C shaped economy implies the admin is trying to take money from the rich. No chance in hell. Trump is constantly on air talking about how he wants to keep home prices high.

I don’t think the kinds of people who still complain on CS via phone are the ones giving sony a PR crisis on Twitter

I don’t think it’s inherently bad. We don’t need to use double the world’s energy to power it (as we see with open weight models) . We don’t need to centralize it in trillion aire companies. We don’t need to leverage an entire global economy on it. We don’t need to use it to replace human labor without a proper economic model.

Those are all aspects of greed and stupidity. None of that is inherent.

But we very much do enforce times on when not to use calcs. Thars the whole point here.

nothing is good nor evil, but thinking makes it so.

But i see the issues on both sides of the aisle. Kind of like how social media is a great tool that brings about instant worldwide communication. But those merits don’t cancel out how it’s been used to exploit the human psyche, influence elections, and even coax genocides.

In this case, the downwind effects from encouraging use by mature professionals is impacting the impressionable future. And no one seems to care about the future anymore.

Haven’t done it in years, but that’s “impromptu weekend getaway with the boys” level of celebration for me.

Everyone is on a different part of the spectrum. There was the hustler or “ambitious” one who makes their whole life about work. Then lately there’s more young people completely dissolutioned on the supposed “American Dream” and just do the bare minimum to stay employed.

I think you need not necessarily passion, but a little bit of pride in what you do to keep moving and not making over a third of your best years into a soft prison. You can be prideful of a job you otherwise find mundane. But, the times of “work above and beyond and you’ll be rewarded” is also over and we need to accept that, unless you’re working for yourself (and you’re playing an even harder hustle in that case anyway).

I’m not gonna say “balance is key”, becsuse it really depends on your lifestyle. but I think most people need to find a dial between 20% and 70% and figure out where they lie for proper work-life balance.

Spend 2 generations going “we’re a family!” then ousting otherwise well performing workers. Then are stupified when the next generation no longer falls for the propoganda. Gen Z is in for a reckoning on this society.

There’s always a few people in speed limit conversations outing themselves. Do they lack the concept of riding on your breaks? How do they navigate a parking lot where you’re very likely limited to 15kph?

You don’t think the industry cares about the impact of photos like this one from the article?

We’re in a post truth society. So I question how impactful it really is these days even with video evidence. This has been fought for decades and taught in at least 2 generations of school by now, but progress is still slow.

I think that’s what they mean above. They are past the phase where they bother trying to hide it. But I’d love to be proven wrong.

It was asking for his opinion on Jon Ossoff’s statements he made last week. Which should honestly be a softball question for a politician. But ofc we continue to see how fragile that ego is

stop replying to me to argue about things I didn’t say?

you’re not who I originally responded to and you came in later in the chain. I made one reply on a public forum and you’re already all “stop talking to me”?

Come on, man.

The DOJ is not an independent branch though. It’s part of the executive branch.

Structurally, no. In spirit it is. That’s why 75% of the DOJ left over 2025, because they do not want to deal with the eventual fallout of how Trump is managing this DOJ. It’s not a case they are confident they will get out of cleanly (with their license to practice law).

To me this is one of the biggest flaws of the constitution

Yes, the constitution was kept small on purpose and a lot was left to the honor system. Under the logic that a truly tyrannous leadership could tear it down no matter how many loopholes it tries to close. Was that the right call? I can’t really say.

These can be interpreted as contradictory statements.

Sure, if you never worked at a large structure. They are professionals who talk. They are not intimate nor buddy-buddy with each other.

And they’re the same branch. That’s the point.

The same way Congress has various agencies it delegates powers to, yes. You are very technically correct.

Like those agencies, the DOJ is a non-partisan part of the otherwise partisan executive branch whose job is to represent the US in its court cases. It is not the president’s personal law firm.

but I was speaking to the specific statement.

I’m speaking generally. Becsuse this specific situation is so sleazy and utterly corrupt that it’s barely even worth analysis. But for those who don’t know: no, this is not normal, business as usual.

. I would expect if a President had a legitimate concern that they would voice that concern to the AG to investigate

Yes. The branches communicate with each other, but ultimately work independently except for very specific sync points. Or if one branch needs to check and balance another.

That is very different from meeting up with an AG for a private meeting. Let alone the conflict of Interest of being the president’s personal lawyer. This isn’t normal.

promising not to ever do it would just get them in hot water later down the road.

Yes, I’m sure it will for Todd. Much later than I wish, but later down the road indeed.

Bro. The kids are alright. Not pristine perfect beings who will being about a new era of prosperity.

Besides, why you putting it on “the kids discovered vaping”? That sounds like something a billionaire would say to deflect from the huge lobbying campaign they made to distinguish vapes from cigarettes.

with about as much irrational hate as the people they despise, like Trump.

Thanks for outing yourself. Makes it easy to just skip the conversation and not bother trying to open up a conversation made in bad faith.

I don’t think this is an argument. OP has a personal vendetta with a high pfofile figure and telling him to “calm down we need him” doesn’t remove that betrayal. He wasn’t even disagreeing with the reply. Just asserting what we all already know in that Jeffries does not have the people’s priorities in mind.

Him not being as bad as a literal nazi isn’t a high bar to meet.

For those who do not know history; it was once a huge scandal for Clinton to be seen talking with the AG. 16 years after he was president. Those so concerned about “her emails” would know this well.

And that’s not even going into “Nannygate” if you want a small rabbit hole to go down. A very tame controversy that would be cast off as a “nothing burger” today as I’m sure Trump’s cabinet have had controversies every other day at this point.

This is all to say that: no, this is not normal. It is not normal for the DoJ to be so closely affiliated with the executive branch. And watch the hypocrisy when the US magically rememberes this after Trump leaves.

You don’t see the contradiction in those two concepts?

No, not really.

I was hoping you’d take a look and figure it out but let me explain, and hope you get it.

Why would I when you didn’t give me the same grace? from what I said upstream

I just want to make sure we make distinctions between general ideas and why we actually hate the concept in the modern day.

Well here we are arguing definitions and ideas and not the reasons within these modern ads are oppressive. Not talking about the algorithmic nature of mass surveillance and privacy breaches needed to power modern ads, but “no this ad is different” surface level thinking. But if you want to talk about it, so be it.

‘Telling someone to come to your house’ specifies someONE to whom you are directing the invitation

Okay. make it a group you’re at. Throw a flyer on a telephone pole. Same deal. We had ads before the interet.

You are trying to combine two contradictory levels of specificity.

I don’t think the levels change the intent and definition of an ad. You want to tell people about a thing, you use something to tell them thing.