Sign in

Craig Kaplan

@triggerloop.bsky.social
4K followers 808 following 8.9K posts

Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh. RNA polymerase II mechanism, classic films, #classiccountdown once in awhile

PostsRepliesMedia
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 25/09/2026
It is the case. The Biosketch has a certification so that happens when you generate the document. They updated the current certification to expire Sept 26. So you need new one
Action needed — Regenerate SciENcv documents before upcoming NIH and other federal submissions

The Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) has become aware of time-sensitive issues affecting SciENcv generated documents.

SciENcv updated the digital certificate used to sign Biosketch and Current & Pending (Other) Support (CPOS) documents without notification. The old certificate expires Saturday, September 26, 2026. Documents downloaded from SciENcv before that date may fail validation in eRA Commons and generate errors that delay or block submission.

This certificate change affects applications and RPPRs to NIH, AHRQ, CDC, NIOSH, FDA, and VA submitted on or after September 26, whether they are submitted in PERIS™ MyFunding/System-to-System, ASSIST, or Grants.gov Workspace. Because SciENcv is also used to prepare Biosketch and CPOS documents for NSF, DOE, NASA, and USDA proposals, investigators with imminent submissions to those agencies are encouraged to regenerate their documents as a precaution.

What to do

Investigators should log back into SciENcv and regenerate their Biosketch and CPOS documents. When 'Download PDF' is selected, SciENcv will prompt the investigator to certify. The new PDFs should replace any older versions in in-progress applications.

October 5 R01 deadline

Any in-progress application that already includes Biosketch or CPOS documents will need those documents regenerated and replaced this coming week.
146
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 24/09/2026
This place was just normal pizza place- they moved from Atwood onto Forbes and they have a new AI slop menu. The breadsticks look diseased
030
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
This last part, sadly, makes it seem that he doesn't understand or want to, what research overhead is for, how creating instability in whether researchers' institutions will even have overhead to support projects adds quicksand to any proposal, and there are already extremely tight COI rules 8/
Third, demand accountability. The NIH’s costly, noncompetitive overhead system should be replaced with one that rewards efficiency, makes institutions compete for infrastructure dollars and gives smaller research centers a fair shot. I will soon introduce the Sunshine for Researchers Act to require federally funded researchers to disclose significant financial connections to the business sector. And my bipartisan NIH Mentorship Modernization Act, introduced with Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware), would help retain young scientists, which is a priority for NIH.
1161
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
That is unfair to the researchers and untrue about the process their awards were granted, but I give him credit here for asking that terminated grants be allowed to be revised. I thank him for this 7/
Rather than waste that investment, we should let researchers revise their applications and keep working. That is why I led five Senate Republican colleagues in urging the administration to do exactly that.
1152
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
Here, he has to be dishonest to reach his audience. He implies that there are unmeritorious grants that have been funded (and now canceled) but suggests that some have been canceled because of unfounded accusations toward researchers larding up their proposals to curry favor with Biden admin 6/
Second, prioritize merit-based science. The Trump administration rightly reassessed grants lacking merit, and it canceled nearly 1,400 midstream, many over diversity, equity and inclusion language. While some of these grants deserved to be canceled, some were legitimate research with buzzwords inserted to get approval from the Biden administration.
For half those grants alone, taxpayers had already paid nearly $1.3 billion for work that might never be finished.
2122
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
Here, he invokes the specter of 'DEI' as being wasteful. And equally worrisome and wrong, he conflates "overhead", which means paying for research infrastructure with waste, and then suggests there may be a COI problem 4/
We have also let politics intrude on science. The NIH under the Biden administration gave CHOP $155,000 to develop training on “structural racism” and “intersectional microaggressions.” Such initiatives abused taxpayer money and undermined trust.

Finally, NIH has become opaque and bureaucratic. Nearly 1 in 3 grant dollars goes to overhead, and taxpayers can’t easily see financial ties of researchers to industry. Each of these failures has a fix.
2112
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
Here he discusses "long overdue reform"- this is standard question begging as he is standing on a trope his audience expects 2/
Quote from McCormick OpEd in WaPo "This summer, the White House rightly called for a new golden age of American science. Reaching it requires long overdue reform and more investment in federal research and development."
191
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
Penguins got me going with this background- who came up with this????
Jumbotron at PPG Paints arena with words house rules over shiny gold background that is actually image of a DNA electrophoresis gel
100
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 22/09/2026
Ok who knows what this background is or could possible argue that it isn’t what it looks like - haha this is amazing
000
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 10/09/2026
My Outlier scores show that I’m right at a certain limit. I think once I could see the type of crazy words that 900+ types use maybe I’d get better but my lane is 840-860
Daily scores in the “Outlier” rare word game that are all consistently between 840 and 870
110
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 23/08/2026
R01s were relatively normal for funding rate while application numbers dropping at NIGMS over time. They then cratered 2024/2025
Graph showing NIGMS funding rates and applications for R01 and R35 grants. Data are from 2015 to 2025. R01 applications drop steadily over time but funding rate was relatively stable through 2022. There was a dip in 2021 and this could be COVID related. Funding rates drop slightly in 2024 and then very strongly in 2024 (14%) and 2025 (8%). R35 applications increase over the time frame and funding rates there were relatively flat (50%) with a very strong drop in 2025.
131
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 21/08/2026
Is this account a bot? Anyhow, here is the table - see my other comment
Table from Jacob and Monod 1961 showing molecules of different types and testing whether they are substrates for B-galactosidase and if they can induce B-gal or acetylase activity
130
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 12/08/2026
"Figures 6 & 7. Amount of NIH funding obligated to new and competing MYF RPGs and R01s (current U.S. dollars), Oct. 1-Aug. 8, by fiscal year; Number of MYF new and competing research project grants (RPGs) and R01s awarded, Oct. 1-Aug. 8, by fiscal year"
100
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 02/08/2026
@hooverstreetrag.org I laughed because of the coach
010
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 19/07/2026
Agnes Moorehead as Madge Rapf in Dark Passage looking through ornate small window in door
020
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 16/07/2026
Air Quality of 123 in Pittsburgh. Can smell the smoke inside. We got over 200 in 2023 (this is nothing compared to when NYC hit 800 in 2023). But this is looking almost as bad as that over upper Midwest - stay inside if you can
Tall art deco building with washed out backdrop due to wildfire smoke in Pittsburgh AQI monitoring map showing monitor locations across the upper Midwest, lower Canada, and US Northeast. A large swath of country has hazardous or dangerous air
160
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
Seems like they can be direct about some things? Someone over there wanted to write "Tourist flies into air after bison-involved tossing"
Bison Attacks Tourist at Yellowstone National Park, Tossing Him Into the Air
4384
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 12/07/2026
Me: Time for the Harry Lime speech about Switzerland Group chat: Centuries of peace and prosperity produces 220 goalless minutes.
Me: Time for the Harry Lime speech about Switzerland

Group chat: Centuries of peace and prosperity produces 220 goalless minutes.
160
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 11/07/2026
Divided the MYF ones by number of years in the budget. MIRA much more tightly arranged (ESI, ESI renewal, and people turning one R01 into MIRA). Some of the R01s are tiny.
Violin plots of NIGMS award sizes in FY26. R01s are widely spread due to many being multiyear funded. R35s more narrowly spread.
110
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 11/07/2026
Oh haha you asked for B/W- here is violin
Violin plots of total cost in US dollars for FY26 awarded R01 grants from NIGMS (left) or R01 grants from NIGMS (right). The plot on right is much more focused around ~400K. The plot on left has two major groups of funding.
110
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 11/07/2026
Histograms of Total Cost for funded R01 grants from NIGMS in FY26 so far (left) and funded R35 grants (right). I know last year there were a number of 2 year R01s that were MYF, allowing people to be eligible for MIRA. Looks like quite a bit of MYF in the R01s
Histograms of Total Cost for funded R01 grants from NIGMS in FY26 so far (left) and funded R35 grants (right). I know last year there were a number of 2 year R01s that were MYF, allowing people to be eligible for MIRA
120
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 08/07/2026
Update of my NIGMS funding estimates/data. Thanks to @needhibhalla.bsky.social for pointing to some FY2025 numbers showing funding rates. Funded grant # are from Reporter. FY2026 is in progress. A few points 1/
21512
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 08/07/2026
I wanted to throw up listening to that. If applications being up are the main driver, simple math should support that idea. Anyhow, I highly doubt that is the case. Here are the numbers
Decreasing funding rates at NIGMS for both R35 and R01
134
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 03/07/2026
Wikipedia ain’t playin
The infantry charge was preceded by what Lee hoped would be a powerful and well-concentrated cannonade of the Union center, destroying the Union artillery batteries that could defeat the assault and demoralizing the Union infantry. But a combination of inept artillery leadership and defective equipment doomed the barrage from the beginning. Longstreet's corps artillery chief, Col. Edward Porter Alexander, had effective command of the field; Lee's artillery chief, Brig. Gen. William N. Pendleton, played little role other than to obstruct the effective placement of artillery from the other two corps. Despite Alexander's efforts, then, there was insufficient concentration of Confederate fire on the objective.[17]
020
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 03/07/2026
Ugh
100
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 03/07/2026
We have the juice
020
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/06/2026
Two different smoke plumes from these fires on two different days in two places, over a hundred miles away in different directions. Last pic is ash accumulated on edge of car window
Lake Solitude with sun obscured by smoke plume from Utah wild fire. Alpine lake with rocky peak behind it and red faint sun aboveSandstone cliff with desert plants and street. Air is thick with wildfire smokeResidue along base of car window is white flakes of ash falling from wild fire hundreds of miles away
131
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 25/06/2026
130
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 24/06/2026
Water carrier
281
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 24/06/2026
And there it is
2102
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 13/06/2026
070
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 02/06/2026
It is so damn fun
020
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 31/05/2026
Agnes Moorehead in Dark Passage. A woman’s face is framed in an ornate window/peephole in the middle of a door. Her character is looking out at Humphrey Bogart’s who she doesn’t recognize after plastic surgery to hide his identity
020
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
Here is information
DATES: Comments are due on or before [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Late comments will be considered only to
the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal must be submitted electronically before the
comment closing date to www.regulations.gov. In submitting comments, please search for
recent submissions by OMB to find docket OMB-2026-0034, which includes the full text of the
proposed revisions and submit comments there. Please provide clarity as to the section of the
regulation that each comment is referencing by beginning each comment with the relevant
section number in brackets. For example; if the comment is on 2 CFR 200.414, include the
following before the comment [200.414].
Public comments received by OMB and Federal agencies will be posted at
www.regulations.gov and be a matter of public record. Accordingly, please do not include any
confidential business information or personal privacy information in your comments.
010
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
Yes, it is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow and comments on regulations.gov
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposes to revise the Guidance
for Federal Financial Assistance to improve government-wide policies and requirements related
to the management of grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of assistance. OMB is
proposing revisions that would improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal
awards across the Federal Government. This includes ensuring that American tax dollars are not
wasted or misused, activities performed under Federal awards are consistent with law and policy,
and recipients are held accountable when they fail to meet relevant standards. The revisions also
aim to ensure that basic American principles of equality and equal opportunity are upheld
throughout all stages of the award making process and that unlawful discrimination is no longer
permitted. Proposed changes also include providing further clarification on the regulatory status
of the OMB requirements and on the process for future updates to the government-wide
requirements. Finally, OMB also proposes changes to reduce recipient burden. The listed Federal
grant-making agencies propose conforming changes to their respective adopting regulations, or,
in the case of some agencies and other entities, establishing new adopting regulations or policies.
The proposed changes reflect the administration’s commitment to transparency, accountability,
and proper oversight for the Federal grantmaking process. The proposed regulations seek to
ensure that American tax dollars are ultimately used to serve the needs of the American public.
DATES: Comments are due on or before [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Late comments will be considered only to
the extent practicable.
110
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
This could go anywhere- 10/
Section 200.461 — Publication and printing costs.
OMB proposes to revise § 200.461 related to publication and printing costs to make plain
language revisions, including removing the word “promotion,” which is not the specific subject
of this section. As § 200.421 provides the policy for “advertising and public relations” costs,
OMB wants to ensure that the term “promotion” does not create an independent basis for
allowing such costs under this section. To extent that advertising and public relations costs are
not permitted under § 200.421, that section would govern. Furthermore, OMB is revising the
section to make publication costs unallowable unless such costs are expressly required by statute
or approved in advance by the Federal agency on a case-by-case basis. This change reflects
OMB’s objective to strengthen stewardship of Federal funds and ensure that Federal financial
assistance is directed toward achieving the programmatic objectives of the award. Publication
costs are not inherently necessary to carry out the core programmatic objectives of most Federal
awards. In many cases, such activities are discretionary, vary widely in scope and costs, and may
serve institutional, professional, or reputational interests rather than the specific objectives of the
Federal program. Absent statutory authority or award-specific requirement, allowing publication
costs as a charge to Federal awards creates inconsistent charging practices and increases the risk
that Federal funds are used for activities that are ancillary to program performance. By limiting
allowability to circumstances in which publication is required by statute or explicitly
incorporated into the award, this change would ensure that such costs are incurred only when
they are directly tied to a statutory or programmatic requirement.
131
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
I don't know what this means, but it seems bad- seems like it says gov can cooperate with private actors choosing to sue institutions 8/
Section 200.339 — Remedies for noncompliance.
OMB proposes to add a new paragraph to § 200.339 to clarify that, if applicable and
consistent with law, a Federal agency may, at its discretion, cooperate with individuals or
organizations in pursuing their own private cause of action or remedies. This addition would not
impose an affirmative duty on agencies to assist in private litigation. The proposed revision is
only intended to affirm that agencies may, at their discretion, cooperate with persons in pursuit
of private remedies in circumstances consistent with law.
For the avoidance of doubt, the decision of whether an agency will cooperate with
individuals or organizations in their pursuit of private causes of action and civil remedies, and
decisions regarding the extent of any cooperation, will be made solely in the discretion of that
agency. The proposed subsection (b) is not intended to, and would not, create any right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United
States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other
person. Nothing in the proposed subsection (b) should be construed to impair or otherwise affect
the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof. A Federal
agency should only cooperate with a private cause of action if it determines that such
cooperation is in the interest of the United States
231
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
Every single payment requires specific justification (DOGE is back) 7/
Section 200.305 — Federal payment.
OMB proposes to revise § 200.305 to require Federal agencies to verify recipient
eligibility through Treasury’s Do Not Pay (DNP) system before making any disbursement of any
Federal payment. Consistent with the Payment Integrity Information Act of 20194 (PIIA),100 this
addition is intended to strengthen oversight and prevent improper payments.
Consistent with section 3 of Executive Order 14222, “Implementing the President's
‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative,” OMB also proposes
language that requires payment requests from recipients and subrecipients other than States to
include justifications describing the purpose of the payment and the specific award-related work
it supports. Under the proposed text, agencies must collect this information once appropriate
systems are in place. These proposed changes would increase accountability for Federal
disbursements while ensuring funds are tied to measurable award activities and outcomes.
151
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
No disparate impact research 6/
Section 200.218 — Prohibition of using Federal awards to promote or support theories of
disparate-impact liability.
OMB proposes a new § 200.218 related to Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality
of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” Consistent with the Executive order, this section proposes to
establish a government-wide policy in 2 CFR regarding use of Federal financial assistance to
promote or support theories that impose disparate-impact liability based on federally protected
characteristics such as race, sex, or age. OMB proposes to direct agencies and pass-through
entities, to the maximum extent permitted by law, to ensure that awards are administered in a
manner that does not promote or support theories of disparate-impact liability, including by not
issuing terms, conditions, or guidance that would advance theories of disparate-impact liability.
Recipients and subrecipients are also directed to avoid using Federal award funds for this
purpose unless expressly required by law. OMB proposes to recognize an exception related to
analysis for internal use if the activities are not funded by the Federal award and not used in
connection with activities under the award. OMB proposes a definition of disparate-impact
liability to ensure clarity and consistency. The proposed definition is generally consistent with
the Executive order. These proposed revisions are intended to align government-wide
administration of Federal financial assistance with administration policy and to reinforce the
principle that merit-based opportunity—rather than theories of disparate-impact liability or other
forms of unlawful discrimination based on race or other protected characteristics—will govern
the administration of Federal awards.
153
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
Discretionary termination of grants 5/
Section 200.211 — Information contained in the Federal award.
OMB proposes to revise § 200.211 to clarify that Federal agencies must always include
the termination provisions under § 200.340 in each Federal award or expressly incorporate them
by reference, and must inform recipients of any additional termination provisions that apply to
the award. This revision is intended to ensure recipients are always clearly and unambiguously
informed of the potential for termination under § 200.340, including termination based on
discretion of the Federal agency. OMB also proposes deleting the reference to providing “a copy
of the terms and conditions” to the recipient upon request. This requirement is outdated given the
access that applicants and recipients now have to general terms and conditions on the internet. To
the extent that applicable general term and conditions are not available on the internet, agencies
would be responsible for providing them to the recipient—typically in electronic form—with the
Federal award instrument. Federal agencies would still be permitted to mail a hard copy of the
terms and conditions to recipients upon request even with removal of this provision, but would
not be required to provided that the recipient has electronic access.
152
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
Terms can be changed at any time 4/
Section 200.208 — Specific conditions.
OMB proposes to revise § 200.208 to clarify how agencies may apply, adjust, and
remove specific conditions under Federal awards. OMB proposes to authorize agencies, subject
to applicable law, to add or remove specific conditions throughout the period of performance
based on the risk factors identified in paragraph (c) or other factors associated with a recipient or
program.
A new requirement is proposed to require that any such adjustments based on any of the
factors listed in paragraph (c) must occur within 15 calendar days after the agency’s
determination. The existing regulatory text already preserves the right of agencies to impose
specific conditions based on these enumerated factors, which recipients knowingly accept when
they agree to receive awards. OMB also proposes to clarify that specific conditions not based on
factors in paragraph (c) may be added or removed during the period of performance only with
the agreement of the recipient.
In § 200.208(d), OMB also proposes to expand the list of examples of specific conditions
to include requiring information on payments to contractors or vendors, or financial integrity-
related site visits. These examples are intended to provide agencies with more practical tools to
address risk identified during the administration of Federal awards.
At § 200.208(f), OMB also proposes a new paragraph recognizing that agencies may
impose program-level specific conditions when elevated programmatic risks are identified across
a Federal program. The proposed text explains that agencies may remove such conditions once
the underlying risks have been resolved, thereby allowing the use of program-level conditions to
remain tied to ongoing risk management rather than continuing indefinitely. Collectively, these
proposed changes provide agencies with greater flexibility to manage risk during award
administration while establishing safeguards related to transparency and fairness.
162
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
More threats to institutions, likely regarding anything considered "DEI" 3/
Section 200.206 — Federal agency review of risk posed by applicants.
OMB proposes to revise § 200.206(b)(2) to expand the list of factors that agencies may
consider when evaluating applicant risk. The changes clarify that agencies may assess an
applicant’s financial capacity to manage high-dollar awards, in addition to overall financial
stability. The revisions also clarify that prior performance must be evaluated against the goals of
the funding opportunity, and that both positive and negative outcomes must be given equal
weight. OMB also proposes to add a provision that agencies may consider an applicant’s history
of questionable practices based on publicly available and verifiable information. In addition,
OMB proposes to add a provision that agencies may consider an applicant’s compliance with
foreign gift and contract disclosure requirements, as applicable. Additionally, OMB proposes a
new provision that agencies may consider an applicant’s affiliations with organizations engaged
in activities that violate Federal law, undermine public safety or national security, or advocate for
the overthrow of the United States Government. Lastly, OMB proposes a new provision that
agencies should consider, as applicable, an applicant’s compliance with foreign gift and contract
disclosure requirements under section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-329,
as amended, codified at 20 U.S.C. 1011f). The proposed revisions are intended to provide
agencies with clearer authority to evaluate financial and organizational capacity, integrity, and
institutional affiliations in order to mitigate risks and protect the integrity of Federal programs.
142
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
Peer review proposed to be discretionary with vague threats to institutions 2/
Section 200.205 — Federal agency review of merit of proposals.
OMB proposes to revise § 200.205 to strengthen requirements for agency merit review
and to establish a new pre-issuance review process consistent with Executive Order 14332.
Under the proposed requirements for pre-issuance review, as part of the broader merit review
process, agencies must ensure that proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable
law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest. Consistent with the Executive order,
senior appointees must conduct these reviews and apply specific principles when evaluating
proposals. These principles include ensuring that discretionary awards advance the President’s
policy priorities, prohibit the use of funds for discriminatory or otherwise impermissible
purposes, and emphasize ensuring compliance with applicable law. Additionally, the proposed
revisions encourage agencies to broaden the range of recipients, prioritize institutions
demonstrating rigorous and reproducible scholarship, incorporate benchmarks for measuring
performance of “Gold Standard Science,” and direct agencies to weigh institutional commitment
to research integrity when making award decisions. Proposed revisions in this section also clarify
that peer review remains advisory and does not replace agency discretion. Finally, the proposed
revisions clarify that agencies are not required to issue awards solely as a result of issuing a
NOFO. These proposed updates are intended to enhance consistency across agencies,
accountability, and alignment of Federal awards with administration priorities, while also
reducing the risk of award being made contrary to statutory or policy requirements.
143
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
I just separated my shoulder when this came on
If You Want Blood You Got It by AC/DC
020
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 20/05/2026
Omg
Juxtaposition of post describing tenant catching landlord having sex in tenant’s apartment and Peter Avelino’s post of anniversary of film The Landlord opening in 1970
000
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 18/05/2026
Grilled pork tenderloin sandwich with red onion jam, garlic scape chimichurri, mayo, grilled ciabatta
2121
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 16/05/2026
Omg
Article discussing a bug with cold temps where camera fails to record images to memory card. Was discovered by photographer when she was practicing for an important pic of sky from on top of a mountain
010
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 10/05/2026
Pretty ok, imo
040
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 07/05/2026
Very interesting here (@lemieuxlgm.bsky.social the minefield lower courts have to navigate due to SCOTUS is obscene and you will see how dark this passage is)
Finally, the emergency stay posture of California and NIH bears emphasis. Both decisions were rendered on applications for emergency relief, without full merits briefing or argument. As Justice Kagan observed in California, such orders are issued with “barebones briefing, no
argument, and scarce time for reflection.” 604 U.S. at 653 (Kagan, J., dissenting). This Court accords those orders the appropriate degree of respect. But, at the same time, lower courts are not tasked with divining the Supreme Court’s unstated intentions about how each of the Justices might rule in the future. To read NIH and California as silently displacing Bowen and Megapulse would require the Court to conclude that the Supreme Court has overruled longstanding precedent sub
silentio – an inference this Court declines to draw, especially in light of the fractured emergency (and interim) order in NIH and the unresolved questions it leaves regarding the proper forum and scope of relief for challenges to grant terminations. See Shalala v. Ill. Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 18 (2000) (“The Court does not normally overturn, or so dramatically limit, earlier authority sub silentio.”).
24910
Craig Kaplan @triggerloop.bsky.social · 23/04/2026
Look what they did to us
020