All the colleges are pretty much land trusts designed to extract money from kids with loans. There is no concern for educating anyone as the teaching staff is underpaid across the board and most of the money sucked up by leadership and sports teams that do nothing for most of the athletes even let alone the students.
Silicon Valley dropouts and well connected wealthy people make college educated people look like fools. The Feds are trying to end the Dept of Education while boosting the Big Tech AI companies.
Department of Education has no control over curriculum. Its for financing student loans. Abolishing the Department of Education and various regulations they impose on schools at all levels, could actually help curb the excessive admin and leadership hiring that you complain about in the first section.
No I think it’ll just make schools more expensive and students more in debt as the banks look to charge young people with high interest rates, thus feeding the college land-trusts.
The real solution should be to make college education as free as possible instead of spending money on forever wars and $488B on DHS and the cowards who work for them.
Downvoted but absolutely correct. This is what happens when you neglect working people's needs, they will always side with the authoritarian that promises a better future. Neoliberals need to be purged from the DNC if they ever want actual power like the New Deal Coalition held onto (controlled both Houses of Congress for 60 years, won 10/12 Presidential elections with their candidates too).
Nixon literally won his election by promising national price controls. The people love economic relief, even just the promise is enough to win elections.
He’s never achieved a majority vote in any election, FWIW. His claim of a mandate was just as brazen as all the other litany of lies - he’s a lame duck lame duck. The true shame is on the congressional republicans for letting him sully them so deeply and follow him in his self immolation of the entire government and America in the world. The rebuilding will be a major test of the successor, and it’ll be fascinating to see if the Goldwater republicans can become the party of reason again rather than this reality TV idiocracy.
> The true shame is on the congressional republicans for letting him sully them so deeply and follow him in his self immolation of the entire government and America
This is the problem when your entire identity and principles boil down to "doing what the social superior tells you to".
His party knows the system and focuses on getting elected instead of focusing on getting the popular vote, because the popular vote doesn't elect you...
During the election Trump denied knowing anything about Project 2025 and he has enacted a lot of it. I dont know why voters trusted him on that but here we are.
It’s not. It’s because he took inflation to the Moon. If he hadn’t had Hegseth at his side, and hadn’t gone into Iran, he’d probably still be treading water.
It wasn’t solely Biden that created that spike. Trump passed the CARES act that minted close to 3 trillion in his final year of his first term. Biden passed a trillion dollar bill too. I don’t blame them since it was to combat covid. I’m not jumping for joy because it’s half, I’m mad because it’s ticking back up.
Biden absolutely signed a series of inflationary bills into law and then didn’t do anything to mitigate it. (The initial Covid relief kept us out o a depression.)
Biden’s inflation peaked worse than anything Trump has done. But telling voters you’re only slapping them after the other guy punched them is about as effective as you’d think. (There is zero sense of urgency from the White House around this either.)
> Inflation under Trump is half that of when Biden was in
And how did that work out for Biden?
Voters don’t like inflation. Blowing up energy prices by launching a war of choice while shutting down domestic production because windmills isn’t smart policy.
Actual or stated? The article lists a lot of things whose prices went up more under Trump 2 than Biden - regardless of what CPI data from the Trump government says.
Uh, wouldn't that be the same? Let's say factually and statistically. In any case, I posted that to balance what the other guy said which was misleading at best
And won via a plurality after losing the popular vote in the last election. The least popular president in history can’t win a majority of popular vote. It’s not shocking he’s deeply unpopular, he never was popular. He’s a won twice on a technicality of the republic created to ensure the rural states wouldn’t be dominated by Virginia in the original establishment of the union.
He’s a pariah everywhere on earth, most especially at home. The sad part is the democrats couldn’t mount a successful campaign against someone so unfit to lead. Now there’s nothing left to do but clean up the mess and undo the terrible harm he has caused and repair what can be once he’s finally out of our hair.
"We did vote". Except that an extraordinary number of people that could vote, didn't. So when somebody says "vote, people", they're obviously talking to those people that chose not to vote.
I think my idea for this is that a candidate doesn’t win the election unless they get more than 50% of all eligible votes, not 50% of the votes cast. If there is no clear winner the seat is vacant, but a new election is scheduled for two weeks later. Districts and states that don’t care to vote simply don’t get a say.
> I think my idea for this is that a candidate doesn’t win the election unless they get more than 50% of all eligible votes, not 50% of the votes cast.
This would think out the representation significantly, and applied to presidential voting would be rather dificult. The highest share of eligible voters in US history to support a US President is 42.6% for Ulysees S. Grant (Harrison and McKinley both close behind with +40%). Not one President has ever broken the 50% of eligble voters mark, and even those presidents that won in relative landslides in the EC (Washington, Monroe, Roosevelt, Reagan, Nixon) all had shares of the eligible votes that were in the 30%’s.
Yes and the idea would be to change both politician and voter behavior. To me these arguments are like saying that because we have always put water into round glasses it would never fit in a square one.
Understood and appreciate the reply. It’s a very high bar to clear, though.
In Australia where there is compulsory voting (and fines for not voting) the turn out in the most recent national election was about 91%. If you have to get 50% of the eligible voters this means attracting about 55% of the ones who do turn up and vote.
In that same country, only 1 (Sydney) of the 172 seats in the House of Represenatives was won by a candidate with more than 55% of the vote but turnout in that district was ‘only’ 87.4%. Even though the candidate won 55% of the 87% of eligible vote, she fell 3700 votes short of winning 50% of all eligible voters.
Australia make it compulsory to vote and easy to vote, too, and they still can’t get everyone to the polls. And even in the safest seat in the country, you still have the clear winner - the second place candidate was 34 points back! - falling short of the 50% of eligible voters mark.
Grandted, Australia is a different system to the US, but I would be interested to understand how you imagine you could get people to vote when the threat of fines and prosecution still sees countries like Australia fall 10% short of perfect attendance, and then why setting a higher bar than 50% + 1 vote results in a better system.
I suspect one way might be to make it very easy to vote, expensive (in fines or in criminal penalties) to not vote, and then to restrict the number of candidates to a two. But the downsides to that (forcing people to make a political choice or be fined, offering only two options in a complex world) seem significant, too.
Scored approval voting takes care of ten candidates. And sure let’s say after 3 elections with no winner fines could be imposed too, Australia style. But I would hope that having no representation while having the opportunity to have representation would be motivation enough.
It was more like Obama was so cool and had so much panache he won despite having an extremely incompetent team...and then both he and his team believed he won because of them and proceeded to self-sabotage the DNC from within.
To be clear, I'm not excusing him. I think he was very cool indeed but ultimately a weak president that lacked in leadership before and after his term
It depends on the context, but I think the heart of leftism/rightism is described by the idea of slave/master morality described by nietzsche and others.
In our nation it's a bit different, because the right wing is also seen as christian while the left-wing is more athiest. I would chalk that down to a certain duality that exists within each wing, which I think is desirable.
No, and I'm not sure why you're purposefully being obtuse.
To be clear, they're baiting because their reply starts with "oh yeah?" which is a clear indication they are not truly willing to hear a different argument.
I think that leftists are motivated by some animosity for winners that makes them worship losers. So whatever strategy they develop tends to be ineffective in the long run. Whenever some figure breaks out and becomes effective at accomplishing some purported goal, leftists have to dis-associate with them.
Elon musk is an example. I don't think elon ever had an allegiance to the right wing, but he was basicially forced into some right wing alliance after far-left became critical of him for being a successful industrialist. It was breakup that basicially didn't need to happen if the left was more unified and diplomatic in their relations. Compare that to how right wingers dealt with their disagreements with him over immigration: it's not like the whole right wing shattered due to purity tests. Elon's worldview is essentially that of 2010s neoliberal reddit, same of Joe Rogan and whatever other figures that have supposedly "turned to the dark side".
Like for example, I think you could solve environmental problems more effectively by tricking the right wing into believing they were always environmentalists then by supporting leftist-environmental causes which have a tendency to devolve into grievance politics about natives and biodiversity and such. I think intersectionality is probably one of the worst memes spawned from leftist academia, it just feeds into attention seeking behavior and basicially prevents leftists from holding any reasonable goals within their own group.
But mostly I think the problem is like I said earlier, the emergence of control freaks. Like they try too hard to control the discussion and enact censorship, and most people see through that. It's like people who think they are smart by conciously moving the overton window to the left, but it actually invites a disproportinate response away from them. Thats how I would describe the current socio-political situation.
If this was in another country that is not predominantly inhabited by people of western/central European heritage, US mainstream media would've been calling these "undercover" agents the "secret police" or "stasi" or some other term heavily connotated with tyranny and oppression.
The C-suites are all nuts for LLMs. The craziest ones are trying to force their employees to adopt and be constantly sharing novel uses of Llms. What I have mostly seen as the usage by most coworkers usually involves using AI to take their notes and create a presentation or automate some tedious work. Essentially glue and pipe software program output together. One use case in particular had a coworker building find/replace macros by feeding slideshow slides to the agent describing how the macro should work. C-suite eats this shit up because they’re using “AI at work!”.
Im absolutely convinced the further you are way from the ground floor - the more delusional you are re. AI's capabilities and abilities w.r.t contribution.
The C suite does not understand the technology they just listen to the hype. It’s like using AI as a subject matter expert and knowing when it’s wrong, to using it as a novice, the models are so confident when they’re wrong users will believe anything it says.
it's always been like that. the more we know about the technology, the more sceptical we get. there are exceptions of course, on both sides. people who are critical and educate themselves, and on the other side those who make money off it, or believe they can make money off it.
fortunately recently i also have seen a bunch of articles arguing that AI hasn't helped any company yet save money.
If you did that then you probably made clear your reasons which probably created mindshare with others which probably has helped the EU open up the iPhone. Don’t be so defeatist because the outcome isn’t immediately apparent.
I'm not being defeatist; I'm pretty much arguing for what you're saying, which is that I think government intervention is needed. The parent comment I was responding to said that regulation isn't needed because voting with our wallets is sufficient, and I was disagreeing.
Convincing people to vote with their wallets is much easier than convincing them to write their pols to make laws. The latter is much harder while the former allows a message to be spread. Should people do both? Yes.
Sure, I just don't see how you read my comments as inconsistent with that viewpoint though. Literally the only point I was trying to make was that when a parent comment said regulation is necessary, and someone responded "No it's not. You can vote with your wallet right now.", I thought that was a very weak counterargument to the idea that we needed regulation.
The responses to my rebuttal are honestly confusing to me; one person seems to think that I'm arguing against voting with your wallet (which seems bizarre, given that my comment was literally saying that's something I actively do), one person seems to think I introduced the idea that Apple should have a more open ecosystem to the conversation rather than inheriting it as a premise from the grandparent comment, and one person upvoted my comment. I have absolutely no clue how three different people managed to read something completely different from my comment when the context and content seems clear to me, but I guess I'm missing something here because the point that I thought would be apparent is not consistently being understood.
> this has done absolutely nothing to change how open the iPhone is.
And tell me how that doesn’t sound defeatist or come off as giving up on voting with your wallet.
I can only speak for my replies but you were too concise on your opinion that it spawned multiple interpretations. Brevity breeds misinterpretations or something or other.
> And tell me how that doesn’t sound defeatist or come off as giving up on voting with your wallet.
"This" has done nothing doesn't imply "nothing will do anything". From my perspective, it sounds like you basically were assuming that anything I didn't explicitly repeat from the parent comments was no longer relevant, whereas I would have assumed that it would be noisy and annoying for me to repeat it directly.
Pal, I’m not going to keep discussing this because I have nothing left to add. I don’t know why your comment was interpreted 3 different ways, but it looks like you are resistant to taking any blame for authoring the comment. So what is there left to discuss? We’re all here to annoy you I guess is what you’ve concluded.
No, I'm honestly more confused about you to a degree much more than how my comment was interpreted. Over time, the responses to my comment seem to have stabilized closer to what I'd expect, but as far as I can tell you seem to be saying one thing and doing another, so it's hard for me to feel like I'm understanding where you're coming from on any level.
Writing things down is handwriting. You perhaps mean “typing things out” as in using a keyboard. You get some benefits from typing things out but you don’t get many others, as handwriting requires you literally think about each letter and word as it is constructed and which actions you need to take to construct the letters and words. If I type, I type it and forget about it by design moving on to the next word not worrying at all about it. Handwriting essentially trains you to see, think, and understand longterm chains of thought; essentially deep focus on what you are doing while thinking about what is coming next. Typing only produces shortterm. Shortterm thought pairs well with brain dumping, such as on Twitter, which ends up being pretty valueless in the longterm.
You state this with such conviction, do you have some sources for this? As I wrote in my other comment, that 2014 study is often cited here, but it did not replicate well.
I wonder how much bias there is in the science here. I certainly can think better with pen and paper versus computer but I’m 45 and my whole schooling through to postgrad was done with pen, paper and blackboard. It seems very plausible that digital natives from childhood will think just as well at a keyboard (maybe better since they’ll be less practiced with pen and paper).
All I hear when I read the “but it’s just a useful tool” takes is “hey it’s fine if we use LLMs to kill people and take away their dignity and ability to make a living because it generates documents for me”.
The new version of Epic is based on Tauri. Also written in JS and probably React (haven't decompiled it yet) but the web runtime is part of Windows instead of shipped with the app so it takes less disk space and RAM. And you can write perf sensitive code in Rust for even more speedup.
Tauri uses a system installed browser instead of shipping a separate separate copy with every application. That allows memory to actually be shared instead of duplicated when you have multiple apps using it, and it automatically gets security updates.
But then whats the difference of running an application in Tauri vs just loading up a website? It’s just mimicking a real native application without the benefits because I have to load up a browser. I already have a browser, no I don’t want your browser wrapper.
Interesting, I didn't know they moved to a Chromium based desktop application. But honestly, I don't feel like there's any performance issues with the steam desktop client (I'm running it on Fedora, but I'm assuming performance is relatively similar on different platforms).
I definitely don’t leave the resource hog Steam running, because it can be slow and terrible. I turned off Steam Overlay and Notifications to get substantial speed up improvements.
reply