I've been in the home automation business for over 25 years. Can confirm that smart lighting is the absolute best investment.
I've installed and programmed lighting systems for over $100k but have personally spent less than $250 for Ikea devices for my apartment. Just the ability to dim and set the color of the lights at certain times of day is key for me.
Controlled Lighting isn't only about convenience, it's about setting a mood. You can set a warm dim scene to be more calming or a bright white scene for cooking or cleaning.
The presidential actions taken by President Reagan are different than the choices Americans are making to endorse and follow Trump. It's the actions Reagan took as president that have in large part brainwashed the public and created the environment where people are flocking towards people like Trump.
Trump the president is a symptom of the problems created by Reagan, Stone, Cheney, and the Heritage Foundation. Trump the brand is the epitome of Reaganomics and corporatocracy.
Reagan set the seeds for dismantling our trust in government and putting it into corporations and celebrities. Reagan (the actor?!) is the prime modern-time example of the people ignoring politics in favor of celebrity.
I would argue that Reagan's influence and GOP brainwashing far surpasses Trump's to the point that the vast majority of people in this country are wholly unaware of its existence. Though, yes, the extremism that Trumpism has fostered is certainly more dangerous to the public and democracy. I just don't blame Trump for all of it. America chose to elect him president for a reason. I believe that has more to do with Reagan than with Trump.
Right, in hindsight, as far as actual policy and actions taken as president, Reagan is the worst in modern times. We wouldn't have Bush or Trump or Project 2025 without Reagan.
If you were to remove everything around 9/11 and Iraq from Bush's presidency, he's relatively okay as both president and person. He, arguably, did great things to help immigrants and minorities and children. Not sure how No Child Left Behind is seen these days. I think Bush did more to help the disadvantaged than Clinton. But, to really assess each and every action a president takes would require a college semester. And your perspective on good or bad may be influenced by what you believe the job of government is. Reagan's entire pitch and lasting legacy as a Republican icon was to dismantle the federal government, eliminate "social" programs, put "bad people" in jail, promote corporatocracy, fool the middle class to believe in the trickle down effect. Not to mention the entire Iran Contra ordeal. I mean, we don't have super solid evidence about Trump's associations with foreign countries / leaders. Trump's probably too stupid and narcissistic to care about anything other than opening Trump buildings and golf courses in other countries.
Trump's worst actions as president were his judicial appointments. He's easily the worst person to hold the office as president in all of US history, but as far as worst president in modern times, I think Regan has it over on him.
Depends on what "recent" memory is for you. I've got Reagan and Trump neck-and-neck. While Bush should be tried for war crimes, he's nowhere close to as bad as Trump. I'd put Bush and Clinton in the cage match.
Great question. I could list dozens of shows that were favorites, or have special meaning to me, or that I watched the most, or ones that had a more longterm impact on who I am. But, specifically about impacting my world as a young person, I'll say these three.
Honorable mentions: Looney Tunes, Cheers, MASH, Family Ties, The Young Ones, Doctor Who, You Can't Do That on Television, Ren and Stimpy.
If a news outlet has indicated to me that they care more about ad revenue than reporting news, I avoid them.If the only way an outlet feels they can get readership is with use of clickbait headlines, I avoid them.If the headline is something like "you'll never guess why ___ hates this" or "the reason you can't blahblahblah" or some other salacious bullshit or they have a super cringe thumbnail on their YT video, I avoid them.If a writer misconstrues the words of a celebrity or political leader for their own narrative, I avoid them.If their bias prevents them from reporting the facts of an event, I avoid them."Avoid" does not mean never visit. It means I try not to and if I do I proceed with caution and skepticism with the intent to get another source.
If I'm searching for a news story, it's probably because I came across it on social media (Lemmy) or a blog and want to get credible information. Or because someone here is quoting a story and I have a hunch they're misinformed. I use DuckDuckGo and generally get decent reputable results at the top. At its face, I will never trust Google for fact checking. If I end up at a wiki page, I often check their sources.
I have an extensive list of reputable and/or diverse outlets in my RSS reader. The only "mainstream" American sources are NYT, AP, NPR, and Reuters. I've been using BigNews as my RSS reader for a year or so now. I really like its simple interface and ability to subscribe to newsletters. Newsletters are sometimes the best way to get a blurb off the news without subscribing to something like NYT. If I'm compelled enough, I'll run a paywalled article through archive.is.
I don't feel that people publishing on substack or medium, etc are reputable outlets for general news. That's great for specific topics, opinions, and focused reporting.
The only news I pay for is my local newspaper. In addition to local reporting, they curate AP articles.
While I do have Ground News installed on my iPad, I only use it as a widget to let me know what's going on. The sources it uses are generally not that great. Either the site is severely biased or the site is riddled with ads and pop ups. Basically every time I go to read an article it's full of shit. I'll give it credit as a substantial aggregator but it's still pulling from sources that use click bait headlines. It's not any better than social media.
One of us lacks rational thought and believes it's plausible that bluetooth earrings were used to provide answers or coach a presidential candidate during a debate because they otherwise would be totally incapable of intelligent thought all on their own.
“We don’t want this for our country,” he said of Democratic policies. “That’s why I’m doing this. I don’t like doing this.”
Donald Trump on running for president: ‘I don’t like doing this’
Which one is it?
I'm sick of words being twisted for clicks and narrative enforcement. It's clear, as this article has quoted him, that he's doesn't like what Democratic policies have done to the country and that he needs to run for president to fix them. He is not saying he doesn't want to be president.
I'm tired of the lack of reading comprehension among grown adults across this increasingly stupid country.
Can we please vote this fucker out of relevancy so we can get back to human progress?
I'm just here thinking, someone is asking a small group of people what they believe to be the definition of a word rather than use the vast wealth of knowledge published by experts in their field on these here internets.
Wiki:
A portmanteau of "involuntary celibate". A term associated with an online subculture of people (mostly white, male, and heterosexual who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, and blame, objectify and denigrate women and girls as a result. The movement is strongly linked to misogyny. Originally coined as "invcel" around 1997 by a queer Canadian female student known as Alana, the spelling had shifted to "incel" by 1999, and the term later rose to prominence in the 2010s, following the influence of misogynistic terrorists Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian.
The headline is clickbait and does not accurately describe the content of the article.
This could be said about the vast majority of content published online today. This is why I've been trying to minimize my internet usage. So little of it is genuine.
I don't know about her involvement with this but there's a snopes article about it. It's wholly unfounded based on some random Facebook post.
A social media post originally from a Springfield Facebook group went viral nationally in recent days. The original poster did not cite first-hand knowledge of an incident. Instead they claimed that their neighbor's daughter's friend had lost her cat and found it hanging from a branch at a Haitian neighbor's home being carved up to be eaten.
