2683 stories

'One in a Million' iPhone Photo Shows Three Versions of the Same Woman | PetaPixel


A woman says that “the fabric of reality crumbled” after she looked at an iPhone photo of herself trying on a wedding dress and noticed that her reflection looked different.

Standing in front of two large mirrors, Tessa Coates’ reflection does not return the same pose that she is making, and not only that, but both reflections are different from each other and different from the pose Coates was actually holding.

While Coates was holding one arm up and another down, the reflection on the left is seen holding both arms down, and the reflection to her right is holding both arms up to her waist.

The photo is not a “Live Photo” nor is it a “Burst” — it’s just a normal picture taken on an iPhone. Understandably, Coates was freaked out.

“I looked at the photo and I had a full panic attack in the street,” she says on Instagram.

How Did This Happen?

Determined to get to the bottom of the mystery, Coates, an actor and comedian from the U.K., went to the Apple store.

iPhone glitch wedding dress different reflections

A technician named Roger explained to her that an “iPhone is not a camera, it’s a computer.”

“It takes a series of burst images very quickly even though it’s not a panoramic or a burst,” explains Coates.

Roger informed Coates that she moved her arms as the camera took a series of images from left to right and it made a different image on each side of the photo.

“It’s made like an AI decision and it stitched those two photos together,” Roger told Coates.

Interestingly, the Apple technician said that after Google brought out the Pixel 8 which takes multiple photos and chooses the best ones, Apple is beta-testing a similar feature.

However, Roger added that what happened in the wedding dress shop was a “one in a million.”

Computational Photography

Smartphones have made huge strides picture-quality-wise in recent years but the big improvements can’t be put down to hardware advancements.

Instead, computational photography has had the biggest effect on smartphone pictures. Computational photography refers to the use of algorithms within a smartphone computer.

People may not be aware of this, but when they click the shutter on their smartphone it takes multiple images and chooses the best elements in a very short space of time.

For example, pixel binning occurs in smartphones which allows the data from four pixels to be combined into one, this increases the overall quality of the image without sacrificing low-light capabilities.

In the summer, PetaPixel published a lengthy explainer article on computational photography.

Image credits: Photographs by Tessa Coates

Read the whole story
17 hours ago
1 day ago
Washington, DC
Share this story

Tech Conference Collapses After Organizer Admits to Making Fake ‘Auto-Generated’ Female Speaker

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Tech Conference Collapses After Organizer Admits to Making Fake ‘Auto-Generated’ Female Speaker

The founder of a software developer conference has been accused of creating fake female speakers to bolster diversity numbers—and some speakers are dropping out, with the event just nine days away. 

Devternity is an online conference for developers that’s invite-only for speakers. In the past, it reportedly drew hundreds of attendees both when it was in-person in Latvia and even more after it moved online. Eduard Sizovs founded the event in 2015. 

Engineer Gergely Orosz tweeted on Thursday that he’d discovered fake speakers listed on the Devternity site. Two women—Anna Boyko, listed as a staff engineer at Coinbase, and Natalie Stadler, a “software craftswoman” at Coinbase—were included on the site as speakers but appear to not exist in real life. Neither have an online presence beyond the Devternity website itself. 

Orosz found archived versions of the Devternity site where Boyko and Stadler were listed; Stadler’s listing was up for years, according to archives from 2021

Sizovs responded to these claims in a 916-word tweet, admitting that he’d made at least one fake speaker, Stadler, in the process of building the Devternity site and then left her up. 

He said that the profile was “auto-generated, with a random title, random Twitter handle, random picture,” and that while he noticed it was still on the site, he delayed taking it off because it wasn’t a “quick fix” and that “it’s better to have that demo persona while I am searching for the replacement speakers,” he wrote. In his tweet, Sizovs did not elaborate on why he believed this was “better.” 

Sizovs wrote that after this year’s upcoming conference “achieved a worse-than-expected level of diversity of speakers,” author and programmer Sandi Metz, “Software Craftswoman, Tech Influencer @ Instagram” Julia Kirsina, and head of developer relations at Amazon Web Services Kristine Howard were the only three women he was able to bring on as speakers. But two of the three dropped out, he said:   

“Sandi for health issues; Julia switched to helping with the organization (you can’t do both speaking and organization). Sandi and Julia didn’t make it to the final schedule, but they kept appearing on the website while I was looking for a replacement. This, partially, led to an accusation that, since they’re not part of the schedule, we’ve probably added them just to meet arbitrary diversity criteria. That statement is bold and unfair. Sandi and Julia confirmed their participation; they should have been part of the final schedule but dropped out for reasons out of our control at the worst possible time. Ask Sandi or Julia. So, we ended up with only one female speaker—Kris. So, while I was looking for a last-minute replacement, hoping I’d find it, Sandi, and Julia were still mentioned on the website.”

Metz told me that she is, in fact, recovering from recent knee replacement surgery and had to drop out for that reason. Sizovs has been "good naturedly hounding" her to speak for years, she said. “I finally agreed to speak this year, and then had to bail because of this surgery.” 

Howard told me that she was traveling when this situation unfolded on social media, and she emailed the organizers of Devternity immediately. She also said Orosz reached out to her before he posted his Twitter thread with the allegations about fake accounts 

“While I was legitimately on the agenda as a speaker (I was invited to speak six months ago), at this point I’m definitely not participating,” Howard said. “The last email I had from the organiser yesterday indicated that the event is not going to happen this year, which is definitely for the best. I don’t know yet why he hasn’t taken down the site, but I hope it’ll happen soon. Most of the speakers I know on the agenda that I’m in contact with have pulled out.” 

Coinbase did not respond to a request for comment on whether anyone named Anna Boyko ever worked there.

Do you know anything else about Devternity, or the speakers mentioned? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at +1 646 926 1726. Otherwise, send me an email at sam@404media.co.

Orosz added in a later tweet, “So now I’m the bad guy for calling out your[siq] your conference had fake women profiles in 2021, 2022, and now, in 2023?” and reposted the Stadler listing. 

“Do you have any concerns other than this single poor random lady, who actually *never made it to the final schedule*? I double-checked. Ne-ver. For 8 years in a row, attendees were getting what they were paying for. Every. Single. Time,” Sizovs responded, referring to Stadler.

Kirsina is still listed as a speaker on the Devternity site, despite Sizovs saying she is no longer speaking. Sizovs removed Boyko (the other speaker alleged to be fake) two days ago, according to the Github repository for the site, after Orosz’ thread went viral. 

A few hours after his first post, Sizovs tweeted again:

“I said it was a mistake, a bug that turned out to be a feature. I even fixed that on my website! We're cool? Nooooo, we want blood! Let's cancel this SINNER!” he tweeted. “The amount of hate and lynching I keep receiving is as if I would have scammed or killed someone. But I won't defend myself because I don't feel guilty. I did nothing terrible that I need to apologize for.” 

Even if Sizovs’ story is true, and Stadler was a demo listing that he left up by mistake, some speakers feel misled and are dropping out of the conference. Scott Hanselman, VP of development community at Microsoft, said he also pulled out of the conference. “This whole conference debacle is so disappointing. Speakers like myself, when invited to a conf will immediately say ‘who alls gonna be there?’” he wrote. “I’ve my rules for participation posted on my site—including an inclusive lineup—for years. I was duped by the fake speakers also.” 

David Heinemeier Hansson, the creator of Ruby on Rails, responded to Sizovs’ tweet saying he was “out” of the conference, which lists him as a speaker. “What a strange tale. Never seen anything like this in decades of speaking at conferences,” Hansson wrote. “Regardless of what may ultimately be up or down here, I'm out.”

“Sizovs’ response to the allegations didn’t pass my sniff test, so I withdrew,” Hansson told me. “His failure to respond to my request to be removed from the conference website didn’t help either. Hopefully people can get their money back, if they so desire.”

Software engineer Kelsey Hightower also dropped out of Devternity. "I have made mistakes of my own, so I'll show some empathy by not calling out everything I would have done differently in hindsight. I will say this, the pool of qualified speakers is much larger than it has ever been," he wrote in a reply to Sizovs' tweet. "This isn't all on you by the way, and as a paid speaker I also need to take a bit of accountability. Given the allegations and your response, I can no longer participate in the event, and have asked that I be removed from the program, and removed as a listed speaker on the website, GitHub repository, and any future promotions for the event."

Speakers at Sizovs’ other events are also dropping out after Orosz’s claims that Sizovs made up speakers at the JDKon conference, too: Alina Prokhoda, listed as a Senior Engineer at WhatsApp, Microsoft MVP, has no online presence. Vlad Mihalcea, a Java programmer who was set to speak at JDKon, tweeted that he was no longer speaking at the event because of these allegations:

Sizovs did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Read the whole story
4 days ago
The best part is that he then starts whining about being “canceled”.
Washington, DC
4 days ago
“It’s a bug that turned out to be a feature!”
4 days ago
4 days ago
Share this story

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Gold

1 Share

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

When I think of altruism, I think of guys selling apocalypse gold on youtube.

Today's News:
Read the whole story
4 days ago
Share this story

Washington Post Editorial Board to liberal women: Close your eyes and MAGA

1 Share

Opinions are indeed like assholes. Not only does everybody have one, but some assholes are nastier than others. If a recent piece by the Washington Post’s Editorial Board about marriage was an asshole, it would be the sort that makes colorectal surgeons feel faint.

The online version debuted with this headline: “Young Americans aren’t marrying. Politics helps explain why.” Yesterday someone ramped up the scolding and changed it to: “If attitudes don’t shift, a political dating mismatch will threaten marriage.” Don’t make dad turn this car around.

But don’t worry. It gets worse. To prepare yourself, imagine someone mashed together the following items to create a 755 word opinion piece:

  • An article that bewails the fact that liberals won’t date conservatives.
  • Malicious false equivalency.
  • Refusal to acknowledge right wing violence.
  • Fauxstalgia.
  • Heteronormativity.
  • Sexism.
  • That special use of the word “American” that really means white, cishet, and Christian.
  • More sexism.
  • The Compromise? panel from Kasia Babis’ classic.

But what takes this article beyond the usual concern trolling about liberals exercising their freedom of association are the sources WPEB relies on to support its main argument (which is buried beneath concern trolling about political polarization): Some women must marry men who hate them. For America.

In addition to the AEI study, there are three links to two articles by members of the Institute for Family Studies and an unlinked reference to the institute’s work. However, the WPEB doesn’t mention the IFS in the piece. More about the organization and its founder in a bit, but you can read about the IFS here if the name isn’t enough of a hint.

The op-ed begins with a jokey reference to younger adults suffering through Thanksgiving with uncles who love President Petit Poings. It seems designed to make people stop reading because their eyes rolled out of their heads. Then, it gets Very Serious.

In some ways, polarization is exactly what one would expect in a large, unwieldy democracy such as the United States’. Americans no longer agree on many questions of how to live or what to live for.

See what I mean about the word “American”? And even the Americans they’re talking about have never agreed on the how/what of living. In addition to the fauxstalgia for the good old days that never existed, WPEB also tries to equate the right wing’s attempts to criminalize the existence of anyone who doesn’t meet the white supremacist definition of human with marginalized people who just want to exist without getting a jackboot to the head.

There ain’t no good guy, there ain’t no bad guy. There’s only you and me and we just disagree.

Then they have the nerve to mention good faith.

These differences can’t just be papered over through good-faith dialogue — because they are real.

Good-faith dialogue can’t happen when some people want to discuss equal rights or school funding or vaccinations while other people wave guns and scream about Jewish liberal media space lasers zapping school children with transgender critical race theory. While the difference is indeed real, the difference exists because the screaming people have decided to be shitheads. Also, supposedly neutral parties like members of the editorial board for a large newspaper continue to cover for them with euphemisms and false equivalence.

The problem with polarization, though, is that it has effects well beyond the political realm, and these can be difficult to anticipate. One example is the collapse of American marriage. A growing number of young women are discovering that they can’t find suitable male partners.

How does political polarization make it hard for young women to find a marriage-worthy man? Before the WPEB answers that question, a quick digression.

As a whole, men are increasingly struggling with, or suffering from, higher unemployment, lower rates of educational attainment, more drug addiction and deaths of despair, and generally less purpose and direction in their lives. But it’s not just that.

That has nothing to do with political polarization. Perhaps the WPEB wants to prime women to distribute pity fucks. They continue.

But it’s not just that. There’s a growing ideological divide, too. Since Mr. Trump’s election in 2016, the percentage of single women ages 18-30 who identify as liberal has shot up from slightly over 20 percent to 32 percent. Young men have not followed suit. If anything, they have grown more conservative.

This ideology gap is particularly pronounced among Gen Z White people. According to a major new American Enterprise Institute survey, 46 percent of White Gen Z women are liberal, compared to only 28 percent of White Gen Z men, more of whom (36 percent) now identify as conservative. Norms around sexuality and gender are diverging, too. Whereas 61 percent of Gen Z women see themselves as feminist, only 43 percent of Gen Z men do.

To review: Lots of younger men have filled out their Domestic Violence BINGO cards. They are hot messes compared to women and also believe women are second class citizens and have an unhealthy attitude toward guns.

A reasonable person would conclude that heteromen need to clean up their acts if they don’t want to die alone. Or the conservative ones should fight to the death over the women who share their beliefs. The WPEB stuck to tradition and concluded that some women will have to take one for the team and not just date, but marry some walking nightmare. Because its for her own good. Or at least society’s.

And now, more context-free stats that remind everyone Democrats are big meanies.

A 2021 survey of college students found that 71 percent of Democrats would not date someone with opposing views. There is some logic to this. Marriage across religious or political lines — if either partner considers those things to be central to their identity — can be associated with lower levels of life satisfaction. And politics is becoming more central to people’s identity.

Republicans have made violence and weapons of mass murder central to their personal and political identity. They constantly fantasize about threatening, attacking, and killing anyone who doesn’t agree with them. And they often act on those fantasies. Therefore there is more than “some” logic to Democrats avoiding them before you add the excuses society makes for any man who harms women.

However, the WPEB studiously avoids the topic of Republican violence and sure as hell doesn’t want to discuss DV. It’s just differences of opinion, don’t you know?

This mismatch means that someone will need to compromise.

That someone being liberal women and no they do fucking not need to do shit. Remember those IFS citations I mentioned? Here’s the second one, to an article that ran in the Atlantic earlier this year.

As the researchers Lyman Stone and Brad Wilcox have noted, about 1 in 5 young singles will have little choice but to marry someone outside their ideological tribe.

It’s amazing that the WPEB sat down in the year 2023 and promoted right wing beliefs that women have little choice but to enter an intimate relationship with a man who thinks they should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and likely thinks oral and implantable birth control should be illegal. I mean, how do people with their heads up their asses even sit?

Let’s talk about Bradford Wilcox and the IFS, since the WPEB is really into their work, but for some reason shy of mentioning the IFS. I had forgotten Wilcox, but the name rang a bell. The kind that tells you to leave the building, right now. Thanks to one sociologist who is all over Wilcox and his ilk like white on rice, it took perhaps 10 seconds to refresh my memory.

Remember the Republican plan to fix poverty by promoting marriage because some studies proved married people had more money? Or perhaps you recall Republicans crowing about a study that proved their marriages were happier than Democrats’? Yeah, that guy. And the study that the right wing heralded as proof that same-sex marriage was bad for kids before and after it was revealed to be a hoax? Wilcox was involved in that too. Wilcox is also a senior fellow at the AEI.

I also checked the IFS website and confirmed that yes, it’s right wing cranks all the way down.

The other option is that they decline to get married at all — not an ideal outcome considering the data showing that marriage is good for the health of societies and individuals alike.

The article doesn’t link to data that supports that claim, but it is the largest turd that the IFS pushes around with its nose, and the WPEB mentions it in the same paragraph as two links to articles from Wilcox/IFS.

So, according to the WPEB some liberal women have to marry right wing dirt bags because a bunch of right wing dirt bags said they do.

At this point the WPEB ducks into a parenthetical disclaimer.

(This, of course, is on average; marriage isn’t for everyone.

For example, marriage is not for shitty people. No one is owed a relationship with another living creature. Men who think otherwise make society much worse. And after millennia of women entering relationships to make someone else happy or just Because someone else said so, fuck off. It is time we had a break.

Nor is staying in a physically or emotionally abusive marriage ever the right choice.

Agreed. But the WPEB skipped over the same conclusion about entering an abusive marriage in the first damned place. And because Republicans have apparently limitless stores of physical and emotional abuse for people who don’t agree with them, the WPEB’s pitch to liberal women amounts to: Stop being so picky and marry that MAGAt. But keep your political beliefs to yourself if you know what’s good for you. You might need to cut ties with your current group of friends. And if things don’t work out, enjoy the divorce process. Because that is good for a society that treats you like a second class citizen.

I can hear the younger women fighting to sign up for that deal.

But, on the whole, while politically mixed couples report somewhat lower levels of satisfaction than same-party couples, they are still likely to be happier than those who remain single.)

You’ll be less happy than if you hadn’t married someone who thinks you’re dirt, but probably more happy than if you hadn’t not not married someone who thinks you’re dirt. What the fuck? And the source for that statement is a write up, co-authored by Wilcox, of research conducted by the IFS.

As an aside, even if you ignore the right wing attempt to stuff its patriarchal norms down everyone’s throats, I don’t think it is unfair to link some of the unhappiness that single people experience with the fact they live in a society that has a mania for romantic pair-bonding.

At any rate, the piece dribbles off into more tut-tutting over the fact that kids today take their political identities way too seriously and America’s fate depends on them not doing that.

Unfortunately, Americans have not equipped themselves to discuss, debate and reason across these divides. Americans have increasingly sorted themselves according to ideological orientation.

Again, some Americans are capable of having reasonable discussion and debate, but some Americans want to wave guns and scream. The WPEB may want to false equivocate this divide out existence, but they look like assholes when they try.

People who post off-topic comments have already placed an order for Wilcox’s next book.

The post Washington Post Editorial Board to liberal women: Close your eyes and MAGA appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Read the whole story
4 days ago
Share this story

If You Kill Two People In A Car Crash, You Shouldn’t Then Sue Their Relatives For Emailing Your University About What You Did | Techdirt

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Holy shit.

So, in 2021 there was a car accident in Atwater California that killed a married couple, Pam and Joe Juarez. According to police reports at the time, a 20-year-old Stanford student, King Vanga, struck their car from behind. Here’s how ABC 30 reported on the matter:

The California Highway Patrol says Pam, 56, and Joe, 57, were driving west on Santa Fe Avenue approaching Spaceport Entry in Atwater.

They were just minutes away from their son’s house.

Officials say that’s when 20-year-old King Vanga collided into the back of their car at a high rate of speed.

The Juarez’s spun out and their vehicle caught fire.

Vanga overturned into a fence.

The Juarez’s died at the scene.

Vanga had minor injuries was booked into the Merced County Jail for driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and vehicular manslaughter.

The filed police reports claim that the officers believed Vanga was under the influence of alcohol, saying they smelled alcohol, though they were unable to administer a field sobriety test. He was still charged with a DUI, along with the vehicular manslaughter charges.

Vanga has since sued the police, claiming that the police violated his rights by attacking and tasing him, and that he “never drinks” and therefore the DUI charges are bogus. A blood test that was analyzed later by the California DOJ found that he had no traces of alcohol in his blood at the time, so it is entirely possible that he wasn’t actually drunk. Whether or not he was actually drunk or not seems like a fairly minor point in all of this, given that two people died in an accident where Vanga drove into the back of their car at high speed.

The family of Pam & Joe Juarez were understandably upset by their death, and a few family members sent emails to Stanford to alert them to what had happened, and alert them that they did not feel that Vanga had live up to Stanford’s code of conduct.

Vanga, somewhat incredibly, has decided to sue the family members of the couple he killed, claiming that their emails to Stanford were defamatory, because (a) they mention the DUI based on the police report and public reporting and (b) some of them said he “murdered” their family members, rather than merely killing them.

Let me repeat that, because it is quite incredible. It is undisputed that Vanga rear-ended another car, leading to the death of the two people in that car. Some of family members of the dead couple sent understandably angry letters to Stanford, the university Vanga attended. And now Vanga has sued those family members for relying on a potentially inaccurate police report, and using the word “murder” for what he did.

This is the SLAPPiest of SLAPP suits.

And now one of the defendants, Priscilla Juarez (a daughter-in-law of the deceased couple), has brought on Ken “Popehat” White to represent her against this insult-to-injury lawsuit. White has now filed an anti-SLAPP motion on Juarez’s behalf that calls out just how crazy this situation is:

Plaintiff King Vanga, a privileged student at an elite university, killed Defendant Priscilla Juarez’s in-laws and is now suing her for privately complaining about it. He is doing so in an overt effort to extort from her a promise not to encourage his criminal prosecution. This is a shocking and contemptible abuse of the justice system. Fortunately, the system that lets King Vanga abuse and harass his victims also provides a remedy – California’s robust anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is a classic SLAPP, and this Court should dismiss it and award Ms. Juarez her fees and costs.

It’s undisputed that King Vanga was in a car accident that killed Jose and Pamela Juarez, Ms. Juarez’ husband’s parents. It’s also undisputed that Merced County charged Plaintiff with vehicular manslaughter and DUI causing great injury, and that the press widely reported that Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Based on the criminal charges against Plaintiff, the press coverage she reviewed, and statements by police officers on the scene, Ms. Juarez wrote an email (“the Email”) to Stanford University stating her opinion that Plaintiff had violated its honor code, based explicitly on the criminal charges and press coverage. There’s no indication that Stanford disciplined Plaintiff. Instead, Plaintiff got a copy of the Email through a FERPA request, used it as an opportunity to sue Ms. Juarez for defamation, and made an extortionate demand that he would not drop the suit unless Ms. Juarez stopped talking about him killing her in-laws and stopped pushing for his prosecution.

California’s anti-SLAPP statute protects Ms. Juarez from King Vanga’s loathsome and immoral abuse of process. Ms. Juarez easily meets the first prong of the anti-SLAPP test, as her Email was sent in relation to an ongoing judicial proceeding and was an exercise of her right to free speech on an issue of public interest. But Plaintiff cannot carry his burden of showing a probability of prevailing. Most of the Email was Ms. Juarez’ overt opinions and conclusions, and was absolutely protected by the First Amendment. To the extent Ms. Juarez repeated factual allegations in the criminal complaint against Plaintiff and the extensive news coverage of the accident, Plaintiff cannot show that Ms. Juarez was negligent to rely on it.

Such a rule would mean that crime victims could never comment on crimes based on criminal charges and news coverage. Ms. Juarez’s statement is also protected by California’s common interest privilege. Finally, Plaintiff cannot provide admissible evidence of damages resulting from the Email. The Court should grant this Motion, dismiss this utterly shameful FAC, and award Ms. Juarez her attorney fees and costs.

There’s much more in the anti-SLAPP motion to strike. It details how Priscilla not only read the news about this, which accurately reported what Vanga was charged with, but also that family members had spoken with the arresting officer, who told them of his belief that Vanga was intoxicated. Whether or not that turned out to be true, it certainly shows that Juarez had a justification for saying what she said.

It also highlights how the first time she heard about Vanga denying being intoxicated was when he filed his lawsuit against the police, which was long after she had sent her email to Stanford.

And then there’s this:

After filing the lawsuit, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Mrs. Juarez an email offering to drop the lawsuit if Ms. Juarez agreed “not to make or publish any disparaging statements about Mr. Vanga in the future” and “not to encourage the criminal prosecution of Mr. Vanga, including by communicating with government officers or protesting at any conference, hearing, or trial involving Mr. Vanga.” (Juarez Decl. at ⁋21; Exhibit 9). Mrs. Juarez did not agree to abandon her First Amendment right to advocate for her in-laws.


Again, it is entirely possible that the cops were wrong in believing Vanga was intoxicated. We’ve covered many cases on this very site about cops being wrong. So if Vanga wants to sue the cops, more power to him.

But suing the family of the people who died because he rear-ended their car, for sending a private email to Stanford (over which the University took no action), based on public reporting and what officers on the scene said, is fucking crazy. It’s yet another example of abusing the courts to silence someone, and in this particular case adding real insult to actual injury.

The court should grant the motion to strike and make him pay through the nose for this gross abuse of the legal process to silence speech.

This is why we have been arguing for years for more and better anti-SLAPP laws. Luckily, California has a strong one. But many states do not. And even in many states that do have one, it cannot apply in federal court. We need every state to have a strong anti-SLAPP law and we need a federal anti-SLAPP law.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, atwater police, california, chp, defamation, jose juarez, king vanga, pamela juarez, police reports, priscilla juarez, slapp

Read the whole story
7 days ago
I hope this is a case of Streisand effect
11 days ago
Washington, DC
Share this story

Fox Ain’t News

1 Share


Or maybe a couple driving a Bentley looking to rock n’ roll all nite and, if all goes well, party every day got in an accident, same difference really.

Surely members of the World’s Most Inefficient Deliberative Body are more responsible, though:


Ted Cruz is the worst thing to ever come out of Alberta, and I’ve seen the 2023-4 Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers.

The post Fox Ain’t News appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

Read the whole story
8 days ago
Share this story
Next Page of Stories