wbsss4412

Either you’re missing a comma, or you are wildly miscounting the number of votes Biden received.

And yet the candidate with the more impassioned voters got significantly fewer votes in both 2016 and 2020.

> The energy behind Trump was insane and it seemed pretty clear something was going on in the media to make it sound like only a "minority" of people supported him.

Only a minority of people did.

What’s wild about 2016 is that people seem to have bought into the narrative that because it was such an upset of the mainstream media’s expectations, that somehow that translated into an actual landslide.

Trump didn’t win the popular vote, and his actual margin in the decisive states was razor thin as well.

Did he have more passionate fans than Hilary? Clearly. But a passion vote counts the exact same amount as a “lesser of two evils” vote. See: 2020.

Even with the benefit of hindsight, I don’t know how one can look back and say trump wasn’t an underdog going into the election.

What exactly were they supposed to do? Ignore polls that show him behind and divine somehow that he was actually going to win based off of nothing?

Clearly we both take the seriousness of her claims differently, yes.

I don’t doubt that it was an unpleasant environment for her to work in, I do not read it as though it was horribly abusive as you seem to though.

Never said she deserved to be bullied.

> Either way, I'd like to hear some substantiation as to this "significant pull factor", please.

> now she’s making way more money writing over at Substack.

^

> she basically deserved it (or it was otherwise necessary)?

Deserved what? She quit.

Again, I don’t doubt that there wasn’t a tense environment for her in that newsroom.

But your “from the horses mouth” citation comes from a newsletter that dedicates a significant amount of its virtual ink towards the anti woke/cancel culture run amok beat. Weiss has literally made her living on this subject for years now, she isn’t unbiased*

*that said, I do want to note that biased does not mean wrong, even though it is often portrayed that way.

The social credit system has been acknowledged by multiple western media outlets to have been greatly exaggerated and misreported. [0]

To be sure, there are numerous areas in which the behavior of the Chinese government is concerning and unacceptable, but there is also an undeniable level of hysteria when it comes to China that is not applied to US Allies. (See: Saudi Arabia and the rest of the gulf states)

[0] https://www.wired.com/story/china-social-credit-score-system...

Claiming Weiss left because she was bullied out of the organization papers over leaves out the fact that there was obviously a significant pull factor to get her to jump ship, as you point out, leaving led her to make significantly more money.

But yes, there’s clearly a resentment from within elite media (WaPo/NYTimes) that people they don’t like have an avenue for editorial independence that is beyond their reach.

It was based on a right to marry and equal protection, but did make a reference to a right to privacy as well:

> "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach," the Court declared, "a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs,"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges?wprov=sft...

Good question.

Keep in mind that this is only Thomas who is publicly stating this position.

The basis for Obergefell is much broader than what was just overturned with roe, and so I would consider it on firmer legal footing than roe was, alito alluded to as much in his opinion.

At the same time all it takes is 5 votes to win a case, so who knows.

That’s not what legal precedent is.

Otherwise anytime a law is passed, we’d consider it “overturning precedent”.

Precedent means that there is a long string of legal jurisprudence on a subject. Obviously roe/griswold created a new one, but it didn’t overturn/upend an existing one.

Loving v Virginia didn’t cite a right to privacy in its decision. It was based on equal protection and a “right to marry”.

Thomas is an extremist but leaving out loving isn’t a right to privacy carve out.

1. Roe was based on the precedent set by griswold.

2. What legal precedent did roe upend? I can’t think of any.

HIPAA is a law, not a constitutional right, and interracial marriage had nothing to do with a right to privacy in the constitution. You’re confusing the entire doctrine of substantive due process with its specific application in finding a right to privacy in the constitution.

I don’t really see how that example is supposed to be that egregious?

“A colony of the UK” vs “under the ruling of a colonial government” are pretty similar.

Given that the basis of the UK’s colonization of Hong Kong was based on a treaty granting it control over the territory for 150 years, after which it was returned to China. The Chinese portrayal seems apt, given that it was a temporary, though long, occupation.

It is indeed quite ironic, but it’s the state of affairs today.

Though true separation between church and state began in France so, yeah.

Well, on the basis of the theocracy concerns, it’s probably best to look at Northern/Western Europe, where secularism is the strongest.

You aren’t going to have to worry about a church takeover in France any time soon.

Edit: East Asia is also an option.

If your primary concern is collapsing US empire, you aren’t necessarily limiting your exposure by leaving the country. A rapid collapse of US hegemony would lead to a fairly chaotic reordering of the global system.

Being open to learning other languages certainly allows for more options, it’s also not as difficult as you might think.

The next question is, about the US makes you want to leave? Put another was, what is or isnt in the US, that you would hope to find differently somewhere else?

Do you know another language and/or are you willing to consider learning a new one?

If you’re English only that really affects the proper response to this question.

You write like the government is literally force feeding people vegetables…

Name one vegetable producer that makes the kind of profit that meat and feedstock producers do.

> Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...?

A comment ago you were complaining about political theater, how is passing superfluous laws anything but political theater?

> Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch.

This suggests to me that you aren’t very familiar with the last 50 years of American political history.

Except it isn’t valid, because while there was a Supreme Court precedent, such a law would be superfluous, and while there now isn’t, such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress.

Do you really think that a Republican controlled Congress for the majority of the 2010s would have allowed such a law to remain on the books?

Your comment trivializes how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment.

An amendment on an issue this polarizing would never get the requisite support from enough states, no to mention that it doesn’t even matter if you control three branches of government to pass an amendment, only Congress is involved in the process.

Yes, why wouldn’t they be?

Even with only a bit over 1,000 total responses, yes you can make such statements. More isn’t necessarily magically better when it comes to sample sizes. In both cases, we are making inferences about what the total population thinks about the languages based on a subset of survey responses.

Now, is there reason to think that there is bias in these survey results? That is certainly a possibility.

To a degree I agree with you in that the framing of “most loved” could be approached better with niche vs widespread languages. There are a lot of people who self select into small languages, vs languages in widespread use, so perhaps noting the relative usage would be helpful in contextualizing what people think.

HN tends to have a lot of insight into tech topics, and a high level of hubris when it comes to non tech topics.

Pollution is the externality.

A less efficient car engine means that the magnitude of the externality (in this case, the externalized cost, you can have externalized benefits as well) is larger.