←back to thread

572 points gausswho | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
AIorNot[dead post] ◴[] No.44505836[source]
[flagged]
privatelypublic ◴[] No.44505844[source]
Did you read the article? "Procedures weren't followed."

Seems like an almost intentional mistake tbh

replies(5): >>44505856 #>>44505864 #>>44505955 #>>44505990 #>>44506048 #
1. standardUser ◴[] No.44506048[source]
It's a pro-business decision by the most conservative court in the land, so it would have been surprising if, in all of jurisprudence, they couldn't find something to squash it with, at least temporarily.