Seems worth noting he’s not being charged with anything spying or geopolitics related, but instead he’s been charged with theft. No details in the article about what he’s accused of having stolen. Seems like almost the only notable fact in this whole story is his being a US soldier in Russia, otherwise there’s a ton of Americans accused of pretty crimes while abroad every day.

Meanwhile, Representative Elise Stefanik—the star browbeater of the hearings on campus antisemitism called by the House Education and Workforce Committee—has been gunning forthe resignation of Columbia President Nemat (Minouche) Shafik (a matter that is not the purview of politicians, but of faculty, administrators, and trustees).

It’s funny how even after kowtowing to right wing demands, she faces demands to resign not only from the left that she sicced the police on, but also the right that she has been groveling towards.

Trump has that incredible either-you-see-it-or-you-don’t charisma.

For every Trump there are a thousand wannabes like DeSantis who get destroyed by their gaffes and screw ups (like is supposed to happen) instead of being boosted by them. The exception, despite being very prominent, doesn’t break the rule that coverage of a politician’s gaffes is normally very, very bad for them.

I really don’t think so. The fact that we’re still talking about this week’s later is an indication of how dead her national political career is. Her brand is the dog killing politician now.

She was a contender to be Trump’s VP candidate, and he can’t stop talking about what a fool she is with no political acumen.

Sadly that strategy does in fact ordinarily pay off because the young people that make up the largest demographic of legal adults notoriously underperforms when it comes to voting.

Utah is gorgeous.

There are definitely parts of Socal that are ugly. Also parts that are sublime.

Try visiting a not ugly state like California.

But how does that help capitalists make more money by eliminating their competition?

Team Red doesn’t actually have anything of the sort in their heads. They already decided on the conclusion, which is that climate change is fake, and then they grasp on whatever the flavor du jour is for the rationalization on why it’s true. That might happen to be this thing you’re saying about measuring tools in urbanized areas, but if you cut that down they’ll just switch to some other rationalization.

You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t arrive at with reason in the first place.

So there’s no evidence whatsoever then.

This conspiracy theory makes as much sense as claiming the reason Republicans are against global warming is Saudi Arabia.

People on this site lose their minds when the word Russia or Putin appears in a sentence. We don’t need dehumanized foreign bad guys to explain away and play cover for the actual bad guys we have domestically in the United States. We have the receipts. It’s Exxon and other big corps, not Russia.

This is a new one on me. Never seen people trying to tie Putin to climate change before. Might as well can him the boogeymonster at this point with the way everything bad is attributed to him online.

Is there any evidence Putin is pro-global climate change or is this one of those “it just makes sense” sort of things?

Are we presuming the heads of Exxon and the other big corporations that have been destroying the planet with actual leaked documents receipts to prove they’ve been behind the suppression of the science and lobbying the Republicans on this also on Russia’s payroll?

Isn’t the solution you’re implying (and the solution pushed for by OP) if I’m not misunderstanding the exact mirror image? I.e. we should disallow TikTok from platforming opinions you disagree with (aligns with China) while allowing Facebook et al to continue because they mainly show opinions you happen to agree with (aligns with Western interests)?

I think the main opinion I see on Lemmy is that we should either force them all to regulate speech the same way, or not regulate free speech on any of them, but either way with a clear rule that is applied fairly and equally.

That’s not what I see at all.

Normally it goes more like instead of targeting TikTok specifically, we should pass a broad bill that targets all social media companies regardless of who owns them.

The point isn’t generally that TikTok should be free or Facebook et al need to suppress but that we should treat all of their problematic behavior in the same way.

People always complain on Lemmy about Telegram and point at alternatives that are theoretically better in terms of security and privacy.

Yet the security and privacy on Lemmy are good enough that you routinely see governments complaining about how they can’t get at the info on Telegram like this story here, all while Telegram has a UI and experience that blows every competing messenger completely away.

I just read the linked article.

The linked article makes very clear that style guides are common.

However, the specifics of this style guide also happen to follow pretty exactly how Israel likes things presented - there is no “Palestine”, they didn’t turn the Palestinians into “refugees”, they didn’t “slaughter” the 15000 children that they killed, with the opposite standard for the Palestinians.

That’s unfortunate and hopefully you can get a raise or a better job but apparently unemployment is low overall and wage growth is outpacing inflation for most people.

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/wages-outpacing-inflation

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.

Nah I wasn’t being sarcastic.

As I understand it, in engineering these types of mobile space constrained devices you essentially have a “budget” of space. Every hardware feature you include generally eats into this budget and if you want things to be user accessible or repairable it eats into this budget majorly.

That budget has to come from somewhere, so you can pay it with things like reducing the size of your battery or reducing the size of your drivers which in turn represents a reduction in sound quality.

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.