The complaint alleges that the WFA “organized an advertiser boycott of Twitter through GARM, with the goal of coercing Twitter to comply with the GARM Brand Safety Standards to the satisfaction of GARM.” And it claims that these efforts succeeded in harming Twitter/X, with “at least” 18 GARM-affiliated advertisers stopping their purchase of ads on Twitter between November and December 2022, and other advertisers “substantially” reducing their spending.
I don't think I take it too seriously, but I like that thought experiment. I think the grimoire could contain spells and spellings to shape and reshape that dream. I also like the picture below.
I'm living through this. It sucks. Ive been eyeing s new phone for about six months, but since my wife is still rocking an iPhone 8, I felt it wrong to get one before her. With this, I feel justified getting a new one. Figured I'd get a pixel 9a when it comes out.
I didn't want to have to read this, but no one summarized it. So here's a summary.
The Dems picked up seats in the House.
The Democrats lost four Senate seats. Three of those were in states that were solidly red for a long time.
In high level state elections, nothing changed.
It wasn't that bad . They really only lost the presidency which is probably Biden's fault.
And now my retort.
They picked up two seats. In doing so, they failed to control the House buy 3 seats. In 2022, they lost 9. In 2020, they lost 13. It was only in 2018 that they won a ton of seats: 42. MAybe this is a good omen for 2026, but we have to worry about today.
Who gives a fuck. Like honestly? The failings of the Republicans to be able to flip a seat in 2018, the last time these seats were up, is not an indicator that you had your shit together.
I don't know how you consider this a good thing. Are you playing for the win or just not to lose?
"Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?" Jeez ... There's been a lot wrong with the Dems for a while, but pretending that losing the presidency isn't one of the worst things that can happen to them is silly. They continually failed to secure power in multiple branches and at multiple levels because at the heart of their game was the presidency.
I also think his conclusion on why Biden lost is wrong. I think people wanted the ambitious projects that the Biden administration offered. They failed in messaging it, they failed to connect with the worries of average families as inflation soared, or with young people as rent skyrocketed and we sent bombs to Israel. So many things went wrong for Biden at the end including a prolong decline into mental difficulties. When the Dems had a chance to distance themselves from all that, they picked someone wasn't able to do it. She lacked the ability to connect with the real concerns of people at an emotional level. Heck, I don't think people wanted Trump, but they didn't see a better option. Just more of the same.
I remember getting a hint guide book. It's have the particular issue in red letters and a white background. Under it was a red box with the answer obscured by the red box. You'd use a red filmed decoder to hover over the red box and then read the answer.
Then at one point game companies had a 900 hint line. I finally used it once. I kept on dying and seeing the death cut scene. So I'd pause and reload. And die again. I swore I had the right answer. Finally, I gave in and called the hint line. First and only time. Turned out when you solved the puzzle, it started the same as the death cut scene and then something happened and you make it through alive.
Having made some of these mistakes, I tend not to be rigid about them. But here are some fun ones.
on line vs in line
to graduate vs to be graduated
antivenom vs antivenin
All of the above have been normalized, but at one time was not.
Another quirk, we used to not call former Presidents President So and So. We used to call them by their highest position before president. So it would be Senator Obama and not President Obama.
I had to explain the save button to my 9 year old about a week ago. And then I found myself explaining what a floppy disk was. Tonight I'll ask him if he knows what that is a picture of. I'll be impressed if he remembers. If he fails the check, imma gonna launch into a lecture on boot disks, games, and batch files. Wish me luck!
ZF handles it. The C adds the axiom of choice. But ZF is enough for dealing with the Russel paradox. Oddly enough, Zermelo, the Z in ZF, published the Russel paradox a year before Russel.
When most people talk about involvement, I understand it to be in designing and engineering of the product. Management of personelle, budgets, and securing funding is important, but the core of the product, while contingent on that, isnt the same as that.
I'll let an except from this article sum up the essence of his contribution, but he isn't an innovator, he's an investor and manager. I know this is a highly polarized topic, but understanding the actuality and the mythology of the man is important.
With that said, we need to give credit where credit is due. He recognized it as a good idea and put more money into making it happen than any was willing to do at the time.
Therefore, you could make the argument that Tesla wouldn’t have happened without Musk – making the founder argument moot.
After that, you also have to give some credit to Musk for Tesla’s success. He has been the CEO since 2008 and the company accomplished incredible things under his leadership. They succeeded in making EVs mainstream and pushed the industry to transition to battery-electric vehicles.
To this day, it is Musk’s original ‘Tesla Secret Master Plan’ in 2006 that convinced me Tesla would be the company to bring EVs into the mainstream. The plan made sense, and it was executed under his leadership. He took the original idea, fleshed it out, financed it, and then led the team that made it happen.
The last point is important because that’s where I start to agree with Musk’s naysayers again. Musk’s fans like to claim that he is some sort of engineering genius. Jamie Dimon just called him “our Einstein”. While I can admit that Elon is smart and has an above-average understanding of many physics and engineering principles, comparing him to one of the most impactful theoretical physicists of all time is pure madness.
While Musk has made technical contributions to Tesla, I think they are often overblown by his fanbase and Tesla’s team doesn’t get enough credit. JB Straubel, Tesla’s longtime Chief Technology Officer until 2019, and his teams should get the vast majority of the credit for the technical contributions and advancements to battery technology and power electronics that made Tesla successful.
There are too many to name them all, but I have been reporting on Tesla for more than a decade. Through my reporting, sources have praised people like Straubel, Drew Baglino, Kurt Kelty, Colin Campbell, Peter Rawlinson, Charles Kuehmann, Alan Clarke, Dan Priestley, Lars Moravy, David Zhang, Evan Small, and Franz von Holzhausen for their contributions to Tesla.
100% this. I can't tell you how only now, as a middle aged man, do I qualitative understand concepts like continuity and conventions like the complex number plane. No one thought it was important to explain, took the time to do so, or helped me develop the clarity of thought to really understand it.
Getting the right answers is radically different from understanding a concept.
Democracy in its idealized form, of which I am a proponent of, is that, assuming you mean ownership of the means of production. In popular use, what many countries have is considered a democracy. To be pedantic, we elect representatives to the government by democratic means in most capitalist countries. We call this democracy. I think we should have the former, but I'm not interested in wasting my little social good will on pedantry and definitions with the average person.
Here's the claim from the article: