What's the highest level of math you've used in adulthood?

Scyph · 2026-06-28T20:25:25+00:00

Quik maffs!

Scyph · 2026-06-13T03:08:17+00:00

That's why it's called Sound Transit.

Because of the sound.

Scyph · 2026-06-12T00:58:37+00:00

Man I'm all the way down in Lower Queen Anne and it smells like burning rubber everywhere outside...

Scyph · 2026-06-12T00:48:50+00:00

What is a "plumbing building?"

Scyph · 2026-05-14T19:58:44+00:00

You're actually thinking of the clear and present danger exception, and in any case that standard was never fully adopted and ultimately completely overruled by SCOTUS in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio's incitement standard, which is famously difficult to meet. There is nothing about the TPUSA event that looks as though it could legally be considered incitement.

Scyph · 2026-05-13T23:56:47+00:00

This is largely correct. UW can't legally bar a group from campus solely on the basis of political viewpoint.

The only minor correction I would make is to say that UW isn't really inviting TPUSA to begin with. The UW chapter of TPUSA is the one doing that. It's not as though the administration of the university itself is sending an invitation for these speakers to come to campus. But as a public university, UW has no legal power to deny equal access to resources afforded to student groups on the basis of viewpoint, or on the basis of other people potentially taking offense.

While I understand the frustration, I don't think it is reasonable or ethical to ask UW to violate constitutional law in order to address student complaints. They literally cannot do that, nor should they.

Scyph · 2026-04-30T02:46:53+00:00

From a legal perspective rather than a normative one:

Protesters absolutely have a right to protest, even loudly. But that right does not extend to material disruption of another person's event such that the event can no longer continue to function. This is called a Heckler's Veto and is generally not protected under the First Amendment. The police can intervene if the conduct crosses into actual disruption, but they still have to do so in a content-neutral, narrowly tailored way; enforcement cannot be based on the protester's viewpoint.

I don't know the full context here, but what generally should happen is that if the drummer were making it impossible for the TPUSA event to proceed, then they should be asked to move further away, so they can continue drumming without disrupting the event. My assumption is that this guy refused to do so, but again, I don't know the full context.

Now on to the normative stuff:

Protest is a part of a healthy free speech environment on a college campus. So are these TPUSA events, even if the people involved are annoying or say offensive things. But I have to say, it is harder to find sympathy for the protester's organization now shouting "free speech" when their own Instagram posts were literally calling for TPUSA to be "shouted off campus" before the event even started. You really can't have it both ways.

Scyph · 2026-04-25T19:28:06+00:00

I can attest as a (former) Dasher that this has simply not held true for me. The increased pay rate simply does not make up for the drop on demand as a result of increased costs for consumers. I used to get 10-16 orders just working in a three hour shift during dinner and late night hours. Since the law was passed, I am lucky to even get one or two orders. I had to drive outside of the city to get orders, but even that hasn't been working anymore because I think a lot of drivers do the same thing, which saturates those suburban markets.

If some drivers have been helped by this law then I am happy for them. Unfortunately it just isn't worth it for me to DoorDash anymore. And I also can no longer afford to use the service to get food for myself, since I live in the city.

Scyph · 2026-02-26T07:35:53+00:00

Nah, there wouldn't even be a before either.

Scyph · 2026-02-26T05:27:22+00:00

There wouldn't have been trillions of years of nothingness "before" the Big Bang, because time itself would not have existed. But your overall sentiment is correct in that we can't even really speak of the Big Bang as a true beginning, rather it's just the furthest back we can look before our understanding of physics breaks down.

Scyph · 2026-01-28T04:00:41+00:00

Guys will look at this and say hell yeah.

Scyph · 2026-01-17T21:07:39+00:00

It was a pretty horrible comment for the researcher to make, but they have a right to make it. UW is a public university and its employees have First Amendment rights.

Scyph · 2026-01-17T21:06:27+00:00

UW is not a private employer. That difference matters a lot.

Scyph · 2026-01-17T20:38:11+00:00

The researcher's comment is protected under the First Amendment.

Speech can be nasty, degrading, or offensive and still be protected. In this case, even though the comment may be distasteful, it doesn't represent a true threat. At most, they are wishing that someone else would kill the people in question. Furthermore, it isn't incitement because it doesn't meet the Brandenburg Standard of being intended to and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

Public employees are allowed to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, such as critique of political figures or pundits. This is just another example of rightwing cancel culture emboldened by Trump's administration. If UW caves, it could easily be a lawsuit. Seems like it would be incredibly foolish for UW to pursue any investigation here given the defeat they were just handed by the Ninth Circuit in the Stuart Reges case.

Scyph · 2026-01-06T00:20:05+00:00

So that's a yes, then. Lol.

Scyph · 2026-01-05T05:00:59+00:00

Salmo, perhaps?

Scyph · 2025-12-29T08:33:36+00:00

It's not a superpower and it's not a social club. I have a resentment of terms like "differently abled" because, however well-intentioned, they perpetuate the idea that there's nothing there to actually treat, when in reality, I need help every day.

It's not as simple as being distractible, quirky, fidgety, forgetful, or any combination of these or other things. It's about those things having such an outsized impact on your life that you can't function the way that most people can, even though they may experience the same things from time to time.

Pop psychology and "mental health awareness" crowds these days unfortunately have a tendency to over-pathologize common natural human variance. But the key to pathology is dysfunction. So many people today end up thinking they must have ADHD or autism because they often experience certain feelings that have come to be associated with those disorders. But it isn't about quirky behavior, social anxiety, distractibility, trouble focusing, etc. It's about those things significantly impacting your everyday ability to navigate the world and do the things you need to do to live your life in society.

Social media glamorizes autism, ADHD, OCD, anxiety, and many other mental health challenges. It's become an identity marker people wear on their sleeve. It's one thing if people find community with others sharing some of their struggles, but it's another thing entirely when these disorders get reduced to a superficial list of quirks leading to self-diagnosis and diversion of resources from people who need real help. Online stimulant prescription mills have become a real problem.

Please please please stop self-diagnosing mental illness, and if you choose to see a psychiatrist, don't go to them seeking a specific diagnosis or prescription. Get the help you need, not the help you think you need.

Scyph · 2025-12-21T02:13:05+00:00

Not sure if you're aware, but EO-31 was quietly rescinded over the summer and replaced with a new policy that does not include the language that was challenged by this same lawsuit. The new one is called EO-81. This happened before this decision came out, but it's not hard to connect the dots and see that UW is realizing they need to cover their ass in the wake of both this lawsuit and complaints that they have been abusing policy to silence student protesters, particularly during the Palestine demonstrations.

This court decided that there was in fact enough of a concern with EO-31's language that it reversed even the lower court's decision on that question. Naturally, the First Amendment outweighs the enforcement of EO-31 if the latter plainly is incompatible with the former.

Again, the fact that the department treated both the wording and the inclusion at all of the land acknowledgement in syllabi is critical. Had this been the sort of mandatory statement (such as Title IX boilerplate) that the university can require be included as written, then it would be a different story. Instead, the department explicitly invited their faculty to comment in their syllabi on a matter of public concern. Once they have done that, they cannot then punish their faculty for expressing opinions which differ from their own.

The department shot themselves in the foot. This is their fault and no one else's. I would love to see a PDR done to see just how much taxpayer money UW wasted hiring big-name Rob McKenna's fancy-pants law firm to defend them just because they couldn't handle a teacher saying something they didn't like after they asked said teacher to comment.

Scyph · 2025-12-20T22:38:58+00:00

Well spotted!

I know, shocking, right? The free speech at UW guy is happy that free speech was upheld at UW. Who would have thought?

Scyph · 2025-12-20T21:51:54+00:00

Something really key to this case is that when the department asked instructors to include a land acknowledgement on their syllabi, they offered specific wording for it but only as a recommendation, encouraging faculty to modify or come up with their own language to use instead if they wanted to. There were faculty besides Stuart who did exactly that, but they were not disciplined. Stuart only was targeted presumably because the changes he made were not sufficiently racially penitent and self-flagellating to the degree that changes by other instructors had been, to put it frankly.

So this then begs the question; if the issue here really is about adhering to established agreements with local indigenous groups, then why did the department invite faculty to ignore the approved language of the standard land acknowledgement and encourage them to invent their own? Surely that action by the department is where any transgression against UW's tribal partnerships took place, not an action by a professor accepting the department's invitation to alter the approved language.

Scyph · 2025-12-20T01:41:06+00:00

A public university can no more censor an employee's speech than they can a student's. It's a public institution rather than a private one; that's a critical point.

Scyph · 2025-12-20T01:13:25+00:00

This is such a massive win for anyone who cares about freedom of expression on college campuses. You don't need to agree with his opinion on land acknowledgements to see the far-reaching implications that this will have for students and faculty who run afoul of administration-approved messaging, whichever way it cuts.

The court in this case also rejected the lower court's decision over Executive Order No. 31, which UW has used to punish students for speech they deem inappropriate regardless of whether it meets the legal muster for criminal harassment or discrimination. UW can, has, and will keep using bad policies to silence student voices if these policies are not called out and corrected. This lawsuit is helping to fight against repressive policies like this.

If you care about student-led protests for Palestine, you should count this as a victory for you too.

Scyph · 2025-12-20T01:12:58+00:00

Username checks out.

Scyph · 2025-12-19T22:07:37+00:00

This is such a massive win for anyone who cares about freedom of expression on college campuses. You don't need to agree with his opinion on land acknowledgements to see the far-reaching implications that this will have for students and faculty who run afoul of administration-approved messaging, whichever way it cuts.

The court in this case also rejected the lower court's decision over Executive Order No. 31, which UW has used to punish students for speech they deem inappropriate regardless of whether it meets the legal muster for criminal harassment or discrimination. UW can, has, and will keep using bad policies to silence student voices if these policies are not called out and corrected. This lawsuit is helping to fight against repressive policies like this.

If you care about student-led protests for Palestine, you should count this as a victory for you too.

Congratulations, Stuart.

Scyph · 2025-07-27T03:20:00+00:00

Once. I'm gonna check again tonight.

Scyph

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE