The head of a rival organization is complaining about the funding behind his rival. I would wonder about (a) his funding, (b) his motivation behind making such a statement, and (c) the degree of bias in his perspective.

I guess this proves the premise...

I'm hearing that most of the downturn occurred before the effects of the virus were apparent (NY Times, not paywalled) - the subsequent lockdown is going to show up in reports for the quarter that's happening now, which will be reported in a couple of months (and will be horrible).

I think it's fair to say that this is Trump's economy at this point. There was a long period of economic growth since Obama's 2nd year that continued with Trump (and accelerated once various safeguards were removed), but it looks like that wasn't sustainable with the decisions that have been made over the past few years. And, of course, the coronavirus issue is nobody's fault, although there were many possible responses with various implications, and it doesn't look like the US is going to lead the way in safety (I'm almost sure we have the highest COVID-related mortality per capita in the world right now) or in economic impact.

Yes, in fact - WTF is a podcast.

wtfpod.com

And it's excellent - one of my favorites (not kidding).

Agree!

Somebody should put this on a bumper, or in a tweet.

I love this analogy - I've been talking about "The Citizen Kane Effect" for years, although my take is slightly different from yours. The premise is that groundbreaking work looks banal in retrospect, and Citizen Kane is the perfect example. Everything in that movie was a fairly radical departure from the movies that came before it (the acting, the lenses, the camera position, its use of point-of-view, etc), and it changed everything that came after.

Because of that, when modern audiences watch it, they don't see anything new or interesting or groundbreaking - it just looks like a normal movie. We've absorbed all the lessons it taught us, it's become the new normal. The same thing happens in all forms of art - watch Hill St Blues or (especially) Peyton place for TV examples, or see the work of Andy Warhol, or read Tropic of Cancer - I could go on.

This leads to a bit of a disconnect when parents try to get their kids interested in whatever blew their minds when they were young, because whatever it was is no longer likely to be mind-blowing. The pace of change has increased, which just magnifies this effect.

Anyhow, sorry for the tangent, I was just very excited to see the reference.

I'm a little baffled by the premise here - are you claiming that the First Amendment protects robocalling by politicians because it's political speech, but doesn't protect robocalls from the Jehovah's Witnesses or Planned Parenthood? Not that I've ben robocalled by either of those groups, but why not? If it's Amazon robocalling to tell me about a sale, is that the part of the spectrum where the problem is? How about the American Nazi party robocalling me to tell me about their beliefs and an upcoming rally? Please help me understand why carving out an exception for my senator to robocall me is protected, but these other forms of free speech are not.

[Disclaimer - I would be happier to hear from Amazon than from the Nazis, these are examples, not my wishes.]

I think the interesting question here isn't whether these people have the right to express their opinions and to gather peacefully, it's where we draw the line between those rights - and the use of my property to do so. I don't see how politicians have any particular claim to cross that line, other than the fact that they're the ones making the rules and exempting themselves. In my reading, this has little to nothing to do with the Constitution, despite your claims.

Was it worth $50k to you? One could argue that you wouldn't be here to write this lovely tome without that surgery...

(Untreated appendicitis is definitely not always fatal, which is why it's an argument, not a fact.)

>Rule #1 of calling people out for their misuse of the English language on the internet: make sure your own house is in order first.

You want to capitalize the first word after a colon when it begins a new sentence.

Rule #1 of calling people out for their misuse of the English language on the internet: First, make sure your own house is in order.

"Ozark" is surprisingly good on Netflix. It got mediocre reviews, but it was very well-done and different, and fun to watch, and engaging. Great acting. Great writing. Kind of like HBO used to be. Second season is under production, we're looking forward to it.

...and unfortunately, the science isn't nearly as compelling as we had hoped it would be, when it comes to the health benefits of low glycemic index diets...

This is pretty correct, although it's only the glucose component of most sugars that causes insulin release. Sucrose ("sugar") is half glucose, half fructose. The fructose is processed in the liver before it can enter the bloodstream, where it is stored as glycogen and triglycerides. These come with their own problems, but insulin release is not one of them.

I agree with the overall premise, but there's a detail in here that's worth arguing about. There was essentially no diabetes in third world countries at all until they adopted Western style diets with high sugars. Even then, it was usually the aristocratic class in these countries that developed diabetes, as they were the first to adopt our diets. The US and other Western countries have led the way in diet-related diseases, we don't give ourselves nearly enough credit...

Although rabbits can eat and digest meat, they are herbivores by nature. Forcing them to eat meat probably leads to conclusions that cannot easily be generalized to humans.