The two that immediately come to mind are Clarence Darrow and Cicero.

I think it’s a reaction to another institutional tendency, which is to treat the best known theories as if they were incontrovertible facts.

Science and history are largely the search for closer and closer approximations to truth, but those approximations are always flawed and incomplete. And if they’re presented as already-attained truths, a critic can point out the flaws as evidence of deliberate deception—and then present any alternative they like without its being subjected to the same scrutiny.

Pizzo stated that the party needed new leadership but other top state officials didn’t want him to be it. “There are good people that can resuscitate it. But they don’t want it to be me. That’s not convenient. That’s not cool,” he added.

Sounds like the state party dodged a bullet there.

The current version of Affinity is great and will continue to work forever—there’s no need to switch to an alternative if you’re already using it. I just don’t have much hope for its future development.

Just over a year ago.

Then you can change the channel and they won’t notice!

I guess technically, Raspbian.

Yeah, but Fox is the gateway drug.

Maybe now Trump supporters can be persuaded to boycott Fox News.

The Affinity Suite is great, but I’m suspicious of its acquisition by Canva—I’m afraid their solution to “bringing the suite to Linux” will be turning it into a web service.

No DNC officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election

Yeah, the DNC would never do that.

Carrier pigeon.

They’re NFPA 704 signs.

So “Tim Apple” is CEO of Apple, and Tim Pool is on the White House press pool.

Does Trump just believe in some kind of obligate nominative determinism? If I change my name to “Tim General”, can I sit on the National Security Council?

Everyone’s citing Christianity, but that’s not completely accurate—monogamy isn’t really promoted by the New Testament outside of the letters of the apostles, who were trying to appeal to a Roman audience. The Christian church enforced monogamy through the Middle Ages, but it was originally adopted from the Romans.

As for why the Romans practiced it, there are several theories—one is that Roman women had relatively higher status compared to women in most Middle Eastern cultures; another is that the prospect of marriage for more men made Roman armies more effective.

Crow and octopus. Both are moderately devious without being prohibitively dangerous.

If history is any guide, it’s about even odds.

If labor becomes worthless, money will be based on control of resources. Those with resources will sell to each other, and everyone else will have literally nothing to work with.

Ok… but if someone told you they found their wife and neighbor boffing, would you assume that meant they were doing scientific research?

He knows that states can only have one governor at a time, right?