I don't think he knows how SCOTUS works...

I don't think so, his "X" idea has been around for a long time, he really thinks it's his next big idea. I'm sure people have raised all of these concerns with him, but I doubt he's listening. Tesla, SpaceX, etc. are ideas that he bought, this one is his baby. I don't think he's open to ideas or criticisms on it.

He bought the company to bootstrap his idea of his "X" app which he envisions becoming something like WeChat for the world outside of China.

I think it's a terrible idea that's a solution in search of s problem. WeChat works in China because the government literally enforces it's usage. The rest of the world isn't interested in a one-stop-shop for anything and everything.

It's the problem of trying to be everything for everyone. You end up with mediocre or bad solutions for many problems instead of great solutions for a couple of problems. It works when there's no competition, see WeChat, but when there is competition that competition is going to beat you at their game because you're too busy playing a dozen others.

Haven't used my desktop in ages, has been completely replaced by my personal and work laptops.

I've had Pixels since the first one, this is news to me.

Edit: Just went looking for it, not installed. It's in the play store but not sure how it could be unavoidable when it's not pre-installed.

He'd probably have to put all of his eggs in the reincarnation basket and start doing some good deeds.

Or bad deeds, depending on your opinion of actors.

This line from Schindler's List always stuck with me:

“Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”

The context is that at the end of the movie Schindler is distraught thinking of how many more he could have saved if he just did certain things differently, like selling a ring and using that money to hire another Jewish worker. One of the people he saved tells him the above line.

It's stuck with me for two reasons, I think.

First, it's an interesting perspective on individuality. Each person has their own unique perspective of the world. When that person dies, that perspective is gone forever. An entire universe dies with them, never to be seen again. I think that's a powerful way to view the individual.

Second, it's a reminder that we do what we can, and while it may be imperfect, it's enough. You can't save everyone, just live well and help those you can in the capacity that you can. If you save one of those people, you've saved the world.

The Exorcist got me pretty good

I feel like there's a concerted effort to delegitimize the entire concept of whistleblowing. They're getting more common, more partisan, and less backed by physical evidence.

Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can't I eat a person?!

I don't think you solve one problem by introducing another problem. The solution to over-criminalization is to decriminalize things. If a person is a danger to society, charge them with a crime and let a jury of their peers decide their guilt. Hacking into someone's property so that you can spy on them is absolutely not an alternative worth entertaining.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have dismissed the case because of the intervening North Carolina court action.

Was this the crux of their dissent, or did they disagree with the actual ruling in regards to the independent legislature theory? Having 3 justices endorse that theory would be alarming.

Happy this is settled for at least this iteration of the court. The idea that state legislatures can ignore their own state Constitution, that they themselves wrote, is absurd and paradoxical. Being bound by the state constitution isn't giving or sharing power with the state courts, it's a limitation placed on themselves by the state legislature.