[0]https://theonion.com/opinion/point-counterpoint/

- Alcorn State History major within Department of Social Sciences[0]

- Jason Gibson LinkedIn[1]

It's true he's not listed on Alcorn State's faculty page[2], but it also says he started in July 2025. He is listed on the faculty page of Tougaloo College[3], which is listed in his LinkedIn bio. Sounds like he's probably an adjunct professor or someone without full standing, which isn't that uncommon to not list on a faculty page. The Social Sciences department at Alcorn State has 4 people listed, which seems low and probably incomplete.

If it's a hoax, it's a pretty elaborate one.

[0]https://www.alcorn.edu/academics/schools-and-departments/col...

[1]https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-gibson-287782a2/

[2]https://www.alcorn.edu/academics/schools-and-departments/col...

[3]https://www.tougaloo.edu/academic-faculty-directory

But that Newton, Kansas, flag is excellent. I only know two things about Newton, Kansas, and that is they grow wheat and have trains. And I learned 100% of that from that flag.

It wouldn't matter, because the ultra-wealthy generally don't have much income relative to their wealth. Elon Musk (in the article listed at $817B of wealth) was reported to have had $1.52B of net income between 2014 and 2018, and had no taxable income in 2018. 95% of $0 is still $0.

The ultra-wealthy's wealth doesn't grow because of income (as the tax code defines it). Trying to tax income to redistribute their wealth (or even just slow its growth) is not going to address wealth inequality.

It's obvious on the channels, because these reply sets usually don't contain a lot of replies to comments (if there are any comment replies, it's almost always from the channel owner). It's so obvious, in fact, that I'm surprised YouTube hasn't done something to address it.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/28/cnbc-china-connection-newsle...

[1]https://www.unitree.com/g1

[2] https://interestingengineering.com/ai-robotics/limx-humanoid...

[3] https://www.bgr.com/2083491/china-agibot-humanoid-robot-us-c...

Lately SCOTUS has been providing stricter textual interpretations of Constitutional questions. Many of these have aligned with Trump administration arguments based on the power of the executive as outlined in Article II. The text says, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." One of the key arguments is that Congress can't take that power away from him. For example, Congress can't tell him that he can't fire executive-branch staff, because the executive power rests with him, not with Congress.

One thing the Constitution is very clear on, though, is that only Congress can impose tariffs ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"). Furthermore, recent rulings of this Court have established the major questions doctrine, which says that even if Congress delegates the specifics of implementing its powers to the Executive branch, that delegation cannot be interpreted broadly. It can't be used to create new broad policies that Congress didn't authorize.

Therefore, because the text of the Constitution explicitly grants the right to impose tariffs to Congress /and/ Trump's imposition of tariffs is both very broad and very substantial, many people believe that SCOTUS will deny Trump's tariffs.

The case as argued is about Trump's right to issue tariffs under the IEEPA (a law Congress passed to give the President some ability to take economic actions due to international emergencies, which do not explicitly include tariffs), and there is some debate about what a negative ruling would mean for the return of tariffs to merchants who have paid them. Both of those points require careful consideration in the decision. Will the ruling limit itself to just tariffs issued under the IEEPA or to the President's ability to establish tariffs under other laws? If the Court rules against the tariffs, will the government be required to pay people back, and if so, to what extent? It's not surprising that the decision is taking some time to be released. There's a lot of considerations, and every one is a possible point for disagreement by the justices.

[0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/prediction-market-trade...

Basically, the same. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor (1830) established:

The rule commonly laid down in the books is, that every person who is born within the ligeance of a sovereign is a subject; and, e converso, that every person born without such allegiance is an alien. . . . Two things usually concur to create citizenship; first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words, within the ligeance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also at his birth derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to the sovereign, as such, de facto.[0]

It excluded slaves and it excluded Native Americans. Native American US citizenship was established in 1924 by statute.[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause#cite_ref-4

[1] https://www.bia.gov/faqs/are-american-indians-and-alaska-nat...

From what I can tell, this is mostly a parent-led thing, well supported by overworked teachers who are more than willing to avoid even more work grading out-of-school assignments.

Secondly, while the FO was flying the airplane and thus would have control of the throttles during rollout, the captain would certainly have his hand beneath the throttles in an observer position during at least part of the takeoff. And during takeoff, procedure would have the captain take over control of the throttle levers until rotation while the FO handled the yoke with both hands.

blancolirio[0] has two excellent video examples of 787 takeoffs within the cockpit showing FO-pilot takeoffs and both officers' actions during takeoff.

Page 10 of the Air India preliminary report[1] shows a picture of the fuel cutoff switches -- clearly labeled "FUEL CONTROL" with "RUN" in the up position and "CUTOFF" in the down position -- directly beneath the throttle levers.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA_UZeHZwSw [1] https://aaib.gov.in/What's%20New%20Assets/Preliminary%20Repo...

It's important to recognize that pump-and-dump coins (scams), memecoins, and (for lack of a better term) cryptocurrencies have separate characteristics.

Pump-and-dump coins have insiders that control the majority of the coins and know when to exit. They are "in" on the game, and they specifically manipulate others to exit with a windfall with no expectation of the coin to last past the exit. TRUMP is an example of a pump-and-dump coin.

Memecoins have enough diverse holders that there's nobody with enough coins for a dump to kill it completely. Memecoins are volatile because they still respond to hype and the people involved acknowledge their questionable value, but there's not a person or group of people that know what's going to happen to the coin. DOGE is an example of a memecoin.

The more classic, well-established cryptocurrencies are like memecoins where the market sees real value in them or their future. Not only do they have a large and diverse pool of holders, but they serve general use cases that the holders perceive has having value (note, not the same as the holders perceiving the coin has value, but that the use-cases for the coin drive its value). BTC is an example of a cryptocurrency.

BTC and ETH may still have as much inherent value as pump-and-dump coins, but if they take a ride to zero, it will happen differently than a pump-and-dump.

Money. Content partners pay to have NFL content on their platforms, NFL content is highly valuable, so the NFL doesn't want anyone else to monetize it without the NFL getting their cut.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42570252

Points: 7

# Comments: 1

[1] https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197960905