#deferred

[wordsoftheheartandsoul]

For the one in the place of hope deferred: She will stand tall on the rooftops of her worries and proclaim into the depth of a starless night: "I will make it though this. By grace, I will be alright."

Morgan Harper Nichols - Storyteller

[dnphan]

today i got deferred from my dream university which means i have to sit through double the crippling anxiety i’ve had all year for the next THREE MONTHS! i genuinely don’t know how i’m going to do this for any longer

[columboscreens]

[duckiewrites]

Deferral Letter Last Minute Essay Editing!!

Hey everyone,

I am currently a cornell student passionate about writing, but I know all too well the pressure and anxiety that comes from being deferred from your dream school. So i am offering a free service...

I'd love to help any current high school senior out with their deferral letters. Please feel free to contact me at duckiewritess@gmail.com! I know most college application deadlines have already passed, but if anyone has some last minute essays they'd like help editing, please also feel free to send through email.

If you'd like to just fill out a form instead of sending an email here you go: https://forms.gle/ko1nFRCdy2Y7Y9W46

[primepaginequotidiani]

PRIMA PAGINA The Times di Oggi venerdì, 11 ottobre 2024

[rosieofcorona]

makes me insane btw that solas had the orlesians announce him as the inquisitor's 'elven serving man' at halamshiral. like yeah i understand the sociopolitical reasoning of it in that environment and i understand that it's part of his whole Humble Apostate™ disguise but have we considered that it's also very hot through a romance lens? he's content to be seen and known as lavellan's- not the inquisition's, just one (1) specific person's- subordinate? lavellan's serving man? get out of here

[dommingjeffsatur]

The Next Prince: Charan × Deference

2/?

[jon-sedai]

Thinking about how one of the most important motifs in Dany’s childhood memories is a seemingly nonexistent lemon tree. Or rather, a tree that her memory insists exists where it naturally shouldn’t. And thinking about how, in her last Dance chapter, at a pivotal moment of development, she reflects that while she wanted to plant trees and watch them grow, dragons don’t plant trees. But how funny is it that her narrative ancestor, Princess Daenerys of Dorne, left behind a legacy of planting an entire garden of trees — a place where children of all backgrounds could come and bloom within it? And then thinking back to Dany’s moment in Clash, when she comes upon a barren wasteland. A place that, despite its harshness, has many types of trees growing within it. For a brief moment, she considers staying to nurture and watch it bloom.

Sure, her childhood memories are false. But the lesson isn’t that she doesn’t belong anywhere because she dreams of lemon trees in Braavos, where they don’t exist. Maybe the lesson is that she can plant these nonexistent trees elsewhere.

Lemon trees don’t grow in Braavos, but Dany can grow them wherever she chooses to plant them. And this is something she will have to understand when the Long Night comes. Winter means death. It means the trees will wither and no new ones will grow to replace them. But Dany is the mother of dragons, and her life is tied to the very process of life and death, destruction and renewal. The Long Night will be marked by dead trees that bear no fruit. But that’s okay. Because Dany has spent her entire arc dreaming of trees where there aren’t any. And isn’t THAT the dream of spring?

[callsmehome]

LEVERAGE: REDEMPTION (2021—) ↪ The Swipe Right Job (S03E06)

[b0tster]

If someone gave you a Tesla Cybertruck for free, how would you destroy it?

exoding hammer

[bucksboobs]

Remember when Isaac Lahey wanted to bottom for Scott McCall so bad it turned Scott into a once in a generation True Alpha?

[l0ln0n4m3f0rm3]

Purple horse :3

Tried to redraw this random pic of twilight while keeping it overall similar

Then my brain decided to be a useless mush of neurons and couldn't choose a design to stick with

[foldingfittedsheets]

My mundane super power is that I love blue heelers so much that every time I see them I ask to pet them and their owners always warn me they’re not overly friendly which I know because my boy Sly was also very aloof but every time the dog feels my infinite love and always greets me warmly.

[buotella]

Cynthia Erivo on the lack of hunks in media (x)

[bemusedlybespectacled]

I don't understand the chevron law thing, could you explain it like I'm five? Should we be working towards fixing whatever the courts just fucked up?

So, okay, I am condensing like a semester of a class I took in 2017 into a very short explanation, but:

It would be really annoying for Congress to individually pass laws approving every new medicine or listing out every single poison you can't have in tap water, so instead there are agencies created by Congress, via a law, to handle a specific thing. The agencies are created by Congress but overseen by the executive branch (so, the president), which is why we say things like "Reagan's EPA" or "Biden's DOJ" - even though Congress creates them, the president determines how they do the thing Congress wants them to do, by passing regulations like "you can't dump cyanide in the local swimming pool" and "no, you can't dump strychnine, either."

However, sometimes people will oppose these regulations by saying that the agency is going beyond the task they were given by Congress. "The Clean Air Act only bans 'pollutants,' and nowhere in the law does it say that 'pollutants' includes arsenic! You're going beyond your mandate!" To which the experts at the EPA would be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided arsenic is a pollutant." On the flip side, the EPA could be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided that arsenic isn't a pollutant," and people would oppose that regulation by being like, "But the Clean Air Act bans 'pollutants,' and it's insane to say that arsenic isn't a pollutant!" So whose interpretation is correct, the government's or the challengers'?

Chevron deference basically put heavy weight onto how the agency (i.e. the government) interpreted the law, with the assumption that the agency was in the right and needing pretty strong evidence that they were interpreting it wrong (like, blatantly doing the opposite of a clear part of the law or something). If there was any ambiguity in how the law was written, you'd defer to the agency's interpretation, even if that interpretation was different depending on who was president at the time.

(Note: there are other ways of challenging regulations other than this one, like saying that they were promulgated in a way that is "arbitrary and capricious" – basically, not backed by any evidence/reasoning other than "we want it." Lots of Trump-era regulations got smacked with this one, though I think they'd be better at it if Trump gets a second term, since they've now had practice.)

Chevron deference wasn't all good – remember that the sword cuts both ways, including when dickholes are in power – but it was a very standard part of the law. Like, any opposition to a regulation would have some citation to be like "Chevron doesn't apply here" and every defense would be like "Chevron absolutely applies here" and most of the time, the agency would win. Like, it was a fundamental aspect of law since the 80s.

The Supreme Court decision basically tosses that out, and says, "In a situation where the law is ambiguous, the court decides what it means." That's not completely insane – interpreting law is a thing judges normally do – but in a situation where the interpretation may hinge on something very complicated outside of the judge's wheelhouse, you now cannot be like, "Your Honor, I promise you that the experts at NOAA know a lot about the weather and made this decision for a good reason."

The main reason it's a problem is that it allows judges to override agencies' judgements about what you should do about a thing and what things you should be working on in the first place. However, I don't think there's really a way of enshrining that into law, outside of maybe adding something to the Administrative Procedure Act, and that would require a Congress that isn't majority Republican.

I will say that kind of I expected this to happen, just because IIRC Gorsuch in particular hates Chevron deference. IMO it's a classic case of "rules for me but not for thee" – Scalia and other conservatives used to rely on Chevron because they wanted their presidents to hold a ton of unchecked power (except for the EPA), but now that we've had Obama and Biden, now conservatives don't like Chevron because it gives the presidents they don't like unchecked power.