And assuming you know better than those "less gifted" people is the good intention that paves the road to hell. It's fundamentally antithetical to freedom to tell people what they're allowed to think, even if your intentions are noble.

Actually, I think the greater irony was how the Republicans made a big stink about being deplatformed from Twitter and Facebook, and how social media is "the new town square" - then they proceeded to pass legislation that will potentially deplatform the entire userbase of TikTok. Rules for thee, not for me.

Regardless of the partisan bickering, NN for the most part ended up being a nothingburger either way. Turns out that while the market certainly could nickel and dime "fast lane" access, that really only happened in the real world at theme parks, and on actual physical highways. TBH, I find those sorts of "fast lanes" far more insidious.

Or it's just that YouTube's and Meta's algorithms are absolute dogshit, and Bytedance doesn't want to get ripped off. I'm personally not a fan of short format videos, but from what I've seen on YouTube and Facebook, it's mostly just weird shit and rage bait. If that's the best they can do, it's no wonder TikTok is more popular.

If the government comes along and yanks my megaphone out of my hand because it's made in China, they've infringed my right to free speech.

The "there are other platforms you can use" argument is absolute bullshit, otherwise why did Musk pay $44 billion for Twitter? If all platforms are equivalent then he could've saved a fortune by just launching his own microblogging service, but clearly there's value in the existing connections users have made on an existing popular social media platform.

Sounds like Bytedance needs to ask Apple if they can borrow some of their lawyers.

Here in the US, that's actually a good thing because we have for-profit healthcare. More mental health problems, more money for shrinks and anti-depressant drug manufacturers. The social media companies aren't the enemy, they're just driving the wheels of capitalism, baby!

It's pretty easy to offer consumers a great deal when you're willing to dump wheelbarrows of cash into a furnace to do so.

Yeah, it's easy to enjoy the schadenfreude of seeing something you didn't use get the banhammer. Sooner or later they'll come for something you do enjoy, and you know how the "first they came for..." parable ends.

Instead of a cooperative one then or gradually going to see profit go away as an important metric. That's because we're going to gradually become a kind of neo feudal civilization with a very very tiny handful of kings and queens at the top (socially we will probably still call them CEOs or just company owners) a tiny handful of people who serve and protect them and then a massive number of people living in staggeringly abject poverty.

You're kind of assuming that everything is going to stay the way it is socially because it's really hard to think of those kind of massive social changes to completely remake the fabric of our civilization. But with the huge automation pushes going on and more and more and more consolidation every year into the hands of a smaller group of people at some point they're just going to take their ball and go home and they're going to have ai-powered drones and robots that will gun anyone down who tries to fuck with them.

Again this all assumes we stay on the course we're on right to the moment. There are plenty of people who can see this coming and are trying to do something about it. And younger voters are smart enough to know it's coming. It's just a question of whether or not the major world powers are going to be democracies long enough. The older generation is hell-bent on giving up democracy for a variety of stupid reasons and if democracy goes we lose that fight and we become a Neo feudal dystopia.

Apparently someone thinks shit like this happens on a whim.

For example, the non-compete rule was first proposed in January 2023... 15 months ago. God only knows how long it took to get through review committees or whatever other red tape it takes to get to that stage. That's almost certainly been cooking for at least two years.

The process of this current ruling to restore Net Neutrality started at least with Executive Order 14036... which was 2021.

Controlling insulin prices? There was movement on that last year as part of the Inflation Reduction Act (itself introduced in 2022) when it was added to the list of pharmaceuticals Medicare is allowed to negotiate prices for.

But sure, it's because it's an election year. That's gotta be it. No way were these things and more being quietly worked on for years...
=Smidge=

Inflation isn't a deterrent to savings, it just means you have to put your savings somewhere that it also does work, i.e. invested in something. Having a non-zero inflation rate encourages investment, which encourages economic growth. This is good. But it's not the main reason we need constant inflation.

The reason we need constant inflation is because deflation is extremely harmful; it causes debts to grow which can make people and businesses insolvent. The Fed has a 2% inflation target because low inflation rates are manageable and because 2% is high enough that a decrease still won't go negative.

Just so we're clear, the ruling in that case is not so much "overreach" since it explicitly acknowledges the threats of pollution spreading between surface waters and affirms the EPA's role in protecting those waters, but rather is entirely hinged on a technicality in the definition not being strict enough. The EPA has jurisdiction, and therefore it's not overreach, but the wording defining what qualifies as protected wetlands isn't lawyer-y enough for SCOTUS.

THIS is the best argument you have?

=Smidge=

In general, documents are considered hearsay and are inadmissible. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow them to be introduced, for example public records that are made in the normal course of business, but police reports are explicitly and specifically excluded from those exceptions. It might be possible to introduce a police report as evidence if the officer who wrote it is present to testify to its authenticity and accuracy, and to be cross-examined about its contents, but if the officer is there it's easier to avoid the hearsay question entirely by just having the officer testify.

Note that this applies not just to written police reports but also to bodycam footage. You still need someone to testify that the footage is authentic and accurate, and available to be cross-examined about it. With bodycam footage I suppose that could be either the officer or a technician responsible for collecting and archiving the footage.

In the case of an AI-generated summary of the footage, if the officer checked and edited the output I think it would be exactly the same as the officer's self-written report. If the officer didn't check and edit the output, then it would be a mechanical transformation of the bodycam footage and you'd need someone to testify to the accuracy of that transformation, as well as the authenticity of the footage. I don't think anyone could honestly testify that the transformation is guaranteed to be correct and accurate. In any case, though, the defense could always just review the footage to point out any inaccuracies in the summary. Most likely the summary would be ignored completely and the bodycam footage would be used directly, after appropriate testimony about its authenticity.

Tesla is a massive #1 in market cap and a dismal 14th in sales.

Traditional manufacturers have only started showing any interest in BEVs at all in the last couple of years. It's far from clear that Tesla could remain the #1 BEV brand when they start showing interest, it's also far from clear that even if Tesla maintains it's dominance that it justifies it's valuation.

It's more than 10 years ago that Elon Musk predicted that full self-driving was just around the corner. Now that multiple other companies have surpassed Tesla in self-driving tech he's onto Robots as his next pile of magic beans.

Car notorious for big gaps and other manufacturing flaws. Telsa's benefited from selling somewhat sloppy vehicles as luxury vehicles, but that won't sustain when other manufacturers jump into BEVs. And it certainly won't sustain when Musk insists on making himself into an alt-right icon.

As everyone has pointed out the article is click-bait. That "massive loss" is basically the cost of an unscaled R&D project selling only 10k vehicles, it's a completely meaningless number.

Or do you like the methodology and you think the Cybertruck should be evaluated by the same metric?

Why are you so fixated on 2020?

When the orange goon and his cohorts stop whining about a "stolen" election in 2020, then everyone else will. Until then, they're the ones who keep bringing it up.

Democrats have been screeching about stolen elections since 2000. ?

No, they haven't. No Democrat has been "screeching" about "stolen" elections. None. No one is out there every day claiming that in any shape or form. In fact, the ONLY time the issue was raised of irregularities, Republicans immediately went to court to prevent any vote recount by stating there were no evidence of fraud. And yet, four years later, that is all Republicans talk about. All the "fraud" they claim existed yet have shown absolutely zero evidence for it. In fact, when asked point blank by judges if their multitude of lawsuits were about voter fraud, every single time the answer was no.

When you're done with your lying, let us know.