Kaveren
The alternative is that you can't make documentaries about a candidate's bad climate change policy and monetize it as you would a non-contentious issue.
> That the average American has approximately zero influence in politics is a mathematical, deliberately orchestrated truth.
Neither does the individual "economic elite", defined as anyone in the top 10%.
People can complain about the two party system all they want, but ranked choice voting was just rejected in Massachusetts, the most liberal state there is (and I'd be correct to assume that Democrats have more reason to desire this than Republicans).
Gerrymandering is bad and needs to be disposed of. We aren't an oligarchy because there's some gerrymandering.
Money in politics is vastly overrated, and there isn't even that much money in the field to begin with. Bernie Sanders didn't lose his 2020 primary because of money, Trump didn't win his 2016 primary because of money.
If you think what someone answers to an opinion poll matters here, you're just wrong. Show me people voting based on these issues as a primary factor and not seeing results because politicians magically change their minds after winning.
"economic elite" is literally defined as anyone in the top 10% of income by that study. Guess what income group always votes? Those same people. And they're going to be the ones pressing for action the most. [2] And they are more educated, so it's stupid to compare public opinion like this. You need to compare expert consensus to policy and public opinion.
Not to mention the Electoral College and Senate.
What data do you expect?
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obamacare-vs-affordable-care-... [2] https://econofact.org/voting-and-income
People say a lot of things. People mostly agree with universal background checks for guns. It isn't the Evil Rich People preventing this from happening, and the NRA isn't particularly rich itself even though it's a popular bogeyman.
People talk a lot about climate change until it's time to shape policy on it. Someone answering a poll question doesn't matter, what people vote for matters.
Your argument comes from a fantasy where most people actually agree with you, but the lobbyists just prevent things from changing. In reality, many people are very poorly informed. People don't understand just how powerful political mobilization and voting is. I agree that they think voting won't do anything, but they'd be wrong about that.
compare this to actual oligarchies where opposition parties actually can't accomplish anything because they're denied access to elections, or there's legitimate election fraud, or serious voter intimidation, et cetera.
and policy outcomes being determines by random people is actually awful, the average person has absolutely no understanding of basic economics. it's not even desirable.
This is an incredibly harmful attitude towards learning, but it feels nice because it's a lot less effort than actually trying to read or listen to something to learn. It's just laziness.
Learning C++ this way is how someone would end up with a buffer overflow every 30 lines of code they write. It's the reason some self-taught developers can't give you the fuzziest definition of the difference between O(n) and O(n^2).
The closest approximation of this is how kids learn to speak, but this is incredibly inefficient, and they receive many years of formal education anyway.
they have an extremely high revenue business model off actual customers, so they don't really need to do advertising, there's plenty of other ways to get more profitable.
for example, they're at the scale where they might be able to do what Dropbox did by running more of their own infrastructure to save big.
it's not them getting special treatment purposefully. it's been on the iOS app store since 2012.
apple's policy here is a bad one. if it were fully remove, true web browser diversity could come to iOS, and roblox could finally do JIT compilation of Lua, among so many other possibilities.
that tweet threat isn't even an immediate threat.
north korea would absolutely never initiate a war over a tweet, they're fully rational.
also nice link to an article about a tweet that the president actually wanted to send, as opposed to a hacker tweeting, which would be denied by the white house within 15 minutes.
google provides all of the best services in each of its major consumer categories unless you value privacy, except when there's a major competitor. there's no hidden gem better than youtube that would scale as well.
what are they selling me
bloomingdale, washington d.c., where he got shot, has a rate of robbery almost 4x the national average, and twice the murder rate.
im sure you're an expert on crime but it is not in fact ridiculous that when a robbery is botched and someone gets shot they won't steal anything because you want to run immediately. you're sheltered.
Except this was time consuming and couldn't be done automatically in an undetectable way.
> human societies have survived without video evidence since forever
Stupid argument, we've also survived war since forever, except now a war between nuclear powers would be devastating in a way war historically wasn't. It will absolutely not be the same as it was before photos and videos.
It was clear publicly that Stone had a very inappropriate relationship with Wikileaks. What would you do, attempt to extort Stone for more than $100k and hope he pays? Leak little more than was publicly known?
There is no value in Twitter DMs.
Nobody is communicating anything valuable over Twitter. This is such a ridiculous point that people bring up all the time. Scandalous relationships? Most of that will be on true messenger applications. Business deals? Business email. Many more mainstream prominent people don't even run their own account.
It's not that everyone is so security-minded, it's just that Twitter is an extremely inconvenient way to maintain personal relationships.
> I think the Bitcoin scam was also the perfect innocuous cover story
There is almost no value in DMs. Funny seeing HN speculate about these elite hackers selling them as if there's any market for them, let alone one that would pay $100k+.
> If porn had no consequences then there wouldn't be a need for better sex education.
This is ridiculous. We'd need comprehensive sex education whether or not anyone watches porn. Before porn was trivially available online, teenagers still had plenty of sex. Sexual consent was still widely misunderstood too (and still is).
Of course pregnancy is a long lasting consequence, but if it is addressed by a program we need even without porn, it's irrelevant to porn.
> Exposure (regular or casual) to porn at a young age has some long lasting consequences.
If all you had in mind was condom usage and pregnancy, this is a bizarre choice of phrasing.
This doesn't justify the ominous phrase "some long lasting consequences".