No, executive agencies have been regulating since well before Chevron deference existed. Chevron deference allowed agencies' interpretations of statutory ambiguities to be presumed authoritative as long as they were "reasonable." Now, we're returning to Skidmore deference, which asks whether they are "persuasive." In either case, agencies are still expected to regulate and, if empowered specifically by statute to do so, they can still interpret ambiguities with impunity. Anyway none of that even matters because this case did not involve Chevron deference.

This was, in fact, not a case that would have been subject to Chevron Deference even if that doctrine still had force of law. It is just an application of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which allows citizens to petition the EPA over substances that present a risk of harm. A study said that the currently-accepted level of fluoridation still resulted in marginal IQ decrease in children, so there was a new way to say that fluoride presents a "risk." tl;dr no it's not because of any SCOTUS rulings

The etymology of "temblor" lists it as American Spanish coined in the 19th century.

Remember: Comcast owns NBC. It'll be fun when they also own Fox.

I think robots and eagles should be allowed to fight each other to their hearts' content, but seriously: "Bold Eagles: Angry Birds..." is the worst title I've ever read. I don't know why, it just infuriates me.

So, you assumed that, since China's population is 1/5th of the world's population, that if you posted an article about a Chinese cultural thing, there'd be at least a 20% chance that a reader would know what you were talking about. Now, not that I don't see why you'd THINK that...

A sexual deviant looked at pictures of people online and had sexual thoughts. Shut down EVERYTHING.

Now they should apologize for *all* versions of Final Fantasy XIV.

Why is this tagged under "Sci-Fi"?

How the fuck does this even happen? What were they doing with a ANY number of liters of polio near the water?

..in some circles, actually, it is.

Of course SW's reaction shouldn't have been what it was (full-out spiteful), but the thought of calling someone out by name on the internet makes me cringe. To me--though I concede I might have spent too much time on a certain imageboard--you should only post somebody's full name or any other personal information if you're prepared to see that person burn in digital fire. We shouldn't underestimate how harmful it can be to have something critical said about someone on the internet. While Mr. Duff's complaint was valid and the reaction by the airline was wrong, I don't think he went through the proper channels to file a personal grievance. Employees have supervisors and managers for just this reason. I'm fine with complaining about whole companies online, or but sniping individuals can be incredibly injurious to their careers and lives. It's just not something I'd do, maybe I'm in the wrong.

It means we can't trust people on the internet. This should come as no surprise. Experienced internet users already know not to take things at face value, not to feed trolls, and not to take anyone's "word for it". In civil, learned communities (like Slashdot, for example) a "shill" is fighting an uphill battle when trying to spread disinformation--anything that's posted here will be carefully examined. Even in volatile, less-learned sites (4chan's /b/, for example), they'll still have to trudge through a hundred miles of skepticism and snark to convince any sizable demographic of any one thing. I'm not saying "shills" can't be effective on the internet. I'm just saying I'm glad I don't have their job.

TO ALL

This just in: humans' lives easier than ever. Humans outraged.