Meh, for less than the cost of any streaming service, a VPN subscription gets someone else to laugh at all those letters.

Hmm. Seems like combat aircraft never get hit in the engines, nose, cockpit, or aft fuselage. We could save some weight by stripping the armor out of those areas...

The 1964 civil rights act was passed the next year after that photo went viral.

A year is an extraordinarily long time with an illegitimate occupant of the White House, pardoning himself for anything he chooses to do.

I don't think the measures that were effective during the civil rights era are at all suitable for addressing such a fundamental breach of the constitution.

The constitution isn't to protect you from the government. It is to protect the government from you. If someone proclaims themselves the government, but are refusing the protections that comes with adherence to the Constitution, you are under no obligation to tolerate their will and whim.

We have incentivized night time consumption. Base load generation (nuclear, coal) can't ramp up and down fast enough to match the daily demand curve. They can't produce more than the minimum overnight demand, but they have keep producing that around the clock. To minimize the need for "peaker" plants during the day, they want the overnight demand to be as high as possible.

So they put steel mills, aluminum smelters, and other heavy industry on overnight shifts by offering them extraordinarily cheap power.

That incentivized overnight load needs to be shifted to daytime, so it can be met with solar and wind. Moving forward, we need to minimize overnight demand.

Because it is not cost effective. Simple as that.

The problem is that we don't have enough demand shaping to shift night time loads to day time, and we don't have enough storage to shift production to overnight. The result is that daytime generation is regularly going into negative rates (you have to pay to put power on the grid, which melts the returns on your investment into solar.

As far as problems go, it's a good one to have, as it will eventually result in lower prices for daytime generation.

SCOTUS response to Mexico:

Surely someone really wants to impress a 20-something actress.

This is really just a messaging problem. If you asked the students and parents if they should renovate a communal bathroom into multiple, single-user unisex bathrooms, they would likely receive enthusiastic support. If you then asked if it were reasonable to use communal hand washing facilities in a public area outside the restrooms instead of a sink in every unisex bathroom, you'd still get plenty of support.

It's only when you start talking about "windows" that shit goes sideways. They could completely tear out the wall, and this plan would be fine: they would be single-user restrooms along a hallway, with communal sinks also in that hallway.

My town hosts public festivals all the time. They bring in a dozen portapotties and a hand washing station. Nobody seems to have a problem washing their hands in sight of the general public. That's basically what is happening here.

Not all communal restrooms have stall partitions suitable for that plan. Nor do they need them if the area outside the stalls is a changing area. The school does need to provide changing areas. Eliminating one unnecessarily doesn't make sense.

The Republicans do, indeed, want to get rid of these bathrooms, and revert them to boys rooms. If they controlled the board, that is exactly what they would have. The fact that they have 5 different types of restrooms tells me the Republicans aren't the ones making the decisions; the board is accommodating the students.

The Republicans are using a law prohibiting coed changing rooms. They are claiming the area outside the stalls qualifies as a changing area, and they have precedence to support that designation. If it is a changing area, the gender inclusive restroom violates the law. They do, indeed, want it to fail, which it will do if the issue goes to court while that law is in place.

Unless they can prove that the area outside the stalls is not a changing area. Changing areas don't have public-facing windows. It can't be an illegal, coed changing area if it has a public-facing window.

Germany has unisex bathrooms.

That is exactly what they made here. Each stall is now considered a unisex bathroom, and the hand washing area is no longer a "changing area".

It is a place to shit and piss. If you want to change, knock yourself out. However in the US we have tiny doors that you can easily see around.

Does this particular room use typical semi-private partitions, or have they switched to some sort of wall or full partition that offers actual privacy? The photo shows only the window; it does not provide a good view of the stalls.

Read up on it some more, from a less biased source. The Republicans want this to be a boy's room. The law prohibits coed changing rooms. Be "inclusive" of multiple genders in a room that qualifies as a "changing room", and you violate the law.

Changing rooms don't have windows. Put in a window, and the area can't be considered a changing room. Since it isn't a changing room, the Republican argument fails, and they don't get to get rid of the gender inclusive restroom entirely. You still have privacy while you are using the toilet. You don't have privacy while you are washing your hands.

So in this case, you might want to figure out where your pig has been eating and stake a claim.