It seems to me the most important element of this conversation is wage growth and unemployment versus inflation.
My understanding is those numbers being favorable are what make economists scratch their heads on why everyone feels so negatively and why the economists say the economy is doing great. The most convincing explanation I've seen that mirrors my own feelings is that wage growth feels like I've earned it through my own hard work but inflation feels like I'm being cheated, so even though overall people can buy more than before they don't feel good about it.
This article doesn't really address this big point at all.
This article seems to omit the most important fact about headphones - how do they sound?
I love repairability and all, but it hardly matters if I don't want to use them in the first place because they traded off too much quality for repairability.
I'd rather have both and there's no reason we should settle for less.
Of course actual protection are more important.
But social signaling that LGBTQ+ is accepted by society and the government is important, too. And preventing bigots who overtly are anti-LGBTQ+ from winning on passing laws like this is also important.
On the federal charges, Dedmon and Elward each face a maximum sentence of 120 years plus life in prison and $2.75 million in fines. Hartfield faces a possible sentence of 80 years and $1.5 million, McAlpin faces 90 years and $1.75 million, Middleton faces 80 years and $1.5 million, and Opdyke could be sentenced to 100 years with a $2 million fine.
Fortunately, doesn't seem like they're letting them off easy or anything.
It's crazy to me that people such as you unironically believe the position you're saying that American companies are easier to crack down on.
We are literally seeing concrete proof in action that domestic companies are much harder to crack down on or regulate. They are much better positioned to lobby and are currently using their immense political power to protect themselves while removing their foreign rivals. There isn't even talk of taking action against them because they are so politically powerful.
To be fair, you could stop a random person on the streets of America of either major political party and ask them if Trump wins will he give any money to Ukraine and you won't get a single different answer.
You don't exactly need an inside line to get this kind of hot tip.
I guess my original point was just agreeing with you on your main point. I figured I was supporting your position by pointing out the media dishonesty extended farther than just Israeli publications. The Ukraine point was a throwaway of another example I thought was fairly straightforward, but whatever, it's cool, we don't need to continue this conversation.
It's a funny example of Gell-Mann amnesia at play I suppose.
Just waiting for that Russian military with low morale and hollowed out by corruption to bring us that imminent victory in Ukraine we've been promised any day now for the past two years. Keep believing in victory citizen, it's right around the corner!
This is also interesting in that the far more commonly heard story on social media is when the theft victim is the poster, and the police refuse to take action to help recover their property even though they have the Find My Phone on the thief's location.
I haven't done any serious programming in a long time. Is this mostly about corporate process and hierarchies for programming or does this apply to open source projects as well?
Seems really demoralizing putting in the work to add something to an open source project and having it waste away unreviewed and unappreciated.
Turns out being a place for journalism and continuously losing money over time is not a sustainable model.
It can be called throwing everything away to turn a profit but not many people are interested in supporting journalism when it actually costs them money - consumers aren't interested in paying, journalists aren't interested in donating their time to work for free, and investors aren't interested in donating their money to give away the journalism for free.
Seems like letting authorities choose to treat people differently when everyone is violating a law is pretty dangerous.
It's been observed that the body of modern law is so vast that nobody could possibly stay on the right side of the law all the time. Unenforced laws together with your principle would give the authorities the ability to legally attack anyone they don't like such as political enemies or even entire racial groups they hate and then defend their actions by pointing out that those bad people did, in fact, violate the law regardless of what other people are doing.
I'm scratching my head, who is the normal candidate? The one that was pretending like the Civil War wasn't about slavery? The one that picked a fight with Mickey Mouse to try and score political points but then got his ass kicked?
What's the lesson to take away?