rsuri

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 16 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

So as I understand it, overarching priorities of Trump supporters are:

  1. ending sex trafficking
  2. stop making the poor poorer and
  3. fighting election fraud

So they're excited about a guy who:

  1. By his own admission/bragging, had a 15 year long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.
  2. Passed the largest corporate tax cut in history, and plans to eliminate income tax which is paid at a higher rate by high income individuals, replacing it with tariffs that fall disproportionately on the poor.
  3. Made numerous fraudulent claims and tried to submit a fraudulent slate of electors after the last election in an attempt to subvert the will of the voters.
[–] [email protected] 7 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Wired headphones. I like that they just plug into whatever without syncing, are cheap, light, and last basically forever. Of course I need a dongle for the vast majority of modern phones, but I a have a sturdy solid dongle and other than the annoyance of having to carry it with me (and using the word "dongle" to describe it) it works quite nicely. A wire clip is also a necessity.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

The Democratic nominee had an advantage of 19 to 29 points over her Republican rival, according to tallies by ABC News-Ipsos, New York Times-Siena College and CNN.

The lead is larger than the one Hillary Clinton had over Donald Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election when polls showed the Democratic nominee leading with 8 to 16 points.

Joe Biden had a greater margin in late 2020 polls when Democrats embraced mail voting, while Trump attacked it and persuaded his supporters not to do it.

Ok, so basically Democrats always have an advantage in early voting and it's hard to know what to make of this. It's pretty much exactly what you'd expect given that 2016 was before Trump heavily politicized early and mail-in voting and 2020 was during the pandemic when Democrats were less likely to want to go to crowded polling places because of the whole believing Covid exists thing.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This doesn't bode well for my typewriting monkey startup

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 day ago (2 children)

People are saying it's the dogs, but given that it's Tucker Carlson I think it's far more likely that he's just flat out lying.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

DC also has more people than 2 states. Basically if you take the top 52 subdivisions of the US by population, the only 2 that aren't states "just so happen" to be the two with the highest minority populations.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Remember when Elon said he'd "open source the algorithm"? Then he released a selection of arbitrary source code files mostly consisting of enums that tell us basically nothing about ranking, cut off access to APIs that researchers could use to study the site, and suddenly Republicans and alt-right content started showing up in everyone's timeline...

[–] [email protected] 53 points 3 days ago

I know Vader choked the life out of the last person who questioned him, but I haven't seen Leia do enough challenging media interviews.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago

True but if Tesla keeps acting like they're on the verge of an unsupervised, steering wheel-free system...this is more evidence that they're not. I doubt we'll see a cybercab with no controls for the next 10 years if the current tech is still ignoring large, highly predictable objects in the road.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Because of slavery, basically. The US couldn't have a directly-elected president at founding because that would mean slaveholding states would get less power per person actually living there, unless they wanted to let slaves vote which of course they wouldn't. So 3/5ths compromise, electoral college, yadda yadda yadda, and 250 years later power still is filtered through the states. So now that that's the case, giving any new people voting rights would change the power balance between the ~~slaveholders~~ right and ~~abolitionists~~ left. So as a result, places like PR that have an abnormal amount of ~~minorities~~ Democratic voters tend to be unable to get Congress to grant them voting rights.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Asked if they viewed Republican candidates’ use of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric in their campaigns as “sad and shameful,” 41% of Republicans and 58% of independent voters agreed. That compares to 38% of Republicans and 25% of independents who do not think it’s “shameful.”

What happened to sad? What did you do with sad???

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Ok I know you have a lot of reasons for not voting Kamala, but I just gotta push back every time you say I'm eating up false stories, because most of what you said just doesn't support that at all.

I think you should consider that maybe I have good reason for my beliefs. Let me spell it out:

  1. The claim is that 2 anonymous people in the room, plus notes taken at the time, include the outburst.
  2. This claim is made by Jeffrey Goldberg, a reporter with a decades long career unblemished by journalistic fraud.
  3. No one - not the family, not Meadows or anyone else associated with Trump - denies that the bill was sent to the white house, but not paid by Trump.
  4. No one has offered an alternative explanation as to why Trump did not pay the bill.

I think those are some good reasons to believe the story. I also get how people want to believe the family on an emotional level - what happened to them sucks and they have every right to feel whatever they want about Trump. As do you. But I will stand by the fact that on a rational level, it makes far more sense to believe this actually happened as reported.

 

Looking for US Senator/Representative write-in choices. Use whatever definition of "hero" that floats your boat.

5
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

So a bit about me, I'm a very practical-oriented, some might say cheap person. I look at excessive luxury as a moral failing at any wealth level, either because you should be giving that money to charity, or because you should be saving it so you don't end up needing charity yourself someday.

However, finding a woman with a compatible mindset has always been a challenge, and it seems to be getting harder every year. I've been dating mostly online for a good while, and prior to the pandemic I pretty much never ran into a woman with a lot of luxuries in her life. Now it seems like almost every profile features a woman showing off a LV/YSL/Gucci purse that cost 4 figures or more. These luxury brand purchases are the hardest thing for me to relate to, because it's just the brand - it's purely to signal that you could afford to send some corporation your hard-earned money for virtually no reason. And you don't have to take my word for it, luxury goods are booming, especially among gen Y and Z.

Problem is, I'm finding it harder and harder to cut this massive chunk of the population out of my dating pool. I'm also attracted to the look of feminine accessories like jewelry and heels (isn't everyone?). And while I don't care if it's cheap accessories, there seems to be basically a 100% overlap between women who wear feminine accessories and those who like spending lots of money on brand names. I kinda hit rock bottom recently when I went on a date with a low-wage worker which made me excited that maybe I finally found someone down to earth enough, and then even she showed up with a $1200 purse (yes I looked it up).

So it's time to pause and seek alternative perspectives. I want to keep looking for the cheap-yet-feminine woman. But at the same time, I feel increasingly like I'm being an extremist. Is there some way I can understand the need for luxury brand purchases differently so I can find it more acceptable in a long term partner?

 

This seems insane to me. I live in a city where maybe 50-60% of people have cars, and most don't drive them that much. Yet every grocery store I'm aware of with the sole exception of the expensive Whole Foods has a fuel rewards points program. Reasons this should be controversial enough to enable a low-cost alternative:

  1. Many people don't drive and therefore pay a little more for groceries because it includes a perk they don't use
  2. It seems like a very ardent pro-fossil fuel move that you'd think would cause some sort of negative attention from environment activists.
  3. The subsidy typically applies as an amount off per gallon, so you end up really subsidizing big vehicles with big gas tanks. Again, really makes some customers subsidize others and you'd think people (other than me) would be annoyed at this.

But yet, virtually every grocery store does this. Anyone know why? Does the fossil fuel industry somehow encourage this?

 

This is a text post

 

I have a vague idea to create a wiki for politics-related data. Basically, I'm annoyed with how low-effort, entirely un-researched content dominates modern politics. I think a big part of the problem is that modern political figures use social media platforms that are hostile to context and citing sources.

So my idea for a solution is to create a wiki where original research is not just allowed but encouraged. For example, you could have an article that's a breakdown of the relative costs to society of private vs public transportation, with calculations and sources and tables and whatnot. It wouldn't exactly be an argument, but all the data you'd need to make one. And like wikipedia, anyone can edit it, allowing otherwise massive research tasks to be broken up.

The problem is - who creates a wiki nowadays? It feels like getting such a site and community up and running would be hopeless in a landscape dominated by social media. Will this be a pointless waste of time? Is there a more modern way to do this? All thoughts welcome.

view more: next ›