Take this article with a grain of salt.

1. the site that hosts it is a garbage clickbait health site.
2. It links to an article in the NIH database, but it's from last year and as the bright yellow box says, there are some concerns about the article. ( concern and the reply )
3. It has been corrected
4. They also note in the article "all oral contraceptive pills may cause mood changes, but the newer oral contraceptive pills containing estradiol or estradiol valerate may be less likely to cause mood changes."

The intent is to ban books about topics they don't like racism, queers, trans folks, abortion, etc as part of the "war on wokeness". They pretend that they're sexually graphic or things kids shouldn't learn about, but it's incredibly unlikely schools ever had books beyond a few classics.

Obviously, these are everyday topics so it's going to ban a lot of neighboring content, probably including the bible. Regardless, because it's at a state-run institution, it's unconstitutional.

The kids will hear about all of these topics in much greater detail on fox news every day anyway, so this is entirely for show and to cause chaos.

Great summary! a teensy nitpick. I wouldn't say the most recent court said it was "fine" per se since they didn't give any reasoning. It is at least possible, that there is a technical issue with earlier rulings. It could be minor technicality, and they let the law take effect pending the next court date?

I think your implication is likely correct, and this is probably political, but we really don't know the reason, and I think not giving one is surprising.

It's funny to watch his facade occasionally fall and the curtain to be peeled back, and yet the show just keeps going.

Unlike other politicians, the trail of grifts with him is long, and yet people still keep him going.

Yeah, that's my problem. I added it after they commented.

Some highlights if you don't want to click:

Temperatures are forecast to be warmer than normal for all of the northern U.S., from northern California, Oregon and Washington to Pennsylvania, New York and into New England.

NOAA says that temperatures will stay closer to the 30-year average for the South.

For the precipitation (rain, snow, sleet, etc.), the northern states could see below-normal snowfall, especially in the northern Rockies and the Great Lakes.

Across most of the South, wetter than normal conditions are expected, especially in the Southeast from Louisiana to Florida and into the Carolinas.

For the Northeast, there is a chance that this will be a wetter than normal winter from Washington, D.C., to Philadelphia, to New York City and into southern New England.

super important detail

One other thing to note, this is all a probability forecast. The atmosphere is very fluid and dynamic, and forecasts could change.

OP NOTE: This is actually a week old, today 3 judge panel allowed the ban to go into effect. Here's the author's mastodon post about it. though there are few other details and I can't find a new story about it.

BREAKING: A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit (Elrod, Haynes, Douglas) allows Texas’s book-ban law to go into effect, issuing an administrative stay of the district court ruling enjoining enforcement of the law.
The court gave no reasoning for its order, which is remarkable given that the law has never been allowed to go into effect, so the order — although posed as merely “administrative” — is a ruling, at least temporarily, changing the status of state law.

Absolutely, but this is another "don't tempt me with a great time" example. Where certain a politican tries to name something they think is awful, but actually sounds like something great.

Boss clearly isn't online much to see their content.

I've worked with Gen-Zers and have never seen this specific issue. Sounds like another example of a boss so removed from workers that their "insights" aren't based on experiences, but rather on that deadly combo of the tendency of older generations to negatively see generational changes, and that corporate group think where they try to justify not paying their workers their value.

It also sounds like a touch of the corporate group think where they forgot how much their employers had to teach them on the job, and how much they don't want to continue doing that.

GOP: "We support our troops" [by executing them]

I feel so much safer knowing he might show up and protect me from a grocery store robbery.

Yes-- same with bluetooth or ordering groceries for delivery and giving your home address. There's always ways to leak data and make it no longer anonymous. However, from my knowledge of how some of these datasets work, they aren't putting in a lot of effort into truly trying to make sure the joins are 100% accurate because it rarely matters. They generally don't give a shit about you as an individual. The most common uses of the data are for advertising and mistargeting doesn't cost enough to justify the time to verify the data.

Paying in cash though can make it anonymous, or by using virtual cards that mask your card id.

This was the intent of the inquiries.

However, I think the title is a bit misleading. I wouldn't say the research is "buckling". It's definitely been a headache, and sure there are some people who would rather not deal with the ever-increasing death threats, but that applies to many areas of research.

The question is how they're going to try and stop funding research into this. The research around this is especially important from a national security perspective, because it's become easier than ever to slide propaganda into social media and news media. If you've got enough resources, you can likely sway elections even easier than before.

Sure, but you can usually register with fake info though. I've never seen one really verify much of any information.

Just use one of those email forwarding services that generates unique addresses.

everyone can sign up as "JP Morgan" at "555 Fuckoff Lane". I'm guessing it might be better if we all standardize to make it harder to connect the sold datasets. If they have address checking we should find some tiny town with 200 people from google maps.

Protip: Many grocery stores allow you to just grab cards without signing up (in the US at least). You can tell them you'll send it in later.

Then, you can use whatever the fuck info you want and still get the "rewards" so it's not attached to you. If you use the apps on your phone, make sure they don't have bluetooth access.

Supposedly it'll be free, they just have to work out their shit?

JOE IS TAKING AWAY MY 4 HOUR HOT SHOWERS EVERY DAY??? This is some WOKE fucking nonsense.

You should care, but it's maybe more of a question about how much and about what specific things. There are some easy-to-do things, and then there's others that get exhausting

Some of this depends on why you care about privacy and where you live. It's a lot of work, and in some places, like the US, there's a lot of data being sold anyway (credit/debit cards, tvs, streaming services, and stores can almost all sell some of your data and it can be difficult to stop them). Keeping Bluetooth on also enables you to be tracked going in and out of stores and other various locations.

It can be a lot of work, but some things are more worthwhile than others. There are likely some things you're just going to have to live with.

Same. Paid off loans, and mine dropped because I don't have any loans.

So smurfy of you