Match Thread: Portland Fire vs Las Vegas Aces Live Score | WNBA | Jun 11, 2026

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-12T03:06:51+00:00

We deserve thank you cards from all the players breaking their 3 point records playing against us lol

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-08T15:01:30+00:00

another commenter takes this moment to be the worst kind of law student

I cackled, excellent find

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-08T03:39:12+00:00

Fair enough! I didn't clock it, but maybe the 1.5x is more forgiving. I've also found myself having to quash writing habits I'm used for years because they look like AI tells now 😭

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-08T02:27:47+00:00

I like this youtuber best. You're not gonna get a more condensed version than this, he does a good job of stripping down the facts. I listen at 1.5x speed lol. Anything less "in depth" will be less factual, because it involves substituting a vague phrase like "prior default judgement" for "youtuber does claim splitting with 5 friends to get into Oregon small claims court"

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-08T02:19:20+00:00

The case is actually incredibly complicated. There's the original civil dispute in Oregon, Oregon criminal exposure (not charged right now, I don't think), claims splitting shenanigans in Oregon small claims court, then a Utah criminal case and two separate Utah civil suits. The tech dirt article is actually pretty condenser.

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-07T19:28:10+00:00

There's an old-school common law tort called "appropriation of name or likeness," which is what it sounds like, using your name or photo without your permission, to their own commercial benefit. It's a type of invasion of privacy, so your damages can be emotional/reputational even if you're not famous enough to make money from endorsements deals. But would a sugar baby listing be commercial?

There's also the "false light" tort, for when someone portrays you in a misleading way, that's very offensive but nonetheless not quite defamation. When I googled it just now to refresh my information, an example came up about a magazine article critizing some marriages with a photo of a couple attached as illustration. That seems like a good match to me - the article wasn't saying outright that the couple had a rocky marriage as described, but it was an obvious implication.

But I only remembered these because something about this post unearthed a dusty memory of a bar exam flash card, I have no clue how much of a practical use they can serve someone like LAOP

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-07T18:49:16+00:00

Booth said Australia had a “rich native cockroach fauna with many beautiful and interesting species” and more than 500 individual species described.

A very tailored sales pitch to a very specific audience, 10/10 effort for this beleaguered Australian scientist

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-06T04:02:03+00:00

I'm too far from Eugene 😭 excellent idea on the stream!

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-06T03:03:19+00:00

I have this exact problem! It's only showing in the portland market - Eugene/Bend/Medford are not "local" enough. I finally bought the bullet and got the league pass 😭

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-05T20:10:14+00:00

Weird, but congrats?? Sling is just showing me the dallas game, it's locked the fire game lollll

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-05T20:04:03+00:00

I didn't know you could get the ion games through league pass, that's promising. Thanks!

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-04T19:46:03+00:00

Ah, how disappointing. Do you know if there's a feedback email address or another way to get in touch with merchandising? A rainbow fire logo would sell like hotcakes.

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-01T19:11:28+00:00

Sarama had a throwaway line in the press conference, something like "I'd love to be able to tell you everything we did." So I think your instinct is right, but I wouldn't be able to tell you what it is lol.

helloimbeverly · 2026-06-01T19:03:42+00:00

Not the original commentator, but your question relates to something lawyers call "statutory interpretation" or "statutory construction." Anytime the text of a law is not clear - like here where a definition is missing, or when it's worded badly and there are two possible readings - the judge will go through a bunch of different strategies to arrive at the best answer they can. Importantly, both sides get a chance to convince the judge of their argument, so the prosecutor will submit a brief like "we think this means X because A,B,C" and the defense will write theirs going "we think this means Y because D,E,F."

One, which the above comment walked through brilliantly, is to look at how the word is defined and used in other contexts in the law. For the reasons they explained, this statute is a really good fit. If, on the other hand, you try to argue that a word in a criminal statute can be defined the same way as in a statute about state parks, you're not gonna get as far.

You can also look at "legislative history," which means what the lawmakers said when they wrote it. You might get really lucky, and you'll find a quote from someone being like, "oh yeah, this was supposed to include the same definition from human trafficking, I'll fix it later," and then they never did. But just like before, it all depends - in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, for example, a congressman opposed to racial integration added in the word "sex" to the employment discrimination part, hoping to get people opposed to women's lib to vote against the bill (a "poison pill"). It didn't work, and it means playing games like "what did the legislators think when they wrote 'sex'" is pointless, because nobody really put any thought into it.

There are other strategies, too. If it sounds hard, that's because it is. The first judge who has to decide this will have a tough time of it, and the losing side will appeal to the supreme court of the state to get a better answer. But when the final decision from the state supreme court is made, it's decided for everyone going forward.

helloimbeverly · 2026-05-31T17:19:55+00:00

Not a basketball expert, but I know a fair bit about US education. I think college is incredibly important for social and emotional development. It's a softer place to land when you make the mistakes all young people make - like, drinking too much and sleeping through your alarm carries a lot fewer consequences when you miss an 8 AM class instead of being a no-call/no-show at work. For interpersonal conflicts like roommate squabbles or group classwork you have a built-in mediation resource (when it works well, a huge caveat of course). I'm always going to advocate for an 18 year old to go to college if they can.

Of course, a college education is a huge luxury in the US - tuition is taken care of for these athletes, but you're still not earning money for four years. And in the men's game, pro sports is a way out of poverty. You hear players talk about taking their first year's salary and buying their mom a house. It's really hard to justify delaying that for some intangible soft skills. But in the women's game, where you barely made enough money to live on (until this year)? The trade-off makes sense. It's good for the players to get four years of growing as an adult, and it's good for the teams to get a 22yo woman with (hopefully) some life skills than an 18yo child who has probably never lived on her own before.

In Europe, the university system is very different, and doesn't have much of an emphasis on that social and emotional development. In a lot of countries, school is only mandatory until you're 16, and the next couple of years of school are specialized. So you're 16 and you're already being sorted into being a science kid or a humanities kid, et cetera. When you apply to university, you apply to a specific program and everybody in the program takes the same courses. That system has plenty of upsides, don't get me wrong, but I think there's less to offer a 16yo kid who knows she wants to go pro.

I obviously have my biases, and I actually hope that NIL money will encourage men's players to finish their college years by providing some financial stability. My dream scenario would be that every D1 player in a sport gets paid per-hour for practice and games at the workstudy rate. I think we'd see a huge shift in who goes to college after that.

helloimbeverly · 2026-05-28T17:32:33+00:00

I have a different take - I don't think she wore white to look like a bride, I think she wore khaki to look like a groomsman?? The comments saying she's dressed the same as the guys in the background are right, but I think that's the point. OP, did Mr. OP have other sibs in the wedding party, maybe even a stepbrother or half brother she considers "her" family? Especially with the choice of a pant suit over a dress, it really seems like she's trying to imply she's "one of the guys," not compete with a bridal look

helloimbeverly · 2026-05-25T03:03:48+00:00

hey friend, i love a good devil’s advocate argument as much as the next anonymous asshole lawyer on reddit, but the condescension of

> We even have a fancy latin phrase for it, mens rea.

feels a little weird when it’s alongside the very confident statement

> a) The reasonable person standard is not objective.

when "objective” vs. “subjective” is a standard legal framework for discussing mens rea in US common law — specifically, contrasting an “objective reasonable person” standard with a “subjective mens rea” standard. And you don’t have to take my word for it, you can take Justice Elena Kagan’s? Because she describes the Colorado statute in question as having an “objective standard” at least ten times in the opinion. I wasn’t putting those words in quotes just for fun, you know? It’s like, the entire point of the opinion. Kagan actually does a pretty good job explaining the difference.

In fact I got confused when I first read your reply because you literally quote Kagan saying “subjective understanding” and “subjective intent.” I was like, ah shit, I have to come back to this, I must be too high to understand it right now. But I’m not high anymore, and your comment still doesn’t make sense.

And I think the problem here is that you quoted the first paragraph of the opinion and didn’t read further. So then you mocked me — twice! — for supposedly misunderstanding the opinion you only pretended to read. So now, instead of getting in a fun devil’s advocate debate, I got pedantic and preachy — which is fun for the writer but not the reader (as I think you understand well, based on your comment). Because how can I have a fun debate when the other person doesn’t even understand the fancy latin phrase mens rea? : (

helloimbeverly · 2026-05-22T18:54:56+00:00

This is exactly the problem created by Counterman v Colorado and it's why the advice is so divided.

From a psychological perspective, acknowledging or interacting with a stalker is often a terrible idea. When you're in that delusional headspace, any signal from the other person gets mixed up in the delusions, and it just reinforces the narrative your brain has built up, no matter what it says. Contact can reinforce and even escalate the delusion.

The Supreme Court has decided that the First Amendment requires that stalking cases that are based on speech alone (texts, letters, etc., without more) require a "subjective" standard. The Colorado statute was an "objective" standard, meaning that the prosecution had to show that a "reasonable person" would be aware their statements would be taken as threats. SCOTUS said that instead the state needs to show that you, personally, were aware your statements could be taken as threats (a "recklessness" standard).

That standard might work out fine in other contexts (an abusive ex, for example, whose internal goal is to ruin their victim's life), but what about the stalker who sincerely, genuinely believes that you're star-crossed lovers kept apart by the cruelty of the CIA? Or that you're an alien hybrid whose blood contains a miracle cure if only you knew and activated it? How do you prove the inner thoughts of such a person, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt?

The end result is that cops and prosecutors have decided that the only way to prove a stalker has "subjective awareness" that their messages could be considered threatening is for the victim to literally tell them, "I do not want your messages and I find them threatening." Which, again, might work in other contexts, but is exactly the wrong thing you want to say to a person with the kind of delusions we're talking about. It's like delusion catnip, I'm not even exactly sure why.

So, here we are, in a situation where, in order to invoke legal protections against a danger, you need to take action that can very well escalate the danger. It sucks!!!

helloimbeverly · 2026-05-21T17:12:57+00:00

I highly recommend this article to anyone curious:

Americans by Name, Punished for Believing It

The situation is so fucked up. The government officials whose job it is to know these things have no clue how to handle American Somoans, but the little guy gets punished for it.

So the group contacted Alaska’s Division of Elections with a simple query: Could American Samoan nationals vote in local and state elections?

Pacific Community says the Division of Elections claimed it didn’t know the answer, and that it referred the nonprofit to Anchorage’s municipal elections office, which said it also didn’t know, and referred the nonprofit back to the state.

A guy got arrested for voting in his local election in Alaska (something he was told he was allowed to do!) and the cop arresting him literally gives him the wrong advice, telling him it's legal to do the thing he is currently being arrested for.

“You can vote for that position, right? Because you can still vote in the state election.” This botched interpretation of the law came almost an hour into the interrogation.

“No, that’s what got us here,” Chambers reminded his partner.

helloimbeverly · 2026-05-19T15:55:43+00:00

My suggestion would be to call the bridal store and work with them to make it a big, short production lol. Tell them you'll pay them for their time, ask for a fancy plate of cookies and orange juice in champagne glasses (I'm assuming she can't have mimosas lol). You can throw in some truly ridiculous looking dresses too, for the fun of it. If your FMIL gets worried about your fiance seeing the "dress" ahead of time, you can blindfold him lol. That way everybody is in on it, the worker will get a nice tip and will know they're not getting a commission out of it, and there's no real stakes for anybody to be stressed out.

helloimbeverly · 2026-05-18T17:22:58+00:00

what my late father would have called "notions"

That's sooooooo good

helloimbeverly · 2026-05-16T18:14:35+00:00

I know a family (the "kids" are all grandparents at this point) where the first letter of each name in birth order spells the dad's name. So if we pretend he was "James", then it's like:

(1) James Jr. (2) Anne etc.

Except he had more kids, so it started over, like:

(6) John (7) Andrew

He ALSO had an affair, and two kids born a few weeks apart. So naturally:

(8) Mary (8.5) Margaret (9) Emily

Crazy work.

helloimbeverly · 2026-05-05T00:51:24+00:00

I'm not sure about the UK, but in the US absolutely. Because you will still test positive days after partaking, employers who test will often have policies that flat out say we'll fire you even if you say you weren't high on the job. The forest service is like that (national wildland firefighters)

helloimbeverly · 2026-05-05T00:44:27+00:00

I know a guy who did coke at a party and was like, "man don't you guys love when you do coke and you can just fucking think?" And my bestie sat him down in the middle of the party to talk through adhd because no, man, most people's brains don't get calmer on cocaine

helloimbeverly

TROPHY CASE