Well, I’m just about done with grieving the end of summer (it’s a real thing; The New York Times says so), so I’m going to embrace what could be our last 70-plus degree day for a while — you know, wearing shorts, yanking the windows in the office wide open — and then probably spending at least some of Sunday planting tulip bulbs in the rain. You got weekend plans?

First, though, this question: Have you ever wished you could have a conversation with a dog? Yeah, me neither. (Cats, sure; I want to know what they’re thinking, not that they’d ever tell me the truth.) But you still might be interested in this new story from by Caroline Mimbs Nyce of The Atlantic, about efforts to use AI to “translate” barks.

Michelle Cottle of The New York Times spent time in Montana, my old stomping ground, reporting on the campaign of incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, who seems likely to lose his reelection bid to yet another out-of-state millionaire. You care about this race because it could ensure that Republicans regain control of the U.S. Senate. I care about this race because it says a lot about why a native Montanan doesn’t think it’s likely that he’ll ever live in the state again. Cottle captures all of that.

Speaking of the election: Are you wondering what exactly Elon Musk sees in Donald Trump? Why he’s funneling millions of dollars to the Trump campaign? Why he’s apparently running Trump’s ground operation in critical Pennsylvania? Why X has become an informal house organ for Trump? Franklin Foer, writing in The Atlantic, has a theory — and my sense is that he’s pretty close to the mark.

The Gazette-Times has a pair of intriguing election-related stories on its website:

First, a recent League of Women Voters of Linn County election forum attracted protesters who argued that Ballot Measure 117, one of the ballot measures considered at the forum, amounted to a Marxist “demonic agenda.”

Measure 117 would pave the way to use ranked choice voting throughout Oregon. In ranked choice voting, voters can rank all the candidates for a particular race in order of preference instead of voting for just one. (I won’t bore you with details of how the votes are tallied, since I suspect most Weekend Reader readers know how it works, other than to note that how a voter ranks the candidates can help determine an election winner. I can provide additional details upon request.)

Ranked choice voting is many things, but it is not an Marxist “demonic agenda.” Longtime readers will remember that I’m a fan of ranked choice voting — but I do have doubts about Measure 117. I’m not worried that the system will unduly confuse voters — my sense is that most voters pick it up pretty quickly. I am worried, however, about how the state will make sure that election officials, specifically in rural counties, get the additional resources they need to put ranked choice voting into place. The language of Measure 117 says the state and election clerks will work together to assess the additional costs and report back to the Legislature. But that doesn’t mean those election officials, particularly in cash-strapped rural counties, will get the resources they need to make ranked choice voting work. Without guarantees that the state will foot the bill, this will play in some parts of the state as yet another unfunded mandate.

Also, I’m curious to see how ranked choice voting works in its first big test in Oregon — next month’s Portland mayoral election. I understand that my ballot needs to be in before we get a sense about how that election is going, but for the time being, I’m still wavering on Measure 117.

The other G-T story that grabbed my interest was a piece in which various candidates for the Corvallis City Council talked about how it was just too bad that the bit of business in which some councilors sought to remove Ward 5 Councilor Charlyn Ellis for allegedly violating the city charter had become such a mess. (Maybe the G-T was taking to heart my recent advice that each council candidate should be asked whether the Ellis affair had been a good use of city time and money.) In any event, almost everyone quoted in the story wondered if there might have been a different way to handle the situation, which so far has racked up more than $200,000 in legal bills for the city and which almost certainly will end up with Ellis still on the council. Of particular interest to me was the comment from Ward 9 incumbent Tony Cadena, who noted that many of those legal fees came as the city defended itself against a lawsuit filed by Ellis. The story did not say whether Cadena went on to note why Ellis had filed the lawsuit in the first place, but perhaps the reporter neglected to include that.

We’re still waiting, by the way, for a ruling in that case from federal judge Ann Aiken, but perhaps another type of October surprise looms.

Many of the council candidates suggested that the episode could open the way for a review of the city charter. That’s not a bad idea, and I have some other suggestions for a charter review — but let’s remember that any changes to the charter need to go before voters.

In journalism news, the Pew Research Center reports that Republicans and young adults are nearly as likely to trust information from social media as from national news outlets. Trust in local news outlets is higher, Pew reports.

Stressed out by all this election-related stuff? You know what would help? Watching video of elephants at the Oregon Zoo squash and then chomp down on some giant pumpkins. Fortunately for us, The Oregonian/OregonLive was on hand at Thursday’s event.

That’s it for this weekend. I’ve got my shorts on, and I know where I can get some pumpkins. Enjoy Saturday’s sunshine and embrace Sunday’s rain. We’ll check in here next weekend.