It’s just a rainbow, Michael. What could it cost, ten dollars?

I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which my buttocks is too narrow to contain

Thanks so much for your work!

I think they’re saying that an increase in school funding doesn’t necessarily lead to an increase or decrease in quality of education. Like maybe it’s essentially uncorrelated above a minimum amount to fund basics (lights, desks, teachers, etc.). There’s a lot more factors than money at play here. In other words, a poorly-run school with bad policies, teachers, etc. is crap whether it has X million dollars or 2X million, and a well-run school is good even with a small budget.

There’s a lot more perpendicular universes, though

The right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed! *Flexes

Yes, it’s true. This man has no dick.

Oh my god, they were ROOMMATES!

But only when there was a full moon and the Weregentinians transformed!

No, no, it was originally “Taking God’s name in vein,” as saying the name of God out loud would allow Him into your blood. If you say the name of God, you allow him to inhabit your blood, gain your power, and become even more mighty. The ancient Hebrews feared God gaining too much power, as He would be able to destroy the world. Then Christians figured out that if they took Communion and instead drank the blood of Christ, they could reverse the Hebrew God’s power and slowly increase their own until they could ascend to the heavens and do battle with the Almighty, empowered by His blood in their veins, rather than weakened by taking His name in vein. In this seventeen-part essay, I will describe how we can defeat God by

Mark Twain was a writer in the late 1800s in America who wrote some real novels, but also is mainly known for his humorous and satirical writing. He’s exaggerating here for comedic effect, not trying to be serious. So it’s probably a combination of the older language and the fact that he’s trying to be funny.

One of my favorite passages from Mark Twain’s “The Awful German Language”:

There are ten parts of speech, and they are all troublesome. An average sentence, in a German newspaper, is a sublime and impressive curiosity; it occupies a quarter of a column; it contains all the ten parts of speech – not in regular order, but mixed; it is built mainly of compound words constructed by the writer on the spot, and not to be found in any dictionary – six or seven words compacted into one, without joint or seam – that is, without hyphens; it treats of fourteen or fifteen different subjects, each inclosed in a parenthesis of its own, with here and there extra parentheses which reinclose three or four of the minor parentheses, making pens within pens: finally, all the parentheses and reparentheses are massed together between a couple of king-parentheses, one of which is placed in the first line of the majestic sentence and the other in the middle of the last line of it – after which comes the VERB, and you find out for the first time what the man has been talking about; and after the verb – merely by way of ornament, as far as I can make out – the writer shovels in “haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein,” or words to that effect, and the monument is finished. I suppose that this closing hurrah is in the nature of the flourish to a man’s signature – not necessary, but pretty. German books are easy enough to read when you hold them before the looking-glass or stand on your head – so as to reverse the construction – but I think that to learn to read and understand a German newspaper is a thing which must always remain an impossibility to a foreigner.

Handmade puzzles, i.e., puzzles crafted intentionally by a real person almost never require guessing. However, a lot of “extreme” difficulty puzzles (or similar difficulty terms) in apps, newspapers, puzzle books, etc. are not handmade by a real person, but computer generated. There’s probably a logic chain that’s like 15 steps long that humans couldn’t reasonably follow, but a guess is likely faster and more enjoyable.

Someone else recommended Cracking the Cryptic on YouTube, which is a great source - the daily puzzles are nice because you can follow along in the video if you’re stuck, but they also have lots of apps with Sudokus that never require guessing. Another good source is Logic Masters Germany, which has lots of handmade Sudoku and other puzzles: https://logic-masters.de/

What counts as an “older game?” Surely not… thinks about the games I played last week …Tie Fighter or Dune 2?

I do want to highlight the dangers of just using translation, because I read this recipe and thought: Aligot doesn’t have cheese?!? That’s like half the dish! How do they get that cheese stretch with just cream?

To be fair to you, the site you linked does have a link on the words “fresh volume” in the recipe, which goes into more detail about the cheese. So with that info as well, I could probably work it out.

But just in text format, one of the most critical ingredients is missing. So I understand OP’s need for French recipes written in English, as sometimes translations just don’t work. I don’t have a good recipe site, so I’d love the same thing.

Side note: Aligot is delicious, although I’ve only ever had it with hot spiced wine at a Christmas market, so not sure about other applications.

I replied to the other thread before you, but it’s a good point that atrociously unjust laws are good targets for jury nullification. Bathroom laws are a good example, although I fear that we wouldn’t necessarily be on a jury where all other 11 members agree with us that it is an obvious violation of a trans person’s rights, sadly. Especially in the states where those laws exist. A hung jury, where not everybody agrees is better than a conviction, but a “not guilty” verdict can’t be re-tried (in almost all circumstances).

Okay, that’s fair. I was thinking more along the lines of when the law is questionable, not patently unjust , as you put it.

And Jim Crow laws are a good example, as are sodomy laws that essentially outlawed gay relationships for a long time in many states (struck down by Lawrence v. Texas, but not until 2003!). Usually when people think of jury nullification (outside of the more recent obvious case), they’re thinking along the lines of drug laws, which are often grey. Both of those examples probably DO warrant nullification.

That being said, I think it’s unlikely that a case which can get 9 12 jurors to oppose it based on an unjust law would occur in a state where that law exists. Those sodomy laws I referenced were mostly only present in conservative states by 2003. However, federal laws might be more susceptible, as a state that’s the opposite political ideology of the current US government could have a jury like that.

But I’ll concede the point that atrociously immoral or unjust laws could and should be targets for jury nullification. It’s a good addition.

This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.

In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge’s decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they’re not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.

IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.

There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn’t just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they’ve already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can’t do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.

Letze Woche habe ich gelernt, dass mussten und müssten sind anders. Duolingo akzeptiert beide, und jetzt habe ich keine Idee welche ist richtig.

Es tut mir leid für meine Grammatik. Mein Deutsch ist wahrscheinlich nicht so gut.

Oh man, that third panel is gold. Rosalyn was the only person Calvin feared enough to listen to. I think he listened to his parents because he kind of respected them on some level, but Rosalyn was pure terror to him.

One of my favorite strips is where that breaks down - she plays Calvinball with him and is good enough at it (creative and imaginative enough) that he actually starts respecting her. Beautiful!