It's politics. It doesn't have to make any sense. These people have grievances and they want everyone else to hear them. They're pissed off they're being asked to have empathy for others, and much like children they're incapable of it.
I disagreed with the premise of the article. But to accuse someone of "virtue signaling" is a political attack that requires evidence. Are you going to bring any? Or is this just pure unadulterated political bitterness on your part?
Your side won. Is that not enough for you? What more do you want?
If this is true, why do corporations lobby against regulation? Either they want more regulations to build this "moat", or they don't. If both outcomes result in a win for them, (deregulation vs moat-building by greater regulation) why spend money on lobbying?
I paid $10K for FSD when I was drinking the Kool Aid but haven't used it in over a year due to it being a steaming pile of garbage. But hey, it's a great party gag and the stock price is still soaring so keep the pedal to the metal and take us all to RICH town Elon! What could possibly go wron...
Nobody is going to successfully sue Coca-Cola for being fooled into thinking drinking Coke will get them a girlfriend or help them meet Santa. It's advertising. Everyone should be educated in school that marketing and advertising are free speech and cannot be reasonably expected to contain any trustworthy information at all, ever. The purpose of marketing is branding, not information.
You are correct though that news organizations can say anything as well. When deciding what to believe with journalism, one should take into account what claims are being made, the journalistic reputation of who is making the claims, and the weight of evidence being presented. Again, more information that should have been part of your education, but apparently our education system no longer functions.
This is an easy example because one is a press release. It should be well known to everyone that press releases are advertising. They don't even claim to be factual or trustworthy. It's marketing. They're telling you outright that it's company propaganda. You can trust it if you want to, but you can't claim you were fooled. Further investigation is unnecessary. There's nothing to investigate since they've already told you up front it's a press release. The education system's responsibility is to let kids know what a press release is, and how it's different from journalism.
Not that all journalism is automatically trustworthy, no. With journalism you also have to take into account track record, and reputation, and so on.
If a young person doesn't know what Reuters is, they can use Wikipedia to find out what kind of entity Reuters is, their history, their reputation, etc.. That's how the responsibility of education is involved.
It's never coming back. People back in the day used to spend hours at music stores. Now music stores don't even exist. They couldn't spend that kind of time anymore, even if they tried. YouTube, Instagram and TikTok aren't set up for the promotion of musical appreciation but those are the tools we have today, for better or worse.
Humanity prospered through tens of thousands of years without any music at all. So we'll be fine. It's a different world but it isn't the end of it.
While that is true, it's not what the article is about. It's about the attention economy stealing minutes away from what used to go to music appreciation and redirecting it to other competing activities that didn't used to exist.
That's not what he's talking about. He's a music producer. He likes a lot of today's music because he's producing it. He's talking to the youth who are producing it and he's helping as much as he can. There's not enough people doing it, and what there is isn't getting enough attention because youth are spending a lot of their spare time on social media. Music isn't the primary focus of youth attention like it used to be. Social media is the primary focus now.
Social media can be used to spread music like radio/CD/MP3 used to, but it isn't as effective at that task.
I'm not sure if this is good or bad. I mean, kids back in the 70's & 80's got relationship advice from random song lyrics heard on the radio, a horrible way to make life decisions. Now kids have much better access to information & advice so who's to say that the decline of music is an entirely bad thing? We'll see.
As long as the order is upheld on appeal, you have to obey it. That's how courts work in the US too. It's the judge who decides. Judicial appointments matter.
Maybe they just assume everyone's reading this on an iPhone. I'm not, but if I wanted to I could access it via my phone which has Apple News which is how I access WSJ.
This is a great analogy. I can think of one area in which it might be different though. In smaller HOAs such as mine, the HOA almost never takes any action of its own volition. It's almost always the result of some neighbor making a complaint forcing the HOA's hand, then the neighbor hides behind whatever action they compel the HOA to make. The HOA becomes the boogeyman and goes on the news, while the actual complainant gets to remain safely anonymous.
I've seen corporate firms that run HOAs professionally where they run a much more proactive/activist HOA, but in the case of my neighborhood we didn't like the results so we fired them. It was too much hawkishness about rules and the fees were heading through the roof. The more leisurely neighbor-complaint model seems to work better unfortunately. It's more efficient, even though it's quite a cowardly system if you ask me. It's better than the alternatives such as having anarchy.
Most people in the US don't live in an HOA. You may join one and enjoy its benefits, or not. Nobody is forced to. Many people want to join an HOA to enjoy its benefits but not obey its rules. These are the type of people who believe they are the center of the universe yet are in such a unique position that the laws of the rest of the universe don't apply to them.
Yes, and they also have these pylons next to the gate, with numbers on them that are for forming the line. During boarding, everyone stands next to the pylon with their number on it and thus the line is formed. Southwest gates are unusual in this way. No other airline has these pylons at their gates.
I remember one gate agent who was unusually vocal about everyone obeying the rules. It was pretty funny actually.
They don't charge extra for assigned seats. Instead, you pick your seat by sitting in it. Which means you need to board earlier. Boarding order is assigned by the order in which you check in. To do that, you get the Southwest app and check in the moment the notification pops up on your phone. If you do that, you board ahead of everyone else. Free of charge.
If you believe paying paying extra fees for every little thing constitutes order over chaos, well then maybe you should fly another airline and pay their fees. Personally I prefer Southwest's up-front pricing model. I just tap the check-in button when it pops up on my phone and board ahead of everyone else, thus avoiding the so-called zoo of people at the back who haven't figured it out yet.
The first time I flew Southwest I immediately saw that boarding first gets you a better seat. So I asked them, how do you board first? And they told me. I boarded first from then on.
I've driven my car like this on occasion, preserving fuel by timing the traffic signals ahead and arriving just in time for the signal to turn green. The problem is, people behind me don't understand and get all pissed off. Most people prefer to arrive at the light when it turns red, to buy high & sell low, etc. We love doing everything in the most inefficient way possible. I imagine sea captains won't like the plan much either, for similar reasons.
I had a feeling this was coming. I bought FSD in 2020. It was $10K, and they were claiming in one year you could summon the car to come to you from across town or rent it out as a self-driving taxi service. I figured it might work, and in the meantime would be a fun toy, so I bought into it as a speculation. On an individual basis this was just poor judgement on my part, but when you multiply that by how many other customers thought similarly to how I did, maybe it does become a government issue then.
Unfortunately for me, I soon discovered that I did not like the car driving me around. No matter how good it got, I would almost always have made a different decision in most traffic situations. So it was a huge loss, but for me it doesn't even have to do with the fact the technology doesn't do what their hype claimed. It has to do with the fact that letting FSD drive is more stressful than if I just drive the car myself.
Good point. Yep it sure would be nice if every drug worked out, every project was wildly successful, every new hire was a wonder-kid, every investment only went up and to the right. That would make all the math so much easier wouldn't it?
I haven't read much about the domestic capitalists and lobbyists attacking our critical infrastructure with cyber-attacks. Please tell us more about this.
Yes but that's not the reason. Back in the 90's shareware scene long before Github, an overwhelming number of files would be downloaded to your computer and then you'd be left to wonder where to start. Making a file all caps draws your attention to it and lets you know where the author intends you to start. Today, Github opens that file for you on the front page of every repo, so it doesn't matter so much anymore.
Pet peeve: This story alternates between "nations" and "countries" as if they were synonyms. A nation is a group of people sharing cultural, ethnic, and historical ties. There are many more nations than there are countries, especially within the US. A country has a political boundary, a flag and an anthem. It's one thing to use a word in the wrong way, because maybe you don't know the other word exists, and that's okay. But it's really annoying to hear both words being used in the same story but alternating them, without any explanation as to why. Is this an AI generated story?
If your history was so traumatic that you cannot forget and you cannot move on, then your only option, assuming you want to salvage what remains of your life, is to change it. Change your history. Is it cheating? Yes. But what is the alternative? You want to continue to live with the misery and suffering? It's not ever going to go away. Those kinds of memories do not fade. Time alone does not heal anything, and you only get one life. Do whatever you can do to salvage it.
This is what happens when monopolies are allowed to exist. In a competitive market if the CEO gives away market share to rivals due to reckless indifference to safety and becomes a liability, they will be fired or the company gets spun off to fend for themselves. When we as a society allow a monopoly to exist, then government assumes responsibility for whatever that monopoly does with its power. Government intervention ought to be a last resort, not the first. The only reason anyone's calling for government action here is because we allowed Boeing to become a monopoly to begin with, so now we have no other choice but to accept what Boeing has become or else break it up. All monopolies will eventually do something to harm the public in exchange for personal wealth. It is an inevitability.
Good to see dozens of replies to this. Means EVs are popular.
Anyway, they're right. Brakes on EVs are normally just for emergency use. Regenerative braking (lifting up on the accelerator pedal) is all you need about 98% of the time. Traffic lights, stop signs, parking, and other such planned stops are all handled by releasing the accelerator which brings the car to a gentle stop while feeding the kinetic energy back into the battery. That's what they mean by "regenerative braking".
They do that because nobody wants to look at hundreds of dead bodies or talk to grieving widows, or search through rubble for broken airplane parts or data recorders. That's not so funny.
Just because comedy shows focus on entertainment value doesn't mean there's no evidence. They have a different focus from investigators or courts, but in democratic countries, the funds to run investigations come from politicians and public outcry, and that comes from the people actually giving a sh*t about it. So they do perform a function.
Certain technologies have been found to remove PFAS from drinking water, especially Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), which are the most studied of these chemicals. Those technologies include activated carbon adsorption, ion exchange resins, and high-pressure membranes. These technologies can be used in drinking water treatment facilities, in water systems in hospitals or individual buildings, or even in homes at the point-of-entry, where water enters the home, or the point-of-use, such as in a kitchen sink or a shower.