The Professor in question barely mentioned AI. Instead The Guardian ran a hit-piece on her that doesn't even properly engage with her points until more than halfway through.

This is the only mention of AI in the whole piece:

General learning loss would lower the entire distribution. It would not hollow out the middle while piling students up at exactly zero. Something else appears to be compounding the problem. Whatever the mix of causes, the problems at UC accelerated precisely when the system discarded the one standardized baseline it once had. Without standardized tests, admissions officers are flying blind, especially as grade inflation has made transcripts a weaker indicator of readiness, and artificial intelligence has made admissions essays a weaker signal of students’ work.

And as The Guardian article says "Stankova, in her email, said “the issue of how AI was used is orthogonal to and a distraction from the thousands of hours our team has put into the initiative” of reinstating standardized tests in admission."

This is a basic straw man. The op-ed mentions AI once, almost as an aside.

You wouldn't sue Flock for accusing someone, you would sue Flock for creating the situation in the first place. Flock either knew or should have known that their alerts were being misinterpreted by Police units, and rather than taking action to reduce the harm, they instead persisted in their course of action.

Mind you, that might not actually be the case, but that's the sort of legal theory you'd use to go after them.

Here's one - The law only refers to property, not digital information. The physical item was not damaged in any way.

Once you apply for an ATC job, you than wait anywhere from 3 months to multiple years before you start training. One of my friends applied and was accepted more than 2.5 years ago, which while significantly longer than usual, isn't unheard of. There's no reason that the process should take multiple months. A large number of accepted applicants simply give up and start another career/school.

Having played Fortnite since shortly after it came out, mostly as a way to keep in touch with my nephews and nieces, the game has been in decline for quite a while. They made a number of cutbacks over the years and added a bunch of new subscriptions, and than raised the cost of everything. Just as an example, Fortnite used to end every chapter with an event. Millions of people would log on, and watch what was essentially the epilogue of that season and the trailer for the next. They gradually cut back and made them far less often, and generally far less intricate. The kids would love it and they would talk about all the cool things they saw and the rumors about what was coming next. Now... they play the game every once in a while. They are no where near as invested in the story, and the game feels much less Epic.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. So this case is specifically about the IEEPA tariffs. The legality of the other tariffs weren't challenged, or were not challenged in this case. The number you used, 30%, threw me for a loop. IEEPA is actually about half of the tariffs. You can read a pretty succinct summary on NPR here:

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/20...

I don't know where you're getting either of these from:

"Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The
judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with
instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25–
250 is affirmed"

There are other tariffs still existing, that weren't challenged in this case, but there is no 12 month limit, and all the tariffs challenged in this case were ruled illegal.

It has been a long time since I've seen a website get /.'ed. It put a strange, nostalgic smile on my face.

You're forgetting the corollary to that. If the book says 3 hours and you get it done in 1, you still get paid for 3. You'll still sometimes get screwed by no fault of your own, but if you're good at the job, and try hard you can bill a lot more than 8 hours a day.

I'm not sure where you travel to and from, but outside of a few airports in Africa and a couple in India, basically every airport has Wifi. The majority have it for free or a relatively nominal price. Not to mention that you can download the Esim before you leave on a trip, and switch to it whenever you land.

Honestly, if you're not going to hit Platinum, there's no reason whatsoever to be loyal to Marriott. I have lifetime gold and I'm probably 50 nights away from lifetime platinum, so I'll stick with them for a bit more time, but other than that I'm relatively brand agnostic at this point.

Club access is great, if you're at one of the dwindling number of hotels that offers a club.

Agreed. I'm not sure what this article is talking about, Hilton has made some minor improvements, but Marriott has continued to be less and less rewarding for customers. Between the point devaluations, the lack of brand standard enforcements, and the lack of benefits, for the average consumer you're better off booking through a third party when the rate is cheaper. I can't think of a single change Hyatt made within the past 6 months, same with Wyndham.

Even if you buy the gift cards from Amazon, they will quite often lock your account if you use them on electronics, or anything really popular. It is an incredibly dumb system.

The initial comment about preemption is, sort of in the article, but not in the way a human would ever understand to mean. "The Trump administration, with the aid of AI and crypto czar David Sacks, has been pursuing a path that would allow federal rules to preempt state regulations on AI,"

The way the summary is written makes me think AI wrote it. It shows a clear lack of understanding. Not that the article is much better written. It doesn't seem to understand the supremacy clause or the way the power of the purse works.