It’s more descriptive than “Woman died after living made her delusional”.
It’s less descriptive than “Woman died after a vitamin B12 deficiency made her delusional”
I’m pretty sure it’s intentionally vague and misleading to trigger engagement around a divisive topic.
I wonder if there is a term for that.
People were struggling while Biden was in office, sure. But Americans need to learn to wake up, examine the rest of the world, and realize that post COVID economies were struggling everywhere, and Biden had actually done a pretty good job mitigating the damage.
Just because it wasn't great, doesn't mean he didn't do a decent job at making it much less worse that it might have been under the policies, and damage set up by Trumps first term.
Things like tax breaks, legislated to make things harder for the working class after Dems retook office, not because of what the Dems did, but close enough for them to blame the Dems.
And it worked. It always works.
They should at least replace the fields producing corn ethanol. Saves the recurring cost of producing the energy, and reduces the emissions of both harvesting and burning.
Huge swathes of land are used just to burn the output.
It makes sense. Protocols are defined before services can be implemented on them.
What the article is say is, rather than trusting a service provider to protect your privacy, stick to using services you control, on open protocols that can communicate with external service providers.
If everyone does this, the government needs to knock on a lot more doors to force compliance. And if a node on the protocol chooses to shut down instead of complying, the service as a whole isn’t disrupted. Just the users on that node. And they can control migration to a different node.
Something something felon...
Speaking of atrophying skills…. Couldn’t make it past one paragraph to reach the critical part of the article.
I think the journalists themselves are stuck in the same place a lot of us. Working for someone they can’t support morally, because they owe money and need a paycheque, and every place they could move to will likely have the same problem.
The issue is with the owners.
Any idea that if actualized into government policy, that would lead to increased rates of harm for people, is in fact a harmful idea.
However, if the work is political, religious, or economic, and you can't separate that, this is completely understandable on some levels
The key issue I had with this is, is sometimes the work itself is none of those things, but the artist is.
Specifically in the case for a certain magical school and the author of said work.
If the work is being commoditized to promote harmful ideas, then no matter how good the art is, it should be shunned.
If the art is good but the artist used to have problematic views or opinions, then that’s different.
I dislike that slime ball as much as the next person, but I’m sure they are moving away from the shooter, so he’s shielding her more than the other way around.
How many times do I have to read ‘notnottheonion’ to see the double negative.