deed

YouTube video by OneWingedAkira The ULTIMATE Guide To Clam Blitz

Behold! My attempt at a clam blitz guide! Here I cover everything from the basic mechanics, the theory behind powers and pity, general strategy and even how to manipulate clam spawns in your favour so that you can have every advantage in your games
#splatuber

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYDU...

[halo] cortana bunny im not finishing cuz lazy

[halo] energy sword girl... not sure which color to use

It’s time to start prepping for GRIDLOCK @collisionseries.bsky.social, the $1,000 starting prize pot is on the line!

Check out the official Gridlock 2025 Splatoon map pool below and start grinding. Who will come out on top?

So excited for Gridlock this August! Really wanna push myself even further for this. RTs appreciated!

lrt im so happy the ny scene is getting bigger and bigger :,) we're a big boy major now!! it's gonna be a lot harder for me to go this year, but im gonna see what i can do

WHAAAAAAAAAATTT

Anyone who was saying how #compsplatoon might’ve been dying has no idea what they’re talking about, the people who are doing the work just aren’t terminally online.

Very glad to see other orgs getting involved with bigger events, it’s a good step.

YouTube video by Metro Ink Gridlock 2025 Trailer

NYC! WHO’S READY TO PEDAL TO THE METAL

Metro Ink is partnering with Collision to proudly introduce:

🦑 Gridlock at Collision!

Multi-Day Splatoon 4v4 LAN Regional & Social Event

August 22nd - 24th 2025
Meadowlands Expo Center
Secaucus New Jersey!
⬇️More details below ⬇️

youtu.be/I1eRaiUeJZc

Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education. The Court, in effect, constitutionalizes a parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators. That decision guts our free exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society. Exposure to new ideas has always been a vital part of that project, until now. The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent.

In her dissent from today's decision—Mahmoud v. Taylor—Justice Sotomayor says that the court's holding "threatens the very essence of public education," and that its "reverberations" will be felt "for generations." This is a very heartfelt and mournful dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

If this is the level of subtlety that can lead to a religious liberty violation than, as Sotomayor points out, I don't see how any person can't bring a religious liberty claim to opt out of pretty much anything. Case in point: could Christian Scientists could now opt out of any book with doctors?

entitled to a preliminary injunction. A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses "a very real threat of undermining" the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 218 (1972). And a government cannot condition

Wow that’s broad. Incredibly broad.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

MAHMOUD v. TAYLOR Opinion of the Court Language Arts] curriculum were not representative of many students and families in Montgomery County be- cause they did not include LGBTQ characters.” Id., at 603a. The Board therefore decided to introduce into the curricu- lum what it described as “‘LGBTQ+-inclusive texts.’”5 Id., at 174a. As one email sent by MCPS principals reflects, the Board selected the books according to a “Critical Selection Repertoire” that required selectors to review potential texts and ask questions such as: “Is heteronormativity reinforced or disrupted?”; “Is cisnormativity reinforced or disrupted?”; and “Are power hierarchies that uphold the dominant cul- ture reinforced or disrupted?” Id., at 622a. In accordance with this “[r]epertoire” and other criteria, the Board eventually selected 13 “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts for use in the English and Language Arts curriculum from pre-K through 12th grade. Id., at 603a–604a, 622a. At is- sue in this lawsuit are the five “LGBTQ+-inclusive” story- books that are approved for students in Kindergarten through fifth grade—in other words, for children who are generally between 5 and 11 years old.6 A few short descriptions will serve to illustrate the gen- eral tenor of the storybooks. Intersection Allies tells the stories of several children from different backgrounds, in- cluding Kate, who is apparently a transgender child. One

Alito's choice to retain scare quotes around "LGBTQ+-inclusive" throughout his opinion in Mahmoud v Taylor, even AFTER he defines the term, pretty clearly gives the game away: He thinks the books are sinister pro-gay agitprop designed to indoctrinate children www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

This statement is divorced from reality. Judges aren't dragging people off the street and shuffling them around the country in order to avoid due process. The Trump admin is stonewalling judges already. We're sliding in authoritarianism and the Supreme Court is smiling and enjoying the ride.

If the Supreme Court thinks universal injunctions are unconstitutional, to wait until *now* to say that, in this of all cases, with this of all presidents, is a devastating indictment of both its impartiality and its prudence.

The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools. Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools. The harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students’ learning and development. Worse yet, the majority closes its eyes to the inevitable chilling effects of its ruling. Many school districts, and particularly the most resource strapped, cannot afford to engage in costly litigation over opt-out rights or to divert resources to tracking and managing student absences. Schools may instead censor their curricula, stripping material that risks generating religious objections. The Court’s ruling, in effect, thus hands a subset of parents the right to veto curricular choices long left to locally elected school boards. Because I cannot countenance the Court’s contortion of our precedent and the untold harms that will follow, I dissent.

Sotomayor, in dissent, correctly says that today's decision in Mahmoud will lead public schools to simply censor books featuring LGBTQ characters and themes, creating "chaos" and stigmatizing children with LGBTQ families. This decision will lead to book bans.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

Although Alito frames the remedy here as "notice and opt-out," the reality is that school districts cannot manage such a sweeping opt-out system. They are far more likely to simply pull books with LGBTQ characters off classroom shelves altogether rather than face a ruinous, high-profile lawsuit.

🚨In its fourth decision, the Supreme Court holds that parents who object to LGBTQ books in the classroom have a First Amendment right to "opt out" their children from seeing those books. Alito writes for the 6-3 majority, with all three liberals dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

"The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any
other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only
if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival.
Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort." -- Sotomayor dissent

The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a “solemn mockery” of our Constitution. Peters, 5 Cranch, at 136. Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.

From Sotomayor's dissent, which she's now reading from the bench:

"The President has made a 'solemn mockery' of our Constitution. Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent." www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

I want to reiterate that countless conservative judges issued universal injunctions against the Biden administration, and the Supreme Court never halted the practice. Now, barely five months into Trump's second term, the court puts an end to these injunctions. A brazen double standard.

🚨By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court rules that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts' authority and rolls back the injunctions protecting birthright citizenship from Trump's attack. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

a walkthrough of zyf’s competitive mentality | Notion an attempt to explain my approach to mentality in competitive Splatoon by zyf

an attempt to explain my approach to mentality in competitive Splatoon (new long-form doc)

zy-f.notion.site/a-walkthroug...

please like/rt/share with friends if you find it useful or insightful

i dont want to impose my views but it would be cool to at least start some discourse

#compsplatoon

//suggestive text

mid-fight banter gone awkward???

#splatpromoyuri #splatoon

i really can't get over what rank choice voting does to the dynamic of campaigns and between candidates

regardless of its merits (which seem very good), it's just a healthier political dynamic

x rank teammates are smth else man lmao spamming this way does not help just play it out like damn

The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And, indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that— and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insufficiently pliable,” I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s its primary problem—and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.

Justice Jackson taking on Gorsuch's "pure textualism" and arguing for a more holistic reading of Congress' handiwork—worth reading in full. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

But take Low Ink for example. Popgun had been on the mic for finals consistently for the past 4+ years. People know and expect popgun to be commentating that portion of the tournament and I’m sure some tune in specifically for him.

Hammy gave the example of Jordyn being a staple on FTIU and how they excelled. Returning commentators will already have an authentic and vested interest since these tournaments will likely have repeated teams and they won’t have to do as much research or “fluff talk”, especially during top cut.

Weeklies or bi-weeklies aren’t inherently exciting due to lower stakes, and I don’t expect production to exhaust more efforts than they already do, but one good way (that was briefly mentioned) is to have consistent commentators on the mic for these events week after week