Dorsey’s worse than Zuck, because at least Zuck is actually good at making money for his shareholders. Dorsey’s piss-poor at that.

What’s dumb is that, say you think Daniel Jones is the guy, you could clearly draft him at not-6th-overall. Trade back! God, this is so simple and yet people fuck it up every year!

Rockville is outside the Beltway!

It’s easy for me to say now, but there’s no way that was the optimal way of pitching to him that year.

Kevin Mitchell was a Stay Ready All Star for the ages. Cross him at your (or your pet’s) own peril.

My point is that these reforms don’t get at the real problem, which is: we lock up more people than anywhere else on the planet and the manner in which we do so is insanely cruel, punitive and unfair. We can let people out early, but it doesn’t change the fact that we’re putting them in there in the first place.

So, yes, agreed, they would have meaningful effects, but these are relatively non-controversial things to begin with (I understand how this is circular, but bear with me).

I’ve been told (though I have no independent verification) that ACS in NY will often ramp up enforcement severity if the criminal charges get dropped, so he’s definitely not out of the woods on this.

I have no idea how this works in Kansas, but, at least in NY, you don’t need criminal charges to have the ACS case continue. The DA can decline to prosecute and you can still lose your kid or suffer whatever punishment ACS comes up with.

The graphic you posted makes me think that “reducing the prison population” is one of those things that polls extremely highly in the abstract, but once you start getting into the specifics that actually will have really meaningful effects, that support will fall off.

So...a very cool team that you don’t deserve?

Recently rewatched this movie and, yeah, it’s bizarre! Olyphant really goes for it, too. 

Also this “shirts too long to untuck” thing is, in my male-experience, not really true? Or at least it isn’t true if you buy “sport shirts,” not “dress shirts.” Dress shirts are intentionally quite long, because they are not intended to be worn untucked, ever (they’re the shirts you’d wear with a suit). Sport shirts,…

A bunch of states have tried variations on use-it-or-lose-it voting (mostly scraping people off voter rolls if they go [2] elections without voting). It’s obviously suppression and completely out of step with how we treat other rights.

Also it doesn’t matter whether or not they actually vote! They should have the opportunity to do so and, if they don’t take advantage of it, well, then they didn’t take advantage of it.

At least in this specific case with respect to Harris, because she’d look like a complete fucking idiot if she said that (she looked like an idiot anyway, but I digress). That said, I agree with you! It’s okay to not know!

That’s kind of my point, though. It’s all a bit arbitrary--there’s no level of certainty on these definitions that justifies destroying someone’s right to be part of society.

Who has more moral culpability (which is what we’re trying to use violence as a proxy for): someone who holds up a McDonalds and steals $100 or someone who embezzles $1m from their employer? Only one of those people committed a violent crime!

This distinction doesn’t really make sense, because violent crimes are not necessarily “worse” than nonviolent ones and there’s no reason to build any laws other than those dealing with violence and tools thereof around the distinction. 

This is not as good of a compromise as you think it is, since one of the ways we decide what’s a felony and what’s a misdemeanor is how long you can be incarcerated for (less than one year often means something’s a misdemeanor). So the vast majority of people in prison and literally all of those people in prison for,…