Tulip Bulb Oligarch

11K posts

Tulip Bulb Oligarch

Tulip Bulb Oligarch

@BulbIndustry

Dedicated reply guy. My pfp's pronouns are non/fungible

grass Katılım Mayıs 2008
683 Takip Edilen191 Takipçiler
Benny Bolick
Benny Bolick@DaBuisneZ·
@BulbIndustry @dtweetsss1 @greggertruck First they want sprayers, then they want it to work with FSD, now that sprayers exist its not good enough. It needs to be integrated. Goal post is moving you retarded fuck.
English
1
0
0
18
過積載タマ
過積載タマ@Kasekisai_T·
言語の壁が無くなった今こそ、炊飯器ホットケーキを広めるべきなのでは? 外側カリッと中はフワッとしてて材料入れてスイッチ押すだけで出来てお手軽だから俺は好きなんだよね〜😆
過積載タマ tweet media過積載タマ tweet media過積載タマ tweet media
日本語
1.9K
11.6K
165.1K
15.8M
Tulip Bulb Oligarch
Tulip Bulb Oligarch@BulbIndustry·
@Austen I'm gonna guess his "analysis" failed to account for the fact that most consumers are only sending/receiving a tiny % of the time
English
0
0
0
190
Austen Allred
Austen Allred@Austen·
I remember people tweeting this video at me all the time: A physics phd claimed each Starlink satellite could only serve ~1,000 customers at 20 Mbps, making the whole business model impossible. Plus the cost of launching satellites was too high to sustain.
Austen Allred tweet media
Austen Allred@Austen

People genuinely think no one at the company responsible for 86% of all orbital space launches bothered to think about the cooling problem. Reminds me when everyone was telling you Starlink was impossible because of unavoidable latency.

English
51
51
1.1K
82.6K
Alex
Alex@alliao·
@teslajapan How is it 688 wltc in nz and 788 in japan… different battery pack for japan?
English
5
0
3
4.9K
Tesla Japan
Tesla Japan@teslajapan·
新しいModel Y L、登場 - プレミアム3列シート、6人乗り - 0-100km/h 5.0秒 - 最高時速 201km - 一充電走行距離 788km(WLTC値) - 2,500Lを超えるトランクスペース - 安全性を追求したデザイン
日本語
178
477
6.8K
770.1K
Tulip Bulb Oligarch
Tulip Bulb Oligarch@BulbIndustry·
@zuzusexytiems I can't sympathize with Chuck because not letting Jimmy work at the firm after getting a degree, and also not being upfront about it, is cowardly. And not recognizing that his brother was putting in real effort to get back on the straight and narrow was heartless.
English
0
0
2
128
Tulip Bulb Oligarch
Tulip Bulb Oligarch@BulbIndustry·
@Reasonmaxxing @jeremykauffman Not by default, but if he displayed a lot of sexually inappropriate/aggressive behavior then it would be perfectly reasonable for people to get suspicious. Now apply that same logic to KBJ.
English
0
0
1
69
M.A. Rothman
M.A. Rothman@MichaelARothman·
𝐒𝐀𝐔𝐄𝐑 𝐓𝐎 𝐆𝐎𝐑𝐒𝐔𝐂𝐇: 𝐈𝐅 𝐓𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐑𝐘 𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐒’ 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐃𝐑𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐍’𝐓 𝐆𝐄𝐓 𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐙𝐄𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏, 𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐋 𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐀𝐍 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐖𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐄 Justice Gorsuch gave Solicitor General Sauer the opening to drive home the strongest version of the administration’s argument — and Sauer delivered. The exchange centered on a principle of legal interpretation: when lawmakers enact a general rule in response to specific problems, does that rule apply only to the original situations, or does it extend to future ones that fit the same logic? Sauer’s answer was unambiguous. The recognized exceptions to birthright citizenship — children of foreign ambassadors, children born during hostile occupation — are specific applications of a 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞: allegiance determines jurisdiction. That principle doesn’t freeze in time. “𝘐𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 1881 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 1922 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘥.” Then he made the a fortiori case — the argument that if the weaker claim fails, the stronger one must fail too. If children of 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 aren’t automatically citizens, then children of people who 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐰 have an even weaker claim. By the 1880s, immigration restrictions existed. Someone who entered illegally cannot establish domicile — a principle that traces back to the 𝐂𝐨𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧. What Sauer is constructing isn’t a narrow workaround. It’s a constitutional framework rooted in text, history, and legal tradition spanning centuries. 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐞. 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐲. 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡.
English
25
636
2.8K
85.2K
Tulip Bulb Oligarch retweetledi
Chris Arnade 🐢🐱🚌
Chris Arnade 🐢🐱🚌@Chris_arnade·
Every transit nerd — the urbanist who tell us over and over how much they love public transportation— has to realize until you stop this sort of crap, and make stopping it your number one goal, you and all your train love are doing nothing but annoying everyone else.
Breaking911@Breaking911

Insane Chicago train rider swinging what looks like 2 hammers says he is going to kill white people, and adds that he got out two days ago.

English
281
1.2K
12.3K
709.3K
Tulip Bulb Oligarch
Tulip Bulb Oligarch@BulbIndustry·
@XJosh This is basically what they did with the gay wedding cake case, remanding it over procedural issues rather than delivering a concrete ruling. I'm holding out hope that they'll at least acknowledge that birthright citizenship for illegal aliens isn't a constitutional right though
English
0
0
4
264
Tulip Bulb Oligarch
Tulip Bulb Oligarch@BulbIndustry·
@N_Schmid Wrong, I don't know if you're conversing with an LLM to get this info, but it's wrong. RWD platforms tend to oversteer, not understeer. Modern TC can mitigate that, but that's not coming from the powertrain itself
English
1
0
0
9
N. Schmid ⚡️☀️💨💧🔋
The Tesla Model 3 Performance doesn't understeer like you'd expect from a typical production car at this price. At the limit, you can steer with the rear - lift off a bit to get the tail sliding, then get back on the throttle to regain grip. It's genuinely fun to drive.
English
31
42
740
81.8K
Tulip Bulb Oligarch
Tulip Bulb Oligarch@BulbIndustry·
@LennyUSMC @fuckyouiquit I think you had a leftover unit, I watched the steveMRE video on the vomelet a while ago and it ended production in 2009 according to him
English
1
0
1
231
Tulip Bulb Oligarch
Tulip Bulb Oligarch@BulbIndustry·
@ArmedJ0y You are misunderstanding the situation. They aren't saying it was found to not match, they are saying they can't do a match at all. The bullet is too fragmented
English
0
0
0
74
Tulip Bulb Oligarch
Tulip Bulb Oligarch@BulbIndustry·
No, it isn't. In the late 1800s, SCOTUS explicitly ruled on a narrow question, whether the 14th amendment covered someone born on US soil to immigrants residing here legally. They said it does. Then in the late 1900s, a lower court ruled that you can't distinguish between legal residents and illegal aliens on the question of "jurisdiction" as it's used in that amendment. But no point has SCOTUS ever evaluated the question. Now they are.
English
1
0
9
161
Marty
Marty@MartyMacMiller·
@SandyofCthulhu That's not the point The 14th amendment is clear. The courts can't and should not be allowed to change a constitutional amendment that has been ratified If you don't like the 14th amendment then Congress needs to pass a new amendment and get 2/3 states to ratified a new law
English
4
0
9
966