In a filing, the Newhouse family, which owns Condé Nast, says it plans to sell 100M WBD shares worth around $1.1B total; $WBD falls 4% (Lucas Manfredi/The Wrap)
https://www.thewrap.com/warner-bros-discovery-stock-sale-newhouse-family/
Lions DB Brian Branch says past adversity has team feeling 'invincible,' ready for breakthrough in 2025 season
https://www.cbssports.c…
Marsha P. Johnson has become an icon of gay, trans, and queer liberation,
and yet little is known about her life beyond her participation in the Stonewall Uprising of 1969 and the decades long controversy after her lifeless body was found floating in the Hudson River in 1992.
In "Marsha: The Joy and Defiance of Marsha P. Johnson",
Tourmaline, an award-winning Black trans artist, filmmaker, and activist who has dedicated her life to uplifting Marsha P. Johnson’s l…
A High-Performance Evolutionary Multiobjective Community Detection Algorithm
Guilherme O. Santos, Lucas S. Vieira, Giulio Rossetti, Carlos H. G. Ferreira, Gladston Moreira
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01752
Edge-colouring and orientations: applications to degree-boundedness and $\chi$-boundedness
Arnab Char, Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi, Lucas Picasarri-Arrieta
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23054
Pullback dynamics for a semilinear heat equation with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions on time-varying domains
Gleiciane S. Arag\~ao, Flank D. M. Bezerra, Lucas G. Mendon\c{c}a
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22585
It seems like, again, just following the plain logic of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (which, again, I do not subscribe to), that every law passed under Trump, every supreme court justice appointment by Trump, every supreme court ruling by Trump appointed justices, all the illegal firing, etc, must all, necessarily, be null and void.
And if not following from the insurrection act, or from the oath of office, then following from the Declaration of Independence itself. The logic here being that a constitution is a contract between the people and their government, which the later upholds in order to maintain its legal status. The violation of said laws by the government violates "consent of the governed" (which, again, I have issues with the concept entirely but we're just going to ignore that) and therefore nullifies the authority of that government, granting " the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."
That seems a lot like the hard reset some folks have been looking for. Given that existing flaws allowed this state to be reached, it would also be necessary for the true authority to correct those mistakes before assuming authority that derives from these principles.
Now, personally, I don't subscribe to any of this logic but it's interesting to explore, as an outsider, where the logic goes.
Apache Flink is uniquely positioned to serve as the backbone for AI agents, equipping them with the powerful new tool of stream processing. Join Steffen Hoellinger at this year's Berlin Buzzwords to explore how Flink jobs can be transformed into “Agents”—autonomous, goal-driven entities that dynamically interact with data streams, trigger actions, and adapt their behaviour based on real-time insights.
Learn more:
A Comparison of Relativistic Coupled Cluster and Equation of Motion Coupled Cluster Quadratic Response Theory
Xiang Yuan, Lo\"ic Halbert, Lucas Visscher, Andr\'e Severo Pereira Gomes
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22905
Now personally, I'm not invested in the law and I reject the logical underpinnings of the whole thing. The US is founded on land that already had people on it, that already had multiple systems of authority, so there can be no claim that it has any legal authority to exist at all.
But it's hard to ignore the inconsistency here. Accepting the logic from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, there is no way in which the current state can be legitimate and which Trump has the authority to do anything. The last legal president, again, following the logic that assumes such a thing even possible, was Barak Obama. Since the transfer of power, the country has failed to enforce the law.
If the executive cannot complete their oath, then they are considered vacant under the 25th amendment. If the cabinet fails to invoke article 4, then they too are involved in the insurrection (again, simply following the logic outlined pretty clearly here) as are any who would fail to support the invocation.
Since a full takeover of the federal government by insurrectionists wasn't really planned for, I'm guessing that it would necessarily go to the states, being the only remaining legal authority.