Experimental browser for the Atmosphere
Loading post...
{ "uri": "at://did:plc:xedobkkxi3fdguygmul7ghhf/app.bsky.feed.like/3lp57erwcd52h", "cid": "bafyreibnnfb25vxksoq2de3qblnmls5zdqdjsxeazusaj4fvl6l7iklwgi", "value": { "$type": "app.bsky.feed.like", "subject": { "cid": "bafyreicry6m467kxjlil7ggi25xyy5dibnydali2oegkdbexzbrrcrhjuy", "uri": "at://did:plc:o6gxwaj4nw2e24pkl5xczup2/app.bsky.feed.post/3lp56egql2l2i" }, "createdAt": "2025-05-14T14:26:24.941Z" } }
So Eric Lipton in the NYT was claiming that the receipt of a massive flying gold monstrosity wasn’t evidence of the “quod pro quo” required in the legal definition. He got dragged, of course, for that; but Chris Webb’s post underscores that the quid is definitely pro quo.
May 14, 2025, 2:08 PM