I enjoy long walks through nuance and strong opinions politely debated. I like people who argue to understand, not just to win. Bring your curiosity and I’ll bring mine.
If fast-food workers began earning wages comparable to electricians, I wouldn’t necessarily expect electricians to become poorer. I’d expect employers who depend on skilled labor to increase compensation to remain competitive. The question then becomes whether those higher labor costs come from reduced profits, increased prices, greater productivity, or some combination of all three.
Anyway, it is better for all workers.
Trump probably thinks he’s above the rules, so of course he’d want to keep the solid gold microphone Xi gave him with the plaque that says “The Greatest Speeches Ever.”
He probably thinks it would look great on his desk.
Honestly, with how often they use the emergency shadow docket these days, I was surprised they even tried to give the illusion of merit.
Now Roberts is saying "the public should trust us! ".
Nope. This is what ruling without merit gets you. Distrust.
That kind of “no hope” thinking is how nothing changes. If you believe something would make the country better, then it’s worth more than just a passing comment.
You’ve got your own voice. Use it. In a system like ours, that means being able to explain your position and defend it when it’s challenged.
Otherwise you’re not really standing for anything, you’re just agreeing in theory and giving up in practice.
You have your voice. They haven’t taken that away yet. Use it effectively.
The CCP didn’t just subsidize cheap cars. They built out the manufacturing capacity to produce them at scale.
As China’s demographics shifted and long-term labor supply came into question, they leaned heavily into automation and industrial efficiency.
That’s the real reason these cars are so inexpensive. It’s not just lower prices, it’s a fundamentally different cost structure driven by scale, integration, and advanced manufacturing.
What’s unsettling competitors isn’t cheap cars themselves.
It’s the ability to consistently produce cars more cheaply than anyone else.
Humiliation? Like he’s capable of it. He tweeted they were dumb as he left. As far as he’s concerned, he won.
Holy shit. Sometimes the stars align and the right article appears. Your account and history is chefs kiss.
They say anything to get into power. Literally anything. None of it matters and they know it.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
“Politician Ignites Explosive Firestorm With Routine Decision as Critics Slam Controversial Move, Outrage Erupts Nationwide, Panic Surges Over Alleged Hidden Agenda and Demands for Answers Detonate Across a Shocked Public”
Translation:
“A politician carried out a routine administrative action. A small number of opponents criticized the choice publicly. Some people posted complaints online. Nothing about the situation indicates any misconduct.”
This argument persists because it is easier to believe that everything is rigged than to engage with the complexity of political institutions. It provides an emotionally satisfying shortcut, but it collapses under even a minimal amount of empirical scrutiny.
As someone who recently made the switch with zero Linux experience, I completely agree.
I’m one of the few who has had it at the top for as long as I can remember. It absolutely infuriated me to find out the feature had been removed.
I am beyond tired of seeing “raises ethical concerns” every time something blatantly corrupt happens. I understand Reuters and AP want to sound neutral, but at this point that phrasing just feels like polite fiction. When the president’s son-in-law is financing a $108 billion media takeover that the president himself may influence through antitrust review, that is not a vague “ethical concern.” That is a direct, structural conflict of interest in plain sight. The soft language does not make it responsible journalism anymore. It makes it feel like reality is being systematically understated.
This didn’t happen overnight. For over 20 years, Intuit has fought tooth and nail to stop Americans from having a truly free, government-run tax filing system. Back in the early 2000s, they lobbied Congress and cut a deal with the IRS. They were promising to offer a “Free File” option so the government wouldn’t build its own system. Then they turned around and buried that option so deep most people never found it, even using code to hide it from Google.
When people did try to file for free, they were steered into paid versions with deceptive “free, free, free” ads. They were so deceptive that Intuit had to pay $141 million in settlements. Now, after decades of manipulation, Direct File is being terminated. This is exactly what they’ve wanted all along. It’s the result of relentless lobbying, lies, and corporate greed, all to keep Americans paying for something that should have been free from the start.
Saying “supply and demand” as if that settles the issue is reductive. It tells us prices moved, not why the market is structured this way. The real questions are what’s driving demand, who controls supply, and how concentrated power has become. When three suppliers and a handful of effectively unlimited buyers dominate the entire market, with weak or absent regulatory intervention, Econ 101 stops being analysis and starts becoming a thought-terminating cliché.