So, obviously, people don’t generally change their legal gender for an advantage somewhere. But if they do, that’s a pretty good sign, not that it’s too easy to change your gender, but that there’s a gender bias in the law.
So arguably, the easier it is to change your legal gender, the less of a problem gender-based affirmative action is. Conservatives must love this! End liberal overreach in one easy step!
This is why I don’t take family photos with a hat or flag that announces my political affiliation.
They can put the reviewed items on the coffee table to keep them on camera, and it’s more professional looking than a kitchen or child’s room.
I think it’s clear he’s a fan of Apple and Tesla but he does make negative statements about them, the Cyber truck was not a positive review and he always criticized the fit and finish of Teslas. And he critiques Apple’s idiosyncracies like the proprietary charger and lack of calculator app on the iPad.
I guess my point is that he’s not a journalist he’s a reviewer, we are tuning in for his judgement, his opinion. If he personally likes the products from a certain company, that’s not a bias that impacts his capacity to do his job well.
Like movie reviewer giving Pixar a bunch of 10/10 reviews, and then criticizing Cars 2 as a mediocre cash grab. Maybe they are biased for Pixar, or maybe Pixar just puts out a lot of good movies. As long as you’re calling out the bad moves, that’s what we want from a reviewer.
The fair concern is when he gets exclusive access like this, I don’t necessarily care about the puff piece interview but you hope it doesn’t influence his future reviews.
The last time he was in the wider media discussion was because he negatively reviewed the Fisker Ocean and the Humane Pin and people were calling him a company killer.
But it’s not SA it’s SAC or SAP.
He somehow monetized being a Trump reply guy back in 2016, every Trump tweet you’d see this guy with a snarky little “well actually I prefer an X that WASN’T Y” or whatever. Within seconds.
The actual reason why is that everyone was expecting Hillary to win and she had vowed to “end private prisons.”
So everyone was calculating in a 90% or whatever chance Hillary wins, with some percentage chance she actually fulfilled her promise. Instead they got a 100% chance they would stay around for 4 years and probably get a tax cut. Pretty big adjustment is appropriate.
(Also old 2016 articles about Hillary are so quaint. They even mention Obama closing Guantanamo lmao)
Yeah the guy who was going to pass permanent corporate tax cuts and temporary individual tax cuts, funded by chaining individual tax brackets so taxes go up for individuals after 10 years, won. That’s great for corporate profits. And great for the 10% who own 90% of stocks.
It’s horrible tax policy and detrimental to the majority of Americans but it absolutely should make stocks increase.
With hindsight 2008 Obama/McCain and 1992 Clinton/HW were the only two presidential campaigns in living memory with decent candidates on both sides.
(Depending on your opinions of Dukakis and whether or not 1988 was in your living memory I suppose)
I don’t think anyone would notice on the cloverloop.
Non-politicized decisions are wacky, the Sackler decision had Gorsuch and Jackson in the majority and Kavanaugh and Sotomayor in the minority.
“Coincidentally,” the abortion and gun rulings are all exactly the same 6-3 teams based on who appointed them.
It’s pretty much settled fact that this Supreme Court puts ideology over impartiality.
It’s a very progressive district, that’s how she got elected in the first place. This is not a surprise.
I bet my politics fit closer to the other guy, but I’d still vote for AOC between the two because she has a national influence and disproportionate power in the Caucus. If you’re actually voting to influence Congress towards helping your district in particular, AOC might get that done even if it’s secondary to her national political project. Some moderate guy in a safe D seat would absolutely never get anything for your district.
Dumb framing. They aren’t panicking, they’re framing the results so they can fit them to their narrative no matter what happens. Biden wins = he was on drugs, no way senile and incapable Biden could win otherwise. Biden loses = full proof he’s senile and incapable.
There’s no economic reason the nominal GDP of any country or the world in general has to continuously increase. The important metric is per capita production. As long as people get continuously more productive through innovation, standards of living will continue to increase.
At the national level, vying for long term economic power in the world, a higher and younger population is going to be a huge advantage very soon and countries should be trying to get as many immigrants in their borders as they can. But instead they are…going a different direction.
How often do you wear a suit? Dry clean as necessary, hang it up between uses. I’ve never ironed a suit.
The one example I’m familiar with is a name brand ice cream company that produces the store brand ice cream too…in that case the recipe is different, cheaper ingredients to cut costs to the bare minimum. But using the machines for a higher volume saves money.
I’m sure ‘same exact item’ does happen too but just ‘same manufacturer’ doesn’t mean exactly the same item.
Can’t believe Harriet Tubman got all that infrastructure up.
The post isn’t saying Trump is worse. Trump is worse, but this isn’t why.
The “spandrel hypothesis” is the front runner explanation. Essentially we didn’t evolve to have chins but rather evolved other things that are helpful, and the chin is a byproduct of that other evolution. Not harmful so it didn’t get selected away, but not helpful.