When Dodge released the Caliber, the first one I noticed was on a billboard, and from a distance I said “oh that car looks kinda cute” and when we got closer I was able to read that the rest of the billboard said “The all-new Dodge Caliber: It’s anything but cute.”
Oops.
Glad they clarified. To me the “selling data being defined broadly” argument made sense in the context of Google paying them to be included as a search provider. Because there is an argument that Google paying Firefox, and then the user entering a search and that being sent to Google’s servers could be legally seen as Mozilla selling data to Google.
When I first got a Bluesky account, back when it was invite-only a whole bunch of the Physicists and Astronomers I used to follow on Twitter were already there. If anything it seemed like scientists were early adopters.
Around the world, countries voted for change last year, not just America. Not necessarily good change, but people were unhappy and didn’t like the way things were. When Biden dropped out, there was massive excitement that maybe Kamala would offer good change, but eventually she promised more of the same.
I’m not saying sexism wasn’t a factor, it was. But it wasn’t the only factor. And Trump’s margin of victory wasn’t so large that we should just write off all women because Trump won against two women who allowed him to be the “change” candidate.
It’s been that way for a while, Gen Z boys aren’t the first to fall for it. 10 years ago it was gamergate, and before that there was talk radio like Rush Limbaugh rambling on about “feminazis.”
That’s been “conservatives” best recruitment tool for years. And it generally works up until the boys realize they’re serious about the “no masturbation” rule. Although by that point they’ve generally already got them hooked on other propaganda.
I’m thinking of investing in “JD Vance killed Donald Trump” merch, not because he did, but considering Donald’s age and arteries, if Trump dies of natural causes in office, I’ll be able to ride that conspiracy into my own retirement.
Kamala Harris’s 60 minutes interview had 5.7 million live viewers, and as of today, 3.8 million views on YouTube. Making approximately 9.5 million views total.
Spotify doesn’t release their numbers, but just on YouTube, Donald Trump’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s 3-hour podcast got over 26 million views in the first 24 hours (and today is sitting at 55 million views).
Even if CBS was somehow unfair, it doesn’t matter. Trump got a massive viewership advantage going on Rogan, but because he’s a fossil, doesn’t see it that way, because he still thinks broadcast TV is mainstream media. It’s not. Joe Rogan is mainstream media at this point.
As someone who has watched 6 of those videos in the screenshot from across 3 different channels, I apologize for my part in training the algorithm into thinking others who watch a single Balatro video might be interested in watching all the variety streamers play Balatro.
Fire your CEO.
Out of a canon, through some flaming rings, and into an empty bucket of water. If I have to watch a clown-show, at least make it entertaining.
He’s a senator, you think he understands bubkiss about technology?
Trump is already running with the line that the helicopter/plane collision was somehow Biden’s fault, even though Trump and “Justin Hammer” fucked with the FAA. That’s probably why they are speedrunning this collapse, they want to claim they inherited a mess, and shift blame for the consequences of their actions.
Thank you for this, I had heard/read a ~0.5% statistic in the past, but apparently the current estimate is lower. I’ll edit my original comment to reflect this.
The reason there’s a spectrum is that the simple “rules” like Y chromosome = male genitalia, aren’t rules nature plays by. It’s just the first pattern we noticed when we looked at DNA, that holds true most of the time. The actual instructions to make genitals aren’t even fully located on the X or Y chromosome, they’re all over our DNA.
The “third option” is “doesn’t follow the rules we thought it was supposed to” - which is more about our lack of understanding how it works. Then saying the people who don’t fit with our idea about how we think it works are the problem, instead of something we’ve oversimplified and don’t fully understand. Then you get those unwilling to accept that maybe we don’t understand nature, so we’re going to force any outliers to fit into the neat boxes we made up before we knew better.
It seems that way if you don’t look closely, but there are outliers that don’t fit the binary in some way or another. Around 1 in 200 edit: apparently this has been revised from the 0.5% number I’d heard in the past, and is closer to 1 in 5500 people are born intersex - meaning something about their biology makes them not fit within the biological norm for their gender. For example, there are people born with a Y chromosome, but are born with only female genitalia. Some are born with both sets of genitalia (historically when this happened the parents would pick a gender and the baby would be operated on to remove the other genitals). Biology really only fits into our perfect boxes of gender until we look at the rare outliers, and see the nuance.
This is part of the reason that Trans rights matter, because while some would have you believe that it’s all just people who were born in one box, wanting to have been born in the other box (which IMO is still a choice people should be able to make), there’s also people who genuinely, biologically don’t fit in our neat little boxes either who have just as much right to exist as those of us who do.
There is a plan going around over on TikTok that everyone should delete their Meta accounts on the 19th (when the TikTok ban goes into effect). We’ll see how many actually do it, but so far it’s fascinating to watch.
I feel you. But at the same time, I’m also afraid that as they dismantle the government, the brain drain from departing/retiring federal workers and knowledge about how the parts of government (for example the NIH or the NOAA/NWS) function on the day to day (including things like historical climate data) will be lost in the chaos. I’m not paying attention now, because I think it will be more important to pay attention in a month. I’m not sure I’ll be able to handle it then either, but I don’t want some of what we do have to be lost forever because some assholes didn’t like it, and the rest of us thought they deserved it. Maybe they do deserve it, but the rest of us don’t deserve to lose it forever either.
It’s just all tied up in AI and crypto right now. Because everyone wants to get in on the next get-rich-quick scheme. Coked-up investors don’t have the patience to stick it out and wait for a return, they’ve moved on to shiny new toys (that have very little chance of real growth or market viability) and are gutting and cutting the games industry to pay for it.
I’m not sure getting rid of presidential pardons is right either. There are cases of provably innocent people on death row who have been saved from execution by presidential pardon because the justice system otherwise failed them. It’s not a perfect system, and it has failed more than it has saved, but until we reform the justice system (and probably ban the death penalty) stopping presidential pardons is a terrible idea.
Not sure if this is at all what you are asking for, but here goes:
As to the first bit I won’t provide as many sources as I’m not finding many that bring it all together in an understandable way, it’s basic economics of supply and demand. Here’s a video that explains some of the basics of supply, demand, and tariffs (it’s a bit jargon-filled, but I’m not finding much that strikes a good balance between understandability and oversimplification: https://youtu.be/3pSysspeCxY?si=6IIGFVuaTyObq5sl
In addition to the usual supply and demand changes that Tariffs bring, throughout the 80s, 90s, and 2000s a lot of US manufacturing was moved out of the country, to countries with cheaper labor. Often physically transporting the production line equipment from the US to China where labor was cheaper. So in most of those instances, our local production capability was reduced, and getting it back will require rebuilding it from the ground up (which oftentimes takes years). And that’s industries where we have the natural resources (and harvesting/mining facilities) to supply local manufacturing, where we have to spin those industries back up it could take longer.
Moving on to the trade leverage with China. I’ll try not to get too bogged-down with the history, but the US is China’s biggest “customer” in percentage of their exports bought. But considering our rivalry, they’ve been wanting to change this for years, and are making good progress in becoming less dependent on the US buying their exports. In 2004, the US bought 21% of China’s exports https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHN/Year/2004/Summarytext and in 2023, even though the US imported more from China than 20 years ago, we only bought ~15% of their exports https://tradingeconomics.com/china/exports-by-country - we’re still their largest trade partner, but they have done a lot of work to be less-dependent on US trade.
Along with this, there’s also a bit of a rivalry between the G7 (America, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the UK) and BRICS (Brasil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). There’s a lot of complicated geopolitics in this, but the part that’s relevant to trade is that the GDP of those nations has now surpassed the G7 nations: Here is a graph comparing the GDP of the G7 to BRICS countries over time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS#/media/File%3ABRICS_AND_G7.svg Essentially China now has other friends, that go to a different school (and they’re actually real). And their new friends have money, want what China’s selling, and aren’t as likely to try to tell China what to do.
With regard specifically to the US relationship with China there is this from Biden’s Tariffs from 6 months ago which contrasts China’s response now to their response in 2018 when we had more trade leverage. https://www.reuters.com/markets/what-doesnt-kill-you-makes-you-stronger-china-trolls-new-us-tariffs-2024-05-15/
Here is a more recent article where a Chinese official says the the tariffs will backfire on the US https://apnews.com/article/china-economy-tariffs-us-commerce-trump-843769cd7175011d8e34be32cc8d045f
On one hand, less dependence on Chinese manufacturing by the US might be a good thing (one example I’ve seen of this is as drone warfare becomes more common, the US being reliant on China manufacturing the batteries isn’t ideal). But there’s a smart way to go about it (things like the CHIPS act that incentivize industries to move manufacturing to the US). If we don’t get manufacturing back before implementing tariffs we won’t have enough local supply to meet demand and prices across the board will go up.
Based on their current management model of “desks on wheels” they’d probably be most comfortable becoming a worker-owned coop. I know I’m in dreamland, but it would be amazing if they could go that direction when Gabe is gone.