Yeah backreferences in general are not “regular” in the mathematical sense.

I had a cherry chutney hamburger at a restaurant somewhere in Missouri. I ordered it because I thought it was a weird combo. IT WAS DELICIOUS.

Maybe. But can it be configured to power the ship? If so why wasn’t it?

S’pose that’s fair. It does seem odd that the report would say the generator was “not configured” to power the ship, rather than not capable of it.

The emergency generator was not configured to power the ship, the report said.

So was it just there for decoration or…

To reply to myself again as I keep going down this rabbit hole, the opinion in Citizens Utility Board v. Klauser, 534 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. 1995) includes

Thus, the amendment as ratified by the citizenry only limits the governor’s veto of letters and keeps intact the Wisconsin Senate conclusion that the governor has the authority to “reduce or eliminate numbers and amounts of appropriations” and exercise a “partial veto resulting in a reduction in an appropriation.”

A “reduction in appropriation” is clearly not what happened here, but the distinction between letters and numbers is apparently, at least in the opinion for this case, intentional.

I was curious, so I looked up the amended wording, which is

(b) If the governor approves and signs the bill, the bill shall become law. Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law.

(c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill.

I guess I don’t know how strictly laws are usually interpreted with respect to the distinction between letters in words vs digits in numbers, but I think I would expect the court to rule against Evers here; striking digits seems to be clearly against the spirit of the amendment. On the flip side, though, the partial veto has enough of an established history of gamesmanship that I would also buy the argument that an amendment intended to ban striking digits should be expected to spell that out.

It is, and I’m fine with Evers using it to either secure school funding, or have the courts codify what the limits of the veto powers are.

Whoa, spoilers man, c’mon!

Kaleidoscope Heart is near the top of my list.

I don’t understand the word “shuffled” here, and I am afraid to.

According to tv tropes, an either/or title: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EitherOrTitle

Woo! Let’s get less gerrymandered!

I have a couple that I found for youtube that block the cards on top of videos, and the little info things in the corners.

youtube.com##.html5-endscreen-content

youtube.com##.html5-endscreen

youtube.com##.ytp-ce-element

annotations_module.js$script,domain=youtube.com

/endscreen.js$script,domain=www.youtube.com

Back in Davenport, as Hannity wrapped the town hall, the crowd’s reaction left no confusion over how Trump’s town hall and his remarks landed.

They gave him a standing ovation.

I need an adult.

I can’t understand why they wouldn’t be disallowed from working as electors in any future election full stop. Limiting it like that seems like almost no consequence.

I’m not sure how this isn’t a very clear decision. Article IV, sections 4 and 5 clearly state that the senate and assembly districts should consist of contiguous territory.

The lying is certainly bad, but the part about not talking to the detective seems like what any hospital would have to do (not discuss details of a patient’s stay with someone until being sure they are authorized).

I need one of these chips like I need a hole in my… oh.