Damus Notedeck looking great. Native clients are where it's at.

Harry Dean Stanton, just off in the corner, singing in "Cool Hand Luke" -- just off in the corner singing in every movie ever -- man I mourn that we'll never have that again. RIP, HDS.

Sometimes I ponder how Canada can get it so right with poutine, and so wrong with the ketchup chips.

Playing “Bear Down” in my local parish pub, all sarcastic-like.

Apple Intelligence notification summaries are the perfect rebuke to those still holding on to AI hype.

I'm voting for whoever promises to fix the U.S. Postal Service.

Alright kids, I see you playing Stalker 2 out there, but have you heard about Trakovsky's 1979 masterpiece of a film it's based off of?

New Era/Ralph Lauren just launched a $500 Yankees cap if you're interested. For me, that's gonna be a no. https://www.neweracap.com/products/ralph-lauren-purple-label-x-new-york-yankees-retro-crown-59fifty-fitted

Pains me to say it, but Apple's Image Playground is worse than Grok.

Game-winning field goal blocked. The most Bears ending ever.

Bluesky's onboarding problem is due to the fact that <clears throat> THEY'VE DONE SQUAT TO DECENTRALIZE.

The Bears are still terrible, I see.

Cautiously optimistic about Trump’s plan to regulate censorship on the Internet. Really, what this does is remove power from the advertisers, who threaten to pull ads unless viewpoints they disagree with are censored. A publicly traded company can do nothing but bend the knee to these bludgeoners in the interest of shareholders, and private companies suffer via activism. Jack himself has spoken on this tension: what was right for the company in censoring and banning doesn’t translate to what is morally good. Removing the association of content from advertiser is a restoration of how things always were. Still, I want to see this universally applied. I heard about a college professor this morning, suspended for mocking Trump voters. As uncharitable, unprofessional, or dumb as this may be, the guy has a right within his office to use mockery in this way. The reality is that Left and Right use censorship as a weapon, and we must all arrive at a shared repugnance for its employ.

Says a lot about this protocol that my first move was to install Amethyst on the brand new Daylight. Which is great, by the way. @daylightco

I miss baseball.

Outlook is a garbage app on desktop -- well known and established over the years, but holy cow: I had no idea their mobile app is also a complete disaster of design. Keep it up, Microsoft. You're batting 1.000 when it comes to awful lately.

Considering future voting based upon which candidate spams my phone the least.

I fear this essay will be lost (its original host site is down), so posting it here. --- The Only Vote Worth Casting in November Alasdair MacIntyre University of Notre Dame When offered a choice between two politically intolerable alternatives, it is important to choose neither. And when that choice is presented in rival arguments and debates that exclude from public consideration any other set of possibilities, it becomes a duty to withdraw from those arguments and debates, so as to resist the imposition of this false choice by those who have arrogated to themselves the power of framing the alternatives. These are propositions which in the abstract may seem to invite easy agreement. But, when they find application to the coming presidential election, they are likely to be rejected out of hand. For it has become an ingrained piece of received wisdom that voting is one mark of a good citizen, not voting a sign of irresponsibility. But the only vote worth casting in November is a vote that no one will be able to cast, a vote against a system that presents one with a choice between Bush's conservatism and Kerry's liberalism, those two partners in ideological debate, both of whom need the other as a target. Why should we reject both? Not primarily because they give us wrong answers, but because they answer the wrong questions. What then are the right political questions? One of them is: What do we owe our children? And the answer is that we owe them the best chance that we can give them of protection and fostering from the moment of conception onwards. And we can only achieve that if we give them the best chance that we can both of a flourishing family life, in which the work of their parents is fairly and adequately rewarded, and of an education which will enable them to flourish. These two sentences, if fully spelled out, amount to a politics. It is a politics that requires us to be pro-life, not only in doing whatever is most effective in reducing the number of abortions, but also in providing healthcare for expectant mothers, in facilitating adoptions, in providing aid for single-parent families and for grandparents who have taken parental responsibility for their grandchildren. And it is a politics that requires us to make as a minimal economic demand the provision of meaningful work that provides a fair and adequate wage for every working parent, a wage sufficient to keep a family well above the poverty line. The basic economic injustice of our society is that the costs of economic growth are generally borne by those least able to afford them and that the majority of the benefits of economic growth go to those who need them least. Compare the rise in wages of ordinary working people over the last thirty years to the rise in the incomes and wealth of the top twenty percent. Compare the value of minimum wage now to its value then and next compare the value of the remuneration of CEOs to its value then. What is needed to secure family life is a sufficient minimum income for every family and that can perhaps best be secured by some version of the negative income tax, proposed long ago by Milton Friedman, a tax that could be used to secure a large and just redistribution of income and so of property. We note at this point that we have already broken with both parties and both candidates. Try to promote the pro-life case that we have described within the Democratic Party and you will at best go unheard and at worst be shouted down. Try to advance the case for economic justice as we have described it within the Republican Party and you will be laughed out of court. Above all, insist, as we are doing, that these two cases are inseparable, that each requires the other as its complement, and you will be met with blank incomprehension. For the recognition of this is precluded by the ideological assumptions in terms of which the political alternatives are framed. Yet at the same time neither party is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of which it is the ostensible defender. Republicans happily endorse pro-choice candidates, when it is to their advantage to do so. Democrats draw back from the demands of economic justice with alacrity, when it is to their advantage to do so. And in both cases rhetorical exaggeration disguises what is lacking in political commitment. In this situation a vote cast is not only a vote for a particular candidate, it is also a vote cast for a system that presents us only with unacceptable alternatives. The way to vote against the system is not to vote.

The power of this Yankees lineup was simply no match for their terrible defense.

Apple intelligence, but the only thing people really care about are Genmojis.