jeffrey Epstein. Do you think people in this country, at some point, associates of Jeffrey Epstein will wind up in handcuffs too?
Well you know I'm the expert in a way because I've been totally exonerated. That's very nice. I can actually speak about it very nicely. I think it's a shame. I think it's very sad. I think it's so bad for the royal family. It's, uh, very very sad to me. [Keeps going on about how it's very sad.] It's really interesting 'cause nobody used to speak about Epstein when he was alive, but now they speak. But I'm the one that can talk about it because I've been totally exonerated. I did nothing, in fact the opposite. He was against me, he was fighting me in the election, which I just found out from the last three million pages of documents.
Consciousness of guilt much?
Anyway, your crashouts are valid. I believe you are a kind person; I am convinced of it, even. You are not racist. You are not homophobic. Like a military strategist, you know your enemy. You are very calm, which means you are reasonable and intelligent. Your words and conduct make you exactly the kind of person any reasonable person wants to be.
Why do you turn a contract dispute into a polemic on race?
Who is "you"? The polemic on race is coming from inside the White House. The top third of the article is about SLAVERY, not race. Between you and Timothy Geigner, you are the only one bringing race into this conversation. Stop copying the DARVO playbook.
You would be better served by reporting on what the case actually meant rather than on what you want the case to mean.
The bottom two thirds of the article is about the contractual dispute. In other words, you didn't read the article.
In the voting rights case Shelby County v. Holder, Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her (continually vindicated) dissent that:
Volumes of evidence supported Congress' de-termination that the prospect of retrogression was real. Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.
Ginsburg's analogy is too charitable toward the willful ignorance of the Supreme Court justices in the majority, but applies to contexts beyond voter suppression. The umbrella is not merely something each individual chooses to throw away. The umbrella represents the initially absent, hard-won, continually necessary rights, freedoms, and safety that a coalition of malicious and ignorant people rips back out of other people's hands. Often (as in the case of anti-vaxxers), the ones who throw away other people's umbrellas often throw away their own as well.
Now we need 10-15 officers per arrest to protect each other” against protesters.
I read the numbers correctly the first time. The second time I read them, my brain auto-"corrected" the numbers to 5-10. Retaining the absurdities of reality becomes harder every day, or maybe this is a sign that I am a perfect fit for president of the United States.
Todd Lyons, I feel that you should be aware that some snake is signing your body to stupid interviews. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
You morons literally called grandmas wandering around the capital an “armed insurrection” and pretended it was worse than 9/11.
MAGA cultists don't merely ignore the elephant in the room. They pretend that all complaints about the elephant are actually complaints about the rat in the room, ignore the few complaints that are actually about the rat rather than the elephant, and continue to insist years later that the person who brought the elephant into the room against the homeowner's objections cannot be held responsible for any injuries and deaths that the elephant caused.
Boxes of January 6 documents will be arriving at Mar-a-Lago soon. Trump will go on Fox News interviews to say, "If you're the president of the United States, you can classify just by saying it's classified. Even by thinking about it." The toilets will be upgraded to be much better at flushing materials other than toilet paper and human waste (which doesn't come out of most people's mouths, but Trump is an exceptional American).
The challengers countered that because the White House had not followed the procedures set out in the Impoundment Control Act, the 45-day period “has not been triggered at all.” Even if that were not true, they continued, “the upshot of the government’s theory is that Congress’s signature law meant to control impoundments actually provided the President vast new powers to impound funds, and made it virtually impossible to challenge impoundments in court.” But it is impossible to believe, they wrote, that Congress would “have enacted such a self-defeating statute.”
Friday’s order, issued 11 days after the last brief filed in the dispute, granted the Trump administration’s request to pause Ali’s order. It explained that at least “at this early stage,” the Trump administration had “made a sufficient showing that the Impoundment Control Act” bars the challengers from bringing claims under the federal laws governing administrative agencies. “And, on the record before the Court,” the order continued, “the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by” the challengers.
Your accusation is a confession. All 6 conservative "justices" on the Supreme Court are activist judges who want lower courts to treat unexplained emergency docket rulings as precedent on par with final rulings.
The conservative justices have the audacity to demand that federal courts treat unexplained emergency docket orders as nationwide binding precedent right after whining about thoroughly explained nationwide injunctions by federal courts.
Or Trump and his administration will refuse to find out, like he refuses to find out that the cognitive exams he boasts about taking are for detecting dementia and other cognitive impairment, not for measuring intelligence.
Trump’s ongoing war against wind energy—claiming windmills cause cancer, kill birds, and are generally terrifying—perfectly encapsulates the warrior mindset.
Trump uses the word "windmill" because he doesn't know what the term "wind turbine" means. Trump also says "windmills" kill whales! What's next, the windmills turn the frogs gay?
I submit a manuscript for review in the hope of getting comments from my peers. If this assumption is not met, the entire social contract of peer review is gone.
This was a good point until the researcher ignored that being without a social contract still means being subject to social and professional punishments for bad decisions. If a researcher wants others to treat them like a trustworthy scientist, then the researcher shouldn't undermine science by letting their improperly reviewed paper slip through without notice. The researcher should instead expose the review procedures in ways at least as explicit as an AC's suggestions.
Inspired by Wikipedia's wp:point rule: Do not poison the scientific commons to illustrate a point
This is a good idea where students can run the AI detector on arbitrary writing. But in a school that uses AI detectors the way the schools I attended used plagiarism detectors, the detector runs only whenever the student submits something for an assignment. Options for the student to follow your idea include:
Courts can and should opine on the motivations of the parties who are sued and the parties who sue. Not only would the accuracy of historical and precendential records be incomplete without motivations, but many laws have more severe penalties for intentional violations than for unintentional violations.
Zero mentions of "race" in the article. Zero mentions of "racist" in the article. Zero mentions of "black" in the article. Ctrl-F for African. 1 result, in the quoted name of an organization. Timothy Geigner:
You: The polemic is coming from inside your house. You're really weird to interpret an implicit "the Trump Administration is racist" as "a polemic on race". When someone whispers about racism, you think they're screaming in your ear. You're weird like how when a reporter asked Trump: Trump responded with: Consciousness of guilt much? Anyway, your crashouts are valid. I believe you are a kind person; I am convinced of it, even. You are not racist. You are not homophobic. Like a military strategist, you know your enemy. You are very calm, which means you are reasonable and intelligent. Your words and conduct make you exactly the kind of person any reasonable person wants to be.California and Washington are trying to do the same thing. Government-mandated scanning of illegal material turns private actors into government actors, and warrantless surveillance by government actors violates the Fourth Amendment.
Aargh. What fool accidentally writes "often" twice in the same sentence?
An anti-vaxxer's "freedom" to subject everyone to the rainstorm that never stopped.
In the voting rights case Shelby County v. Holder, Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her (continually vindicated) dissent that:
Ginsburg's analogy is too charitable toward the willful ignorance of the Supreme Court justices in the majority, but applies to contexts beyond voter suppression. The umbrella is not merely something each individual chooses to throw away. The umbrella represents the initially absent, hard-won, continually necessary rights, freedoms, and safety that a coalition of malicious and ignorant people rips back out of other people's hands. Often (as in the case of anti-vaxxers), the ones who throw away other people's umbrellas often throw away their own as well.Every Minnesota resident gets a free Luigi Mangione perp walk
Boxes of January 6 documents will be arriving at Mar-a-Lago soon. Trump will go on Fox News interviews to say, "If you're the president of the United States, you can classify just by saying it's classified. Even by thinking about it." The toilets will be upgraded to be much better at flushing materials other than toilet paper and human waste (which doesn't come out of most people's mouths, but Trump is an exceptional American).
Geo-blocked John Oliver videos
For whatever reason, the YouTube channel for John Oliver's show publishes two different versions of each episode. Both are geo-blocked for different countries. There's a slightly shorter version containing only the "main story", like the one Karl referenced called Public Media: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO). The US gets access to this version. Then there's the actual full version, in this case called S12 E30: Trump, Epstein’s Emails & Public Media: 11/16/25: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.
"Pursuit" of happiness takes on the meaning of pursuit commonly associated with a lights-and-sirens police chase.
Unrelated: Two weeks ago, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court abused the emergency docket to bless the Trump administration's previously retracted argument that the Impoundment Control Act can block lawsuits against illegal impoundment:
The conservative justices have the audacity to demand that federal courts treat unexplained emergency docket orders as nationwide binding precedent right after whining about thoroughly explained nationwide injunctions by federal courts.
Or Trump and his administration will refuse to find out, like he refuses to find out that the cognitive exams he boasts about taking are for detecting dementia and other cognitive impairment, not for measuring intelligence.