And as her +70.9% gains in 2024 were somewhat extraordinary, Nancy Pelosi spawned a host of similar apps - I believe autopilot has subsequently been broadened to include other lawmakers of both parties.
Autopilot
PelosiTracker.app
Quiver Quantitative
FWIW I fully agree with you that the PEOPLE of other races aren't themselves the problem.
The problem is the exploitative cleave-lines that leaves for opportunism in democracies. It's so much easier to blame easily-visually-identifiable "others" than actually address much more subtle and pervasive issues like poverty, drug abuse, etc.
I'd point to immigration as an example. The US is quite literally a nation of immigrants.
The most patriotic people I know are 0th or 1st-gen immigrants.The problem they immediately identify is that now the centrifugal forces seem to be winning - instead of new immigrants being encouraged to become American, they're pushed into factional enclaves and the melting pot is lost. (Their comments, not mine.)
LOL "flamebait" for describing the immediate replies accurately.
Pardon me for calling a spade a spade. I didn't mean to offend.
So you're saying that - literally - the whitest, most homogeneous society on earth is the best place to live, exemplary in structure, society, and well-being?
And insisting that's what
Funny, that.
You neglected to factor in the fact the Musk - for ideological reasons, let's be clear - is hated almost as much as the Orange Tyrant on slashdot.
Meaning that facts-be-damned, Elon MUST somehow be made the bad guy. Even if that's irrelevant.
The simplest explanation - that he tossed some $ at an opensource competitor to Google, and then this entity took his $ and turned for-profit - must be discarded.
Look at the replies to your comment.
- "well Musk tried to buy it later" how does this matter to whether a business was funded on false premises?
- "well Musk was going to take it for-profit." Setting aside that this is essentially verbatim OpenAI's own argument against the suit, again, what Musk was "going to do" isn't relevant. Yes, whether it's on moral grounds or Elon being butthurt at being cut out, the point of "we take your $ as a nonprofit, turn it into a for-profit but keep your $" is the question.
- your daring to side with Musk means you apparently implicitly fellate Musk. Persuasive, certainly.
All of these, note, are 'climbing' in mod points.
I mean, it's pathological: Everyone here is largely against AI and Sam Altman...until Elon's the other side.
I fully agree with this move by the EU and do rather often approve their commonsense pro-consumer legislation.
As a small-government conservative, I believe it's one of the main remits of government to counter monopoly behavior.
NEITHER the US model nor the EU models are great.
Not really.
Here is the report, finding it really didn't take a lot of chasing.
https://drive.google.com/file/...
I recommend you read https://www.nationalreview.com... as well. Putnam is clearly uncomfortable with his findings (credit to him for still honestly publishing the data; not sure that would happen in 2026), and so makes some leaps unsupported by what he presents, as in
"it's a short-term effect"...based on absolutely nothing in the report.
"we will find new ways to boost social solidarity." that's ideology and faith, not data.
He talks about the 'benefits outweighing the disadvantages' again, failing to prove anything about the benefits.
And yes, to your point all my data is American data. Absolutely agree that different scales apply to different contexts, nationalities, etc (Reference here Geert Hofstede's seminal work on cultural alignments and differences in such issues).
I find it curious and unsurprising in 2026 that my post - which was intended to be challenging - has been modded to -1 Troll. This is the case for nearly any unpopular political stance on Slashdot today.
"the best places to live in the world, in terms of health, happiness, and quality of life"
Are those our metrics now? Are they yours?
Men are happier than women.
Conservatives are happier than liberals.
People of faith are happier than those without.
If are seeking to make people happier, I'm surprised that you of all people would be advocating conservatism and faith.
Oh, also, actual data shows diverse neighborhoods are UNhappier, consistently. (in case you need the link: "The Downside of Diversity" https://www.nytimes.com/2007/0... )
What precisely are you going to advocate with that info?
"Imagine you're in the Arctic, a voice **from a meditation video** tells them, "
Anyone else see it?
I guess we will see how this plays out.
I have a Palisade with the digital rear view and I prefer to use it, despite some drawbacks.
Ultimately, I'd rather have consumers and long term statistics determine if this is a success than any government bureaucrat hand waving.
Comments
- it's another electronic thing that I expect will fail long before the physical mirror would
- given the length of the car it is generally a much better view than a mirror would provide
- obviously a tiny camera lens is much more easily obscured than a whole window, and can often be made basically useless by an inopportune clump of snow or sleet. It is likewise also much more easily cleared with a rub of a thumb as well. In bad weather, it's now habit for me to circle past the back of my car to give that and the backup camera lens (down by the licence plate) each a wipe which is usually good enough
- the main regular annoyance is the flicker rate: because of the slight flicker differential between the screen and LED headlights, LED headlights commonly flash JUST LIKE POLICE FLASHER HEADLIGHTS. This is constantly startling and can only be clarified by a plain eyeball/mirror view
- it's an extremely hd screen, bright and clear (again, in most respects better vision than I could see with a mirror
- it only works when the car is on, which is a significant announce if you're waiting for someone
- you can't see yourself. Once you have a mirror like this you realize how often you check the mirror to see if you have something in your teeth, hair looks stupid, your tie is straight, etc. Presumably this is even more important for those who wear makeup.
- the palisade -unlike the Polestar4, now- has the ability to flip a lever and the screen goes off turning it into black glass, usable as a basic mirror as long as it's lighter outside than in the car. My wife always switched to this, finding the camera screen annoying.
Unless I misunderstand you, I think you're mistaken.
The Polestar4 does not have a physical rear window, instead having rear facing cameras and a digital display in place of the central rear view mirror which normally is aimed through that window.
Who is demanding "perfection"? That too is a strawman. I'm pointing out that when some Bible-Thumping TV Preacher is INSISTING you need to radically change your behavior or you're going to hell and hell is certainly a thing, it's not a great look for him to be caught flying private jets to go bang 3rd world prostitutes. In the same, climate catastrophists insisting the world is going to end if people don't accept they have to sacrifice some comforts are going to have trouble selling that message if they fail to do so themselves. Commonly the word used would be 'hypocrite'.
"Video conferencing simply does not work as well." complete bullshit. Businesses globally have massively reduced business travel. Yes, no question there are SOME situations where travel really is better, ie getting actual world leaders together to sign something = valid reason to physically get them in one place.
But a back-patting session by 1/3 of the world's countries to vaguely complain en masse that their grift isn't working as well as it did? If you're telling Joe Public not to use plastic straws, turn down the heat in the winter, and eat crickets...*maybe* we could provide a better example than private jets to exotic locations? Maybe a TEENSY bit of sacrifice from the Ecological Evangelicals might convince people that secular heaven really is a thing?
Hint: climate change has always been a fact on this planet whether some stinky environmentalists are suddenly raging at the sky about it.
Again, literally nobody is saying this.
If you're insisting the threat is real, the idea that you shouldn't bother to employ easily-available reductions every chance you get is EITHER
1) stupid, you don't realize such reductions are available, or
2) indicative that you're dishonest, and your goals are performative for other people, but not when they inconvenience you.
Which is it?
Especially, as I'm constantly told, if the threat is "imminent and catastrophic."
I'm not demanding anything.
I'm pointing out the naked hypocrisy of INSISTING the climate crisis is imminent, catastrophic, and requiring immediate sacrifice (by everyone else, presumably?) while simultaneously all jetting off (almost exclusively on PRIVATE jets?) to a junket-destination, living the high life in the most expensive hotels, being driven everywhere in personal limousines, for the luxury of making a few empty gestures in the same room with other poseurs like yourselves.
If ONLY we had developed robust, simple, reliable, comprehensive, and even MOBILE video teleconferencing systems in the last several years?
You're just pissed when someone mentions the Emperor's new clothes because you're politically vested in the Emperor.
**You're not convincing anyone but your own zealots who will all ALSO cheerfully comment on his lovely new outfit, for the same reason.**
Right...
If only we had established comprehensive, redundant, widespread, reliable, simple systems for online conversations. We could call them "tele - conferencing".
Type louder, please.
