Fully agree.

Pollsters generally are finding people are growing unresponsive to polling generally. Their task relies on the largesse of people's voluntary participation and that's been badly damaged by:
- fatigue: ain't nobody got time for that shit anyway.
- robocalls: nobody, I mean nobody, is going to wait to hear if it's a "real" survey or some marketing bullshit
- political everything: elections now never seem to end
- deliberate skew to polls: I don't know about you, but the last handful of times I bothered to listen, the polls were skewed in a way a 3 year old could tell the way they "wanted" you to answer. "Who will you vote for, our guy that loves puppies or that despicable Nazi?"
- deliberate skew to answers: it's a well-demonstrated effect that one side of the political fence in the US *loves* to overshare their opinions about everything, and the other tends to tell pollsters to fuck off.* This leads to a strong political cleave-line in the responses, and the near-impossibilty of getting an actual representative sample. On this basis, if I were asking a polling company to answer a question for me, I'd be highly suspicious of any answer essentially coming from one voice, not a bellcurve of the population generally.

*fwiw, when I do amuse myself by not hanging up immediately, I generally give them an answer based on a coinflip, to taint their data with noise as best I can. It's mildly amusing to do this as I have to often hastily give contrarian answers to the previous answer I just gave them. Call it an exercise in rhetorical nimbleness. I hate polls.

Also, a totalitarian state or doesn't that matter for you?

Genetic offcasts from the complex process of heterosexual reproduction, like someone born without an eye or 2 girls with a merged body below the thoracic vertebrae.
We need to care for them, help them have as normal a life as possible, but there's absolutely no reason to change broadly accepted societal mores for them.

(his)
A human with xy chromosomes is commonly called male and referred to correctly with masculine pronouns in English, no matter what costume he's wearing.

I would have said this is self evident?
I've been curating Pandora channels by mood for a long time.

I realized fairly early that what I wanted to listen to was context dependent, not really wanting a Chopin Nocturne while working out, nor KLF while trying to relax.

Sure.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
https://earth.org/wp-content/u...
Hahahaha

Considering there's no human in the loop, I'd argue these need INTENSIVE ethics reviews, not "none".

That's fucked up.

The scientists attribution of anything and everything to climate change based on models specifically tweaked to give them the results they want - and the complete failure of such assertions in another climate-change-related context - is 100% a salient point regarding the believability of these new claims.

And yes, at the same time it's 100% troll because /. has more or less ideologically become Reddit.

... Are these the same scientists asserting that global warming will drive more frequent and more severe weather such as hurricanes?

(He said ironically, at the peak of the 2025 hurricane when there isn't any activity in the Atlantic at all.)

Lol
"I'm a leftist bot" much?

That's the point.

There are 12 roundabouts in my MN town of 12000.

Exposed to sea level rise? OHMYGOSH! CLIMATE CHANGE!

Actually, no. https://www.wsoctv.com/news/lo...

"...Charleston is one of the fastest sinking cities in the country, with an average rate of around 4 millimeters a year or an inch every six to seven years...."
That's a subsidence of 15" a century, compared to PERHAPS a foot of sea level rise in that span.

Yet....somehow this only gets faintly mentioned then discarded mid article. It's all about sea level rise. The Guardian: "...Driven largely by sea level rise,..." and "...The sea level in Charleston rose about 13in over the past century.." (which is an ABSOLUTE LIE - the city subsided).

You wonder why people don't believe the bullshit sky-is-falling narratives about climate change, maybe stop lying on easily-checked data and we'll start to take you seriously?

...forever that "you may not see blue the way I see blue" in solipsistic ways nobody can ever prove.

This is an interesting test, but confirms that - despite the persistent meme - the logical likelihood (we see colors in basically the same ways) would be strongly selected for in evolution.

"You can eat the blue berries, don't eat the red ones" ...feels like if there was any wiggle-room in "what blue is" and "what red is" that *absolutely* would be a STRONG non-survival trait across thousands of generations.

So your assertion based on ... your insight I guess?... was that him

a) recognizing that Twitter had turned into a leftist echo chamber
b) noting that they had the ability to at whim silence the main opposition candidate
c) suspecting - later proved conclusively - that they were directly serving the mandate of the highly-politicized whims of the government in power in ways that would have made Pravda & the KGB jealous ...none of that was honest?

It's impossible to believe he was genuinely offended by the hypocrisy of people who shrilly insisted on unbounded freedom of speech simultaneously openly censoring others & decided to spend some big $ to fix it?

So, in your deep insight, when did Elon get 'turned' & why?

He was the quirky darling of the left with his tech, his electric cars, his climate change advocacy...*poof* he's now an alt-right Shylock hovering at Hitler/Trump's elbow.

How'd that happen?