I think it’s clear he’s a fan of Apple and Tesla but he does make negative statements about them, the Cyber truck was not a positive review and he always criticized the fit and finish of Teslas. And he critiques Apple’s idiosyncracies like the proprietary charger and lack of calculator app on the iPad.

I guess my point is that he’s not a journalist he’s a reviewer, we are tuning in for his judgement, his opinion. If he personally likes the products from a certain company, that’s not a bias that impacts his capacity to do his job well.

Like movie reviewer giving Pixar a bunch of 10/10 reviews, and then criticizing Cars 2 as a mediocre cash grab. Maybe they are biased for Pixar, or maybe Pixar just puts out a lot of good movies. As long as you’re calling out the bad moves, that’s what we want from a reviewer.

The fair concern is when he gets exclusive access like this, I don’t necessarily care about the puff piece interview but you hope it doesn’t influence his future reviews.

The last time he was in the wider media discussion was because he negatively reviewed the Fisker Ocean and the Humane Pin and people were calling him a company killer.

1. It’s a very progressive district, that’s how she got elected in the first place. This is not a surprise.

2. I bet my politics fit closer to the other guy, but I’d still vote for AOC between the two because she has a national influence and disproportionate power in the Caucus. If you’re actually voting to influence Congress towards helping your district in particular, AOC might get that done even if it’s secondary to her national political project. Some moderate guy in a safe D seat would absolutely never get anything for your district.

The one example I’m familiar with is a name brand ice cream company that produces the store brand ice cream too…in that case the recipe is different, cheaper ingredients to cut costs to the bare minimum. But using the machines for a higher volume saves money.

I’m sure ‘same exact item’ does happen too but just ‘same manufacturer’ doesn’t mean exactly the same item.

Can’t believe Harriet Tubman got all that infrastructure up.

If you’re saying “you should not restrict ALL culture to rich people” then, we’re not. There is plenty of culture available for free on YouTube, or on broadcast TV channels, or FreeVee. And paying for one paid subscription doesn’t make you rich, $10/mo or whatever is an accessible price for a subset of digital media to a non-rich person. And those libraries are sufficiently large that you would not run out of material to watch even if you only had one service.

If you’re saying “everyone should be provided literally all digital content for free at all times” that is a pretty extreme position which does sort of break the economics of any content being produced. Digital content would have to be plastered in way more ads or be government subsidized or something to have the money to make more of it. That’s not a political position I’d be on board with.

If you just want the current system but with you being allowed to download the stuff you want to see on services you don’t pay for…again, there’s an argument for that, but let’s not pretend it’s some high minded one. It’s selfish. You probably have the money to pay for HBO Max for one month to watch the new Game of Thrones and the Barbie movie but you don’t want to pay money and it’s really easy not to.

That doesn’t track at all. I can’t afford a Lamborghini so the need arises for access to stolen Lamborghinis for cheap? It’s absolutely not a need, you can just go without or only access the free media that is available to you. In the car example, I can just buy an old Civic.

If it’s stealing bread to feed your family that is one thing, because it’s an actual need. If it’s getting stuff because you want the more expensive version instead of the version you can afford, there’s no need there.

The ethical argument is that there’s no one harmed because you can’t afford it anyway. It’s not that you need it like a starving man’s bread.

If there was no DEMAND it wouldn’t exist. It exists illegally specifically because it can’t be done legally at the price point. That doesn’t mean anyone needs it, all the content is presumably available elsewhere. It just costs money and people don’t want to pay money.

I don’t want to pay money either, I’m just not high minded about it.

I feel like weight class doesn’t do it. Women have higher body fat %. Is a welterweight woman athletically equivalent to a welterweight man? I don’t think so.

Fortunately and unfortunately, there have been so many changes and breakthroughs on solar power over the last 50 years that this doesn’t really tell us much about current technology.

It’s not “above the law” when the penalty is still within the range of punishments listed in the law broken. The former president and/or nominee would still be punished according to the law, just at the lower bound allowed by judicial discretion.

I know what I’m about to say is not going to get a ton of love here buuuut…

I’d argue that if you’re a former president, you SHOULD get deferential sentencing. Too much potential for abuse otherwise. Imagine if Trump won in 2024 and suddenly Biden’s document retention case got re-opened and he got the harshest possible sentence.

Similarly but separately, major party nominees should get deferential sentencing. It’s an influence on the political process, and you should err on the side of having less influence. If you lock up a nominee so they can’t campaign, it’s not really a fair election. ESPECIALLY when it’s a crime from 8 years ago.

Like, still get sentenced within the guidelines of the crime, but just towards the more lenient edge. If someone is guilty of murder you can’t NOT put them in prison. But if the penalty for the crime doesn’t require prison, it’s quite a leap to get to prison on a former president, current nominee.

I’d like to rent your home for a weekend, I’ve always wanted to try living under a rock.

Weird to “call for” a riot. Not generally the type of thing you schedule ahead of time.

It was very frustrating that just like what happened with “fake news” which was originally used to describe false news articles generated usually to help Trump, the same thing happened with the concept of a two-tier justice system. Originally describing how wealthy people like Trump don’t get the same justice that poor people do, now Republicans are trying to use it to describe Republicans getting charged for things Democrats wouldn’t be.

He was specifically illegally conspiring to keep it a secret from voters, that’s why it was a felony instead of a misdemeanor falsification of business records.

Not for House or Senate. Age just isn’t a close enough metric for what you’re trying to fix.

If you’re concerned with age-related decline, vote them out if you see signs of it, or if they would reach whatever age your limit is during the term.

If you’re concerned about longevity in office, use term limits or reform campaign finance such that longevity in office doesn’t grant too high of an incumbent advantage.

SCOTUS, sure. I think Canada has appointments until 75. Does not seem meaningfully different from appointments for life except less randomness on open slots.

“Reich” as a word in German doesn’t. Reich as a loan word in English exclusively refers to the historical Nazi 3rd Reich or neonazi ambitions.

I find it hard to believe that, outside of work computers, many people would be choosing Windows over Mac or Linux, especially is AI is their goal.

I’m sorry, why? Microsoft basically owns OpenAI and has begun integrating it into their products. Apple doesn’t have any AI capabilities beyond Siri.

Didn’t seem like he attacked Jews really, but he made it very clear he thinks of them as an “other” who are unified in their thought process and aligned with Israel.

Like with white people he’s trying to win as many white votes as possible so he goes to a white working class coal mine in West Virginia and a (non-union but middle class) car part manufacturer in Michigan and a rural state fair.

American Jews are just the US-based Israel contingent, to him. Israel has turned extremely right wing and the leader Bibi likes Trump, why aren’t US jews voting 100% in line with “their leader?”