I’m not defending the article, because it’s some serious bullshit, but not having a byline is standard practice at the Economist. It’s one of their gimmicks which is supposed to imply objectivity and represent a “collective voice,” but I think it causes more harm and confusion than anything else.

Same, I’ve been doing this lately. I started noticing colleagues block off time on their calendars with events just called “Busy” and realized that’s probably what they’re doing. It’s great, and everybody seems to do it, at least at my job. We’re all remote (always have been, even pre-pandemic), and all trust each other to get our jobs done, so everybody wins.

Shit, that’s awesome. I want one of these.

I came here to promote those two outlets as well. Democracy Now and ProPublica are two of the only sources I have nearly absolute trust in. I still consume them critically, but I trust their work because they’ve been doing consistently high quality journalism for years. They’ve never let me down, so I throw them a few bucks whenever I can afford to. It’s probably not a coincidence that they both do more of the muckraking type of journalism than anyone else these days. When I think of ‘traditional’ hard-hitting journalism, these are the two I think of.

This is the advice I usually give. I hate the concept of smart TVs, but I’m not willing to spend more when I can just ensure my Hisense U8K never connects to the internet. It’s a gorgeous and completely affordable display for the quality it provides, and there are no relevant features that are unavailable because it’s offline.

Been into Interior Chinatown. Very cool concept and a solid cast.

I had to read it twice, because it didn’t seem like they knew why this was the case, but nope, my gut reaction that many Teslas are probably just driven by shitty people was spot on:

their elevated accident rates likely “reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions.”

So what the hell is The Conversation? All the political posts I’ve seen from them lately have been utter bullshit, under-researched, and/or unsourced takes based on nothing. Their “Who we are” page sounds awesome, but I don’t see much of those values in their actual political reporting. Their scientific, academic, and culture reporting seems pretty solid, but I’ve only been disappointed by their political stuff.

This article ultimately says nothing that hasn’t already been written 100 times.

His handsomeness has always come across as “sleazy used car salesman” to me. He is good at talking to the press, but he is not a good governor. I really hope dems don’t try to force him down our throats as the future of the Democratic Party.

I love your work, the colors and shading on this are exceptional!

Wow, that was an incredibly out of touch and frustrating thing to read. The author has no idea what they’re talking about.

in a highly polarised US political landscape, the anguish about his governmental role may be little more than a knee-jerk reaction from the millions of people whose side he did not choose.

No, it’s a reaction to genuinely absurd proposals for how to save money. For example, if they were able to successfully fire every single federal employee, it would save the government just over $100 billion. That money goes to pay the salaries of around 1.5 million federal employees. That’s nothing compared to the entire military budget, for example. So, even accomplishing their goal of firing as many civil servants as possible would save very little money in the scheme of things. All it would accomplish is ruining many basic services that people rely on every day to live a relatively safe and healthy life.

But what this article most glaringly ignores is that this Government Efficiency talk is disingenuous from the start. It’s not about efficiency, it’s about gutting as much of the government as possible so it breaks. That’s what they want, and they’ve been quite open about it.

Ugh someone recently sent me LLM-generated meeting notes for a meeting that only a couple colleagues were able to attend. They sucked, a lot. Got a number of things completely wrong, duplicated the same random note a bunch of times in bullet lists, and just didn’t seem to reflect what was actually talked about. Luckily a coworker took their own real notes, and comparing them made it clear that LLMs are definitely causing more harm than good. It’s not exactly the same thing, but no, we’re not there yet.

Monorail!

Yeah, I forgot how many states are so damn creepy about age of consent. I think the alleged rape happened in Florida though, so the issue is moot, but still worth pointing out.

But also, our national definition of an adult is 18, so how the hell can the states be so different on consent? Federalism has its downsides I guess…

Curious if the downvotes are because I wasn’t totally right about the law, or something else?

Yeah he’s always been a beast. Doesn’t eat very much either…

Yeah this bugs the hell out of me. A 17 year old is not capable of consenting to sex with an adult. That’s how our laws work. Sex with a minor is by definition rape, so they should absolutely call it what it is: a credible rape allegation.

Reminder: It Is The ‘Democratic Party,’ Not ‘Democrat Party’

This is a great interpretation. I guess the nice thing about the movie is that you could have this totally believable read on it, and I had essentially dismissed the time stopping thing as an unnecessary surrealist gimmick that was never resolved or necessary for the plot. I like your take better, it fits the cerebral tone.

That is one gorgeous fuzzball. Damn. Look at that profile!