vortic

Right now, if he were able to convert all of his $241.8B to cash, then distribute it evenly among all of the employees at all of his companies, he could give each of his 146,000 employees $1.6M.

No one person should be that wealthy. I don’t necessarily think that billionaires should be abolished, but I do think they should be paying a shit load more in taxes than they are.

Also, before anyone says it, yes, I know it’s not as simple as converting his holdings to cash. I’m just saying “if it were possible”.

Right? The $5k dependent care FSA does save me about $1k per year but I’m still shelling out $21k for day care with $16k taxed.

Whether they have wifi on ship or not isn’t the issue. Sometimes, when a ship goes into an operation, they will turn off all signals except passive or directed signals so that they can’t easily be detected. Having a communications signal that isn’t under the control of the ship’s officers is a huge security risk during operations.

Someone is going to be court martialed over this.

I take it that you would argue that the media bias bot is worse than nothing?

I’m not arguing in favor of the media bias bot in particular here. I’m just kind of thinking about what might be a better solution. Given the fractured media landscape at the moment, it seems unreasonable to expect everyone to immediately have know the various biases of each news source. Having tools that help with that, even if they are themselves biased, seems like a good starting point for understanding the bias of different news organizations. Is there a better way to develop a similar tool that provides more useful information?

Okay, I can certainly see that perspective and, after reading the link posted by @ayyy@InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works I can see how this scale is problematic in other ways since news bias isn’t one-dimensional.

Is there a better way to educate people about the bias of particular new organizations, though? It seems unreasonable to expect everyone to develop their own individual assessment of every news organization. There are simply too many of them offering too many different spins. This attempt at providing something easily digestible seems like a reasonable starting point. It’s certainly not perfect and has a lot of room for improvement but is it worse than nothing?

Thank you for the link, that was helpful!

This is an honest question because I see the media bias bot being consistently downvoted and don’t understand why. Can you fill me in? Why is the media bias bot hated so much? It seems fairly reasonable in its assessments. For example:

• Daily Vox: Left with High factuality
• Huffington Post: Left with Mixed factuality
• MSNBC: Left with Mixed factuality
• NPR: Left-Center with High factuality
• Reuters: Least Biased with Very High factuality
• Forbes: Right-Center with Mostly Factual factuality
• Fox: Extreme-Right with Mixed factuality
• OAN: Extreme-Right with Low factuality
• Newsmax: Extreme-Right with Low factuality
• Infowars: Extreme-Right with Very Low factuality
  • Conspiracy Level: Tin Foil Hat
  • Pseudo-Sci Level: Strong

But but they erupted by saying “Swifties for Trump’ obviously don’t know who Taylor Swift HATES” and “Oh i just know [Tree Paine] is writing up a GOOD lawsuit”. The absolute fury of the eruption came through when some random person said “Real Swifties hate Donald Trump btw”.

An absolute and unmitigated ERUPTION of FURY!

I think the more egregious part is that all of the networks covered Trump’s press conference, then failed to cover Harris’ speech. Giving air time to one candidate and not the other is not balanced reporting. It is giving free publicity to one candidate over the other. They went to Trump’s house on short notice rather than cover Harris’ public speech with plenty of notice.

deleted by creator

What an understatement. “Cruel and dangerous” barely scratches the surface of how abominable Israel’s “war” in Gaza has been. Genocide deserves to be labeled a lot more strongly than “cruel and dangerous”. Calling this “cruel and dangerous” belittles the atrocities and only serves to aid Israel.

If he won’t debate, they should put together a “debate” where they take in-context Trump quotes, show them on a screen, then let Kamala respond to them. Let her rip apart his awful rhetoric and lack of policies and if he doesn’t show up to defend himself, that’s his problem.

I’m most interested in why the Pentagon did this. It seems like an weird thing to do. It also seems like, whatever upsides might have been there, the downsides of blowback if the scheme was caught almost certianky outweigh the upsides.

I don’t even see how his reaction was a “typical authoritarian response”. I think there are only a few reasonable responses after being shot. Defiance is a pretty reasonable response. Anger, fear, running away, and mental breakdown are all also reasonable responses.

I detest Trump, but his immediate reaction actually seemed like the best reaction that a presidential candidate could have. I don’t think it was planned and I do think that his reaction was genuine. I think it’s very hard to have a calculated response in a situation like that.

Maybe if Trump talked about anything of substance he wouldn’t be in the position of having wasted a shit load of money. Slandering Biden while also saying he was unfit to run was a risk. The real fraud is Trump taking money from gullable supporters then turning around to use it to sprew lies at the same gullable people.

They get some, maybe most, of their info from NOAA, yes. I’m honestly not sure what AccuWeather’s plan would be if NOAA were to be killed. They seem to have one given that they’re one of the groups behind the push to privatize NOAA’s work.

And SCOTUS will grant cert, schedule argument for January 21st, the declare the case moot after Trump pardons himself. They’ll then agree that self pardons aren’t even required because a president can’t be held criminally liable for anything. Finally, they will stand behind Trump’s throne and reveal themselves to be the Nazgul.

They know who it comes from. They want to change that answer from “free from NOAA” to “on a subscriber basis from private companies like AccuWeather”.

I feel like the only way this dismissal makes sense is if there have been back room conversations between Cannon and SCOTUS indicating that there is a majority to overturn any 11th circuit ruling. Cannon wouldn’t have dismissed unless the outcome was in some way guaranteed because the outcome of seating a jury, then dismissing was absolutely guaranteed.

I’m honestly surprised that she dismissed at this stage. If she could have dragged the case to the point where they had selected a jury, then dismissed for some reason, there would have been no right to an appeal. I do understand that Clarence Thomas essentially suggested that Cannon should take this route in one of his concurrences, but it seems like the wrong strategy when there was a possibility to dismiss without the possibility of appeal.

I don’t mean that I wish she had dismissed later. I just mean that I’m surprised because I thought their strategy was going to be different with this case.