Comment Brah (Score 1) 10
Comment Re:Confused by claims (Score 1) 43
Comment Re:Bull Hockey (Score 0) 81
The collapse is coming soon, but it won't be what anyone is expecting. Our economy is about to evaporate.
Comment Re:Digital (Score 1) 78
Comment Re:My emotions are validated (Score 2) 78
https://battlepenguin.com/gami...
My PS5 has been disconnected from the Internet for over a year but it still has firmware 10.40. The only hack is using a Lua exploit and the only physical disc that can do it was a Limited Run Star Wars game that now goes for over $400 on eBay. The digital version could do it too, but Sony, not only patched the exploit, but changed the store so that all new games purchased have a 30 day expiration window so they can force patch updates.
That's right. When you purchase a digital game on PS5, if you get disconnected from the Internet for a month, the game stops working. Not sure if you can just turn back the system clock either.
Fuck Sony and piracy is now 100% fully justified.
Comment Re:Yes. This is how you keep housing costs down (Score 1) 126
Comment Re:Yes. This is how you keep housing costs down (Score 1) 126
Comment Re:TACO Tuesday? (Score 1, Informative) 68
Comment The notice was never public (Score 2, Interesting) 68
https://battlepenguin.com/tech...
and about the government ID scans:
https://battlepenguin.com/tech...
Comment Re:alito barrett and thomas dissent (Score 1) 97
It has long been established that federal courts may not issue “advisory opinions” that do not bear on the rights of the litigants before them. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 477 (1990). At the appellate stage, this prin ciple means that courts should resolve only those questions on which a favorable ruling would provide a litigant redress from the judgment below. See Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U. S. 427, 432–433 (2019). The question on which the Court granted certiorari in this case cannot satisfy this requirement under any colorable view of the law. The Court should therefore decline to answer it. Okello Chatrie’s ongoing stake in this case stems from his conviction for robbing a bank and brandishing a firearm. On appeal, Chatrie challenged those convictions on only one ground. He argued that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the fruits of the geofence procedure Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) ALITO, J., dissenting
3 that led to his identification as the bank robber.1 So, unless he can show that this evidence should be suppressed, he cannot obtain any relief. And his chances of making the showing needed to justify suppression are virtually zero. The police obtained information about Chatrie’s location at the time of the robbery pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate. And when evidence is obtained under such a warrant, a defendant seeking suppression must overcome the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 923 (1984). A majority of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that Chatrie could not do so. 136 F. 4th 100, 101 (2025) (Diaz, C. J., concurring); id., at 114 (Niemeyer, J., concurring); id., at 115 (King, J., concurring); id., at 115, n. 1 (Winn, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 142 (Hey tens, J., concurring). That holding suffices to affirm the District Court’s admission of the geofence evidence and thus independently supports the Fourth Circuit’s judg ment. Accordingly, any review by this Court should concern an issue that could at least plausibly disturb that good-faith holding. Cf. Stewart v. IHT Ins. Agcy. Group, LLC, 990 F. 3d 455, 457 (CA6 2021).
On this score, today’s decision fails. The majority does not dispute the Fourth Circuit’s good-faith analysis, and nothing in its opinion casts a shred of doubt on that holding. See ante, at 10, n. 4. To overcome the good-faith exception, Chatrie would need to show that either (1) the affidavit sup porting the geofence warrant was knowingly or recklessly
4 CHATRIE v. UNITED STATES ALITO, J., dissenting false, (2) the magistrate rubber-stamped the warrant appli cation, (3) the affidavit was “‘bare bones,’” or (4) the war rant application was so facially deficient that no reasonable officer would rely on it. Leon, 468 U. S., at 923, and n. 24. Yet nothing in the majority opinion touches on any of these matters. Thus, nothing in today’s decision bears on the Fourth Circuit’s good-faith holding. And because that hold ing independently supports the judgment below, the Court’s opinion is advisory.2 This outcome was guaranteed as soon as this Court granted certiorari....
This case doesn't meaningfully change anything about the defendants situation. It will get sent back to the lower courts, but there is still quite a ways to go to get any of the other evidence thrown out as fruit from the poisoned tree.
You people should really read the decision.s
Comment Re:Can't Wrap My Head Around Notion (Score 1) 35
Comment Re:Can't Wrap My Head Around Notion (Score 5, Informative) 35
Comment Re:POP! (Score 1) 56
Comment We need them, but (Score 3, Interesting) 250
Sadly I'm sure the same massive building campaigns will happen with reactors. This will also suck for rural people who don't want these reactors in their community. I guess the saving grace is that nuclear sites don't have the massive noise pollution that data centers do.
Honestly there is so much room around Comanche Nuclear (it has a massive man made reservoir instead of using river water) they could easily expand it to 4 or 6 units without much issue.