The GOP still has it as official policy to blame anything they can on Bill Clinton (who was POTUS at that time), if it cannot be blamed on Biden or Obama. It's no surprise that conservatives in Miami would place blame for their problems on a mayor who left in 1998.

In November 2022 I bought a 14tb WD USB external at a local brick and mortar retailer for $199.99. The cheapest it has been since then is $249.99. As of this morning that drive is selling for $279.99.

Yes I know that SSDs and HDDs are made on different assembly lines, with few of the same parts. However they do have overlapping demand. If SSD prices are plummeting that should shift more consumers in that direction away from HDDs. Yet the HDDs prices still haven't come down to where they were over 2 years ago.

Simply asking if people "trust" AI is a strange thing to ask. That's like asking if I trust the DMV. Do I trust the DMV to properly issue me a driver's license? Sure. Do I trust the DMV to prepare a hamburger? No, that isn't their job.

Yet similarly a lot of people imagine AI to be doing (or about to do) tasks that it is not capable of doing yet. AI is of course really really good at pattern recognition. AI is far less skilled at accurately drawing conclusions from certain types of patterns. Would I trust AI to come up with a good driving route from my house to the grocery store? Sure. Would I want AI to drive my car? No.

So what are we asking people with this question? Do you trust AI at all, or completely, or something in between? The results seem to be only a collection of "yes" and "no" answers.

Almost every person who calls the Chinese government "Communist" is a conservative from the US. They call it that because the word "Communist" has a completely different meaning to those people than it did to Marx, Lenin, or anyone else who ever tried to establish true Communism anywhere.

This really is just an extension to the war on the English language, which is just an extension of the Culture Wars that they are so happily promoting and recruiting fighters for.

It's never existed in China, or in any other country on a nationwide scale. That said, it was never Marx's goal to establish it in a large country - he actually wrote the Manifesto with Germany in mind. Likely the purest form of Communism I have ever seen is in the shared ownership society of the Hutterites, and their colonies rarely exceed several dozen people before splitting off.

One can call Trump dangerous and that's fine. Calling him stupid in public - if you are yourself a public figure - is very dangerous. Trump is indeed an idiot, and an impulsive one at that. He doesn't study matters that he acts on, he just acts on them and then moves on to the next disaster. He's a toddler who happens to be using the nuclear football.

If he were even of average intelligence and curiosity he would have at least learned something useful about federal and global politics when he was previously POTUS, yet he did not. He learned nothing while in office, and will learn nothing this time as well.

It doesn't matter how many people pay attention to him that disagree with him, his power doesn't come from there. it matters how many people who agree with him pay attention to him. Getting his followers to stop paying attention to him is all but impossible; really the best we can do is try to prevent more people from joining his cult.

Out of the three billionaires that were at the inauguration to pledge infinite love to the new POTUS, Zuckerberg was actually the least wealthy of the group. People who are sufficiently tech savvy to move away from facebook have been blocking ads on there for years anyways, so he wasn't making money off of them. Until you can get ordinary people to leave you won't make any meaningful impact.

Even worse is the idea that leaving twitter (or x.com) somehow impacts Musk. He is so diversified in his investments that if twitter (or x.com) went down permanently this evening it wouldn't make a meaningful difference to him.

In case you hadn't heard, those three billionaires collectively made over $200 billion just since December.

If you ever questioned whether or not the game is rigged, you should have all the evidence you need now to answer that question. The only difference is this time the person running to show is far, far, too stupid to know how to mask it.

Absolutely, there is no one thing that makes driving in snow safe and practical; you need to apply several things at once to get the best result. You could drive like a maniac with snow tires and still end up in a ditch. You could drive well but not allow appropriate (increased!) following distance and still end up rear ending someone. I have found the best combination is generally

• Experience
• Snow tires
• Experience
• ABS
• Experience
• Extra caution
• Experience
• More experience

Of course gaining the experience can be challenging. As you noted some areas (including mine as well) don't have winter like they used to, which makes it difficult to prepare for winter storms like we used to get.

I know I set myself up for that one, but I've actually driven them year-round in some of the snowiest parts of the country. It's amazing what quality snow tires can do; I had a 5.0L V8 with a manual transmission and 4.10 rear end gears that had better snow traction with snow tires than a brand new Subaru with all-season tires.

That said I've also driven the newest Mustang (as a rental car) with the turbo 4. That car would absolutely blow the doors off my best earlier Mustang - it's no mystery how so many young drivers end up wrapping them around trees.

If you check the vehicles that Ford sells in the US, you'll find the Mach E is the closest thing Ford is selling to a traditional sedan right now. The Crown Vic was axed years ago, as was the Taurus. The Fusion and the Focus went away some time ago as well.

You could argue that the Mach E is on the tall side for a sedan, but it isn't quite as tall as an Escape and it fills a different niche.

I am a bit of a fan of Ford - I've owned 3 Mustangs (none of which have ever been crashed) - and I agree with the point that comparing the Mach E to the Mustang doesn't make a lot of sense for several reasons. However if you look at the current American portfolio for Ford it's not a big surprise that the Mach E is a top seller for them; if a customer walks in wanting to buy a sedan the Mach E is the most logical choice.

Apple sells an ecosystem, and arguably a lifestyle as well. Yes they want you to buy their products, but they even more so want you to keep buying their products. And the more you use their products the more you are likely to keep going back. Spend enough time with Apple products, and they expect you'll take more fondness to them. If you bought an iPhone 11 but not an iPhone 12, then something went wrong. They want every customer to be a repeat customer.

I recall some 25 or so years ago they even had a "macadvocate" program, where they were recruiting users to essentially sell the products for them. Some of the recruited folks would even go to the Apple Store at CompUSA (during the short time period where CompUSA was the only retailer who sold Apple) and help sales folks on their own time because they thought the product was that good. That is a level of consumer dedication I've never seen anywhere else. Even owners of Subaru or Tesla cars don't love their purchases enough to do that.

Absolutely, 100% without a doubt correct on that. The more time you waste there the more money they make off you, even if you don't ever send them money directly.

Which company succeeds in wasting more of our time, Apple or Facebook? That is absolutely the primary goal of the latter, and a big driver of profit for the former as well. It sounds like he's just trying to claim that they could waste even more of our time if Apple wasn't so mean and blocking some of their efforts to do so on a very specific market.

I'm not sure why you feel justified in this degree of condescension. You made a claim, and then your own links failed to support it. I pointed out how they failed to support it and now you're attacking me, while trying to play the victim card. I could try to continue to believe that you are not a conservative who just wants to waste my time, but you're making that increasingly more difficult to believe with every partisan link you share.

Your second link - to the White House budget - also plainly failed to support your central argument. You were trying to claim that all democrats are trying to stop using the word "woman", yet you pointed to a document that used it 19 times. You tried to claim that the democrats are universally trying to substitute "birthing person", yet that phrase in the same document came up only once and when we looked at the full text it was clearly being used to precisely refer to a woman who is in the process of birthing a child. In other words your second argument fell flat as well. Just because you found partisan authors who were trying to make political hay out of that phrase that was used once doesn't mean there is hay to be made in front of objective people who can read analytically.

I have already conceded that there was plenty wrong with the Harris campaign - including their choice for VP - and that the democrats did plenty wrong. Yet the argument you're trying to make here is that I am a terrible excuse for a human being for not agreeing with every point you are trying to make, and that I am even worse for daring to read in to the links you provide and show how they don't actually support your argument.

In other words, you are the same kind of narrow-minded person that you are accusing the democrats of being run by. If the democrats are to run a large-tent party they need to be accepting of other people's views, which you clearly are not.