Fair enough, although you might be surprised by the proportion of UK editors.

My point, however, was different. Does it make sense that a global encyclopedia should reflect the world's understanding fo the world, or only Americans view of the world? I suggest the former is a far more valuable target to aim.

(As I said elsewhere, I'm also skeptical of "center American views on topics in American politics" for the same reason I am skeptical of centering North Korean views of topics in North Korean politics.)

"If the paper is talking about bias surrounding topics or people specifically part of the USA, then yes, "average American political belief" is entirely reasonable."

I don't believe your assumption is correct. I think topics such as universal health care would meet the description of topics included based on the abstract, and certainly the world has quite a bit of experience assessing the benefits and drawbacks of same.

Neither am I willing to leave discussions of the bias in coverage of North Korean politics to North Korean citizens, or Chinese to Chinese, and so on. Are you?

I am, I think fairly, deeply skeptical of the idea of grounding bias relative to polling rather than on metrics of accuracy. Sometimes the average opinion is simply wrong.

Looks like an interesting article, pity it isn't accessible.

If they're using "the average American political belief" as an indication of center, rather than factual accuracy or "the average worldwide political belief", than ... some caution should be used in interpreting their results.

When you say "left" and "right", are defining those terms with respect to the average USA person, or with respect to the average person from a rich country?

And if it's the former, why would you believe that Wikipedia would focus on a US point of view?

"Thankfully, Sen. Fischer's amendment is non-binding and is unlikely to be greeted warmly by the House of Representatives." --the linked ArsTechnica article

That's a thoughtful reply, I'd upvote if I could :)

I still lean toward seeing what I'm seeing of the proposed bill as a civil issue--in part because the use of the funds seems intended to mitigate damage done in part by the taxed entities.

If I pollute a river, mess up someone's (I dunno) shellfish farm downstream--they can sue me in civil court in order to recover the costs of the damage I did.

I find that analogous. Damage is being done by climate change, and the bill feels to me like a somewhat ham handed way of recovering those damages. (I think I'd still prefer a carbon/methane tax, but never mind that.)

And, of course, I am not a lawyer, and don't have formal legal training, so hey, I could very easily end up being wrong.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

That clause has usually been found only to apply to criminal, rather than civil penalties. (Whether I agree with that interpretation or not doesn't matter.)

e.g., Johannessen v. United States (1912)

"Can you turn off location tracking?"

Even if they said you could, I wouldn't trust it, based on their past behavior.

I am quite confused, about what meaningful use of the word "privacy" is involved when the subject is a large wireless carrier.

"Personally, as an outsider, I think, the USA should draw a line under this period of their history, build a bridge, and get over it. Move on, time for a new chapter rather than keeping the old one burning."

I don't think the right will let it go, I suspect we'll see more Insurrection here either way.

My mistake, thanks for the explanation.

You meant BioNTech rather than Novavax, pretty sure.

Doesn't change your point, but pedantry, y'know?

It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

Gah, I'm clearly tired, I can't even get subject-verb agreement right.

My point is, the discussion is about whether he was forced out by his employers.

His (past) employees are not his employers.

Sorry for the language difficulties, I'm going to bed now. :)