I doubt adding paywalls and more 3rd parties will help reverse the trend of rising healthcare costs. But also, just why? Why not keep this information that our tax dollars have already paid for in the public domain? I thought we were supposed to care about efficiency and that information wanted to be free.
I agree with what you say here, but think there is more to it than just Trump himself. A complicit media, key backers in congress, and the courts went a long way to sanitizing his reputation over since the events of January 6th.
Beyond right-wing media's unrelenting support for him, plenty of other media outlets had no problem playing up (and probably helping to drive) economic vibes in favor of dry statistics of economic indicators. (Not that the economy has been perfect for everyone, but the post-covid recovery in America broadly seems to have done as well or better than most other countries.) Then you have the NYT running headlines like "Parkinson’s Expert Visited the White House Eight Times in Eight Months". Even if every word in such an article is entirely factual, we're clearly well into the media environment where social media and cable news networks will splash this headline (and largely only the headline) all over the place. It was clearly an editorial decision to have headlines like this dominating coverage for more than a month while Trump was ranting about Hannibal, sharks, and windmills at his rallies.
Of course the Senate and McConnell could have tried his impeachment while he was still in office at a time when it seemed like even his most ardent supporters in the media were trying to figure out how to spin things. Instead, they waited until he was out of office and then said "hey, this isn't our problem any more, let the courts handle it".
Which brings us to the courts. Without key allies like Judge Cannon (delaying and even dismissing his documents retention case) and SCOTUS (first delaying and then jumping in to intentionally tie both of Jack Smith's hands behind his back in the conspiracy case with their immunity ruling), the American public would have had far more public information to base their decision on. Plenty of his base seems to be immune to facts and evidence, but with more of this evidence in the public sphere it is certainly possible that enough swing voters would have rejected the "witch hunt" narrative.
Finally, there is the post-covid effect worldwide of incumbent parties being driven out. So yeah, I definitely think Trump's ability to manifest his reality distortion field played a large role, but he was far from acting alone. Once Trump is no longer relevant maybe we'll see that he alone was capable of wielding these superpowers, but many of these dynamics and existing power players seem poised to outlive him and I fear there is a deep well of savvy opportunists looking to replicate his success.
you're right of course, I think part of it is illustrated when you see how many of the rest of these folks changed their tune about trump in 2016 when it was clear he could bring his supporters on board. Some of those original opinions of trump were not favorable and he only turned the tide of "opinion" when the voters showed up, putting in quotes because some of that tide turning seemed shallow and opportunistic, like "better on the trump train than under its wheels."
Yes this has been planned for a while. But accelerating the existing schedule by 4 or 5 years would almost certainly result in a large increase to the existing $843 million dollar contract that Space X has. Elon definitely has a conflict of interest here.
Do you give the same benefit of the doubt to the 10s of thousands of civil servants who have already been abruptly fired without cause? Do you assume that they are capable and productive members of their departments who have been making good faith efforts to improve the lives of their fellow Americans? If so, then shouldn't the administration take a bit more than 30 days of careful analysis and deliberation before declaring their jobs wasteful and fraudulent?
Well RH is already locked into this level of maintenance support for existing RHEL releases. By dropping Xorg support now, they can fully drop this effort in a decade plus. If they keep Xorg support in new releases, it keeps pushing that horizon out further and further.
Chrome now has the same 4 week release cycle as well [1], so they will probably continue to stay close. I know Firefox sometimes adds a week to their cycle due to holidays (especially around Christmas and the New Year). I don't know if Chrome does the same.
Yes. Proponents of abortion (a neutral term) use terms that minimize the actions they are taking to deceive and lessen the guilt of what they are doing.
* terminating the life of a fetus isn't "infanticide" it's a "choice"
* an abortion clinic isn't "an execution center" it's "a medical center"
* people who are against abortion aren't "pro-life" they're "anti-choice"
* abortion isn't "child murder" it's "healthcare"
They do this to normalize their actions. If they spent one second contemplating what they are doing from a neutral point of view it would be terrifying. A la "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream".
Wow, it's incredible just how much you're warping language.
> terminating the life of a fetus isn't "infanticide" it's a "choice"
To make abortion sound worse, you redefine infanticide. Encyclopedia Britannica says: "infanticide, the killing of the newborn" - notice how being born is a necessary precondition?
> an abortion clinic isn't "an execution center" it's "a medical center"
Yes, just like any other place that does healthcare.
> people who are against abortion aren't "pro-life" they're "anti-choice"
Yes, you want to take people's choice away.
> abortion isn't "child murder" it's "healthcare"
Yes, because the child develops during pregnancy, it's not there from the moment of conception. Makes it pretty difficult to murder a child if there is no child yet.
But that's what you have to do to make your arguments work - there is no logical basis, so you have to warp everything around you to hopefully find some way to manipulate those around you.
"using your real name" was changed to "using a known identity". And from the commit message:
> And despite the language, we've always accepted nicknames and
that language was never meant to be any kind of exclusionary wording. [...] Just simplify the wording to the point where it shouldn't be causing
unnecessary angst and pain, or scare away people who go by preferred
naming.
That wording would lead me to believe that Asahi Lina as a pseudo-anonymous vtuber would not qualify for upstreaming. It sounds like they want to allow people to use preferred names that might not match their legal name but still are tied to their physical person.
