Nah, it’s just changed from

Learn to code

to

Learn to AI prompt engineer, bro!

So I’m confused a bit here.

You’ve calculated the annual wage as:

$35/hr * 2080 hr/yr = $72,800

Okay, that’s 40 hours a week. No arguments here. But then you say this:

Shading is based on affordability when working 10 extra hours per week, paid at $35/hr

So did you assume that “full-time” is only 30 hours, and that most people don’t work 40 hours? Or did you not calculate that “10 extra hours per week” means most people would be working 50 hours which is overtime and paid at 1.5 times base rate?

1.5 * $35/hr = $52.50/hr

This would bring the salary up to

($35/hr * 2080 hr/yr) + ($52.50/hr * 10hr/wk * 52wk/yr) = $100,100/yr

Can you clarify this for me?

Essentially, yes.

The source provided by OP is lacking in details but here’s one with more.

When an appeal is filed at the Circuit Court level, it’s first heard by a panel of judges. The judges are supposed to be a random selection of three from the circuit (I don’t know if it’s ever more or less; I’ve only ever heard it as three. Someone more law-talky feel free to correct me).

In this case, the three-judge panel (consisting of two Trump appointees 🙄) granted the feds an emergency stay- meaning nothing can be done to stop the feds until the case has been heard, which they’ve set on the docket for Tuesday.

There are various reasons for an emergency stay but usually the reasoning goes like this: the panel believes that the defendant (eg, the feds) will suffer some sort of harm (in the legal sense, not necessarily the physical sense) if they allow the plaintiff (California) to get what they want. Also, they believe that the defendant is likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments. So if the defendant is likely to win their case and they would suffer legal harm if the courts allowed the plaintiff to stop them while the case was being decided, then the correct course of action is to maintain the status quo until the official ruling.

After that, the next step is to request an en banc hearing, which is where the entire circuit court hears the case. They could either affirm the panel’s decision or reverse it, and either way it’s likely this case would then be appealed to SCOTUS.

House votes on “takesies-backsies” cause Dear Leader told them to find him more ICE money.

“Contingent” on what, Kegsbreath?

Greenland making fun of Trump?

Denmark still refusing to “sell” it?

Trumpy needing yet another distraction from some stupid shit he’s doing he wants to hide?

You getting cranky from the DTs?

They’ve been given the go-ahead to go full mask-off racist:

“This thing Trump said he was going to do isn’t what I voted for!”

Sadly, Mar-a-Lardo is on the Atlantic side. Does it matter which body of water he’s disposed in?

Like he won’t plan to winter in Floriduh once he’s crowned king.

Oh man, good thing concrete is so much softer than wet mud! Wouldn’t want the geriatric felonious traitor to break his hip or crack his skull from a fall, now would we?

Oh shit, now the Internet tough guy is gonna punch you in the mouth!

“Predictions” necessitate evidence to base them on. These are garden-variety “guesses pulled from the ass of a drug-addled fascist”.

It was a real shame no trains derailed with all those tanks on them.

Letting them go home is why they keep coming back.

Until we have the will to hold these fascist traitors accountable, this will be a recurring problem.

I don’t understand why they’d diverge, since they both want the same thing- to control women’s bodies.

edit: Men wanting control of women is a bad thing. That’s what I (apparently poorly) insinuated.

Until the courts say otherwise, the president’s order is presumed lawful, and the subordinate officers are compelled to obey it.

This is a roundabout way of making the point I was trying to make.

Newsome said it was unlawful. If it is, then he should be doing more than make social media posts about it.

The one follows the other.

The president can not order the military to do peacekeeping operations on US soil without a justification to do so. If the justification to do so is illegal, then so is the act of ordering it.

“I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command,” Newsom wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

If it’s unlawful, you don’t need to ask. Just tell them to go home.

Relax everyone; it’s just a singular event. Just like how every right-wing white man who perpetuates an act of terrorism is a “lone wolf” and definitely not the logical culmination of the fearmongering propaganda espoused by the Republicans.