The GrindDad
LightNews LightNews
grinddad.bsky.social
The GrindDad
@grinddad.bsky.social
120 followers 130 following 330 posts
Product designer. Artist, musician. Exvangelical, antifascist. Sometimes asshole. (he/him)
Posts Replies Media Videos
grinddad.bsky.social
Absolutely maddening.
December 27, 2025 at 4:12 PM
grinddad.bsky.social
Lol. The premise is so stupid
December 19, 2025 at 3:38 PM
grinddad.bsky.social
Ooof
December 17, 2025 at 8:38 PM
grinddad.bsky.social
Why does this read like Steven Millers voice?
December 16, 2025 at 11:54 PM
grinddad.bsky.social
Exactly this. Musk achieving the body count of Germany in WWII without so much as a slap on the wrist from Teslas board is something I’ll never understand.
December 15, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Reposted by The GrindDad
charlesornstein.bsky.social
Read the story by @annamaria.bsky.social and Brett Murphy with photos by Peter DeCampo.
Trump Officials Celebrated With Cake After Slashing Aid. Then People Died of Cholera.
Behind closed doors in Washington, top advisers made a series of decisions that had devastating repercussions for the poorest country on earth. We went to South Sudan and found people who died as a re...
www.propublica.org
December 15, 2025 at 1:59 PM
grinddad.bsky.social
Damn
December 14, 2025 at 2:47 AM
Reposted by The GrindDad
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
Correcting myself on this thread: DHS did in fact submit a filing to the judge claiming that there was a "scrivener's error," so there was a filing at the immigration court.

That still does not make the issuance of a removal order six years after the fact "correcting a scrivener's error."
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE Immigration Court's Sua Sponte Order Correcting Scrivener's Error Order: On December 11, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed a District Court Order with the Immigration Court. That District Court Order ordered the Respondent released from DHS custody based on a belief the Respondent had not been previously ordered removed by the Immigration Court. The DHS filing with the Immigration Court noted a scrivener's error in the Immigration Judge's original final written decision in this case. That scrivener's error was that while the Respondent was granted the benefit of withholding of removal to El Salvador, the Immigration Judge had not expressly stated in the written order that the Respondent was ordered removed to El Salvador. Although the parties have not raised this issue with the Immigration Court throughout the past five years of litigation in this matter, the Immigration Court will take this opportunity now to correct that scrivener's error. Procedurally, the Respondent admitted the factual allegations contained in the Notice to Appear and conceded removability as charged at a master calendar hearing on May 29, 2019. Based on the Respondent’s admissions and concessions, the Court found his removability was established by clear and convincing evidence. The Court further designated El Salvador as the country of removal. The Respondent agreed with that country designation. On July 25, 2019, the Respondent filed a form I-589 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. A full evidentiary individual merits hearing was held on September 27, 2019, and the Immigration Court issued a written decision on October 10, 2019. That decision is incorporated by reference herein (See Immigration Judge's written decision of October 10, 2019). In the written decision, the Immigration Judge found that the Respondent's removability was established by clear and convincing evidence (Immigration Judge's October 10, 2019, decision, p. 2.) Following the full evidentiary trial, the Immigration Judge denied the Respondent's request for asylum and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. (This order does not amend or change those determinations.) The Immigration Judge, however, granted the Respondent the benefit of withholding of removal to El Salvador. While the Respondent was previously found to be removable and El Salvador was designated as the country of removal, the Immigration Judge's final written order stated that "the Respondent’s application for withholding of removal pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3) is GRANTED," but the order of removal to El Salvador, which should have preceded the order granting him withholding of removal to El Salvador, was erroneously omitted. Matter of I-S- & C-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 432, 434 (BIA 2008) clarified that “when an Immigration Judge decides to grant withholding of removal, an explicit order of removal must be included in the decision.” The Immigration Court now corrects that scrivener's error and amends the written decision in this case by adding the following: The Respondent is ordered removed to El Salvador based on the charge contained in the Notice to Appear, but the Respondent’s application for withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3) is granted. The Court also corrects the reference to Guatemala to read El Salvador at page 13 of the written decision. These corrections are hereby issued nunc pro tunc to the Immigration Court's written decision and order of October 10, 2019. (The Judge issuing this correction states that he has familiarized himself with the record in this matter as required pursuant to 8 CFR 1240.1(b)).
December 12, 2025 at 2:56 PM
grinddad.bsky.social
www.technologyreview.com/2025/12/05/1...
The ads that sell the sizzle of genetic trait discrimination
www.technologyreview.com
December 10, 2025 at 6:37 AM
grinddad.bsky.social
If your profile photo is a cat or dog, 90% of the time that’s a bot or ai poster
December 6, 2025 at 6:05 PM
grinddad.bsky.social
He was cringe 5 years ago when he broadcast from what I presume was his parents basement. He’s dangerous now.
December 2, 2025 at 8:02 PM
grinddad.bsky.social
A politics of abundance
November 30, 2025 at 8:09 PM
grinddad.bsky.social
Okay, fair point. That would differentiate them from my folks.
November 27, 2025 at 3:12 AM