dhdjsbsb

No real idea then, probably just trendy and fun for the people who like it.

Others have given good replies and I think they're mostly correct. But...

>I've listened to both, and the description of vinyl or even analog sound as being generally "warmer" never resonated with me.

I feel like this is the sofar unaddressed dimension. I grew up with my grandparents so I've heard a lot of vinyl by virtue of one of them having a love for classical music. When I was younger (29 atm) I felt like the audio quality was better on vinyl. Back then, in the Walkman days, it probably was.

Now...? I think digital gets good enough to fool most would-be audiophiles in a blind test. It fools me well enough for the most part anyway. That said, I think part of the appeal of vinyl is the simplicity of setup. A good home entertainment system is expensive and even more so if you lack the skills to coordinate and install it yourself. A solid sounding record player is far from cheap but it's a lot less intimidating or laborious than a hi-fi system and it contributes to the retro aesthetic as well.

Not in the current environment no. Historically impeachment has been an optics move by the opposing party, that held true here. If you can't get the legislative branch to act with unity or get a useful case through the SCOTUS then most likely the stakes aren't actually that high in the immediate present.

On a more basic level, nothing the current POTUS has done to defend himself is something that the legislative branch couldn't take off the table in time. The country isn't burning down, the economy is fine, by any metric of genuine significance this is just an extremely unpopular president (not that I would claim he's trying to be popular).

The problem with the American system is that, short of staging a coup or actually burning the country down, pivoting before problematic people leave is hard. In my opinion this has the benefit that anything that seems like good legislation from the position of the currently weaker party will still seem like good legislation when they become the strong party again.

In terms of consequences I'm more concerned about things like both parties having noticed that executive orders are an easy way to circumvent the legislative process. My hope is that after election season is over, we'll see more challenges to executive orders that will result in firmer precedents for what a POTUS can and cannot do with an executive order.

Gross mischaractarization, that applies to individuals. The executive branch has the power to resist a subpoena. You can call that poor sportsmanship but your same article acknowledges that this bottleneck is real enough that a third choice is usually persued. Except, without a cooperative House and Senate that too can be negated. The reality is that if the Dems had a case they'd be winning in the courts.

Californians were conserving because the state government told them to everywhere, higher rates were their reward for listening. All so the state could have an easier time dealing out water to big business. The state is basically a bunch of rich interests surfing on a wave of gullibility.

Does it need a lot of explaining? Presumably the workers are in it because they need the money. If a customer hits your rating they're threatening your ability to make the money you need, so there's no reason not to ding their rating in retaliation if they ding yours. And the other workers don't have a reason to care, you're making their clients more nervous to hand out imperfect scores too.