You’re correct. The article makes it very clear there are multiple exceptions. I guarantee not a single republican out there is only using incandescent bulbs in their homes. Obviously they’re virtue signaling for their base. Companies for a while have been making to switch to LED and they’re much cheaper than they used to be. This is where the free market really has prevailed. Most people don’t mind paying extra if it means they don’t have to change out a light bulb as often.
I don’t disagree. What happens in Tx also has ramifications elsewhere. It’s just apparent loads of people in both states vote against their own interests and as a result vote against the interests of people out of their state. Until we get more people to vote in all elections the few will decide for the majority.
Looking at the last stats for Texas during the midterm elections in 2022 sat at 45% of over 17 million registered voters. In a state with over 30 million people, that means 8 million people decided those elections. Statewide and local elections voter turnout are abysmal. Last I checked for where I’m living it hovers between 11-13%. So if Texans vote against their best interests, I feel it’s the choice few making horrible decisions that impact the majority. A quick google search for Kentucky shows similar numbers. 41% voter turnout for midterms and it was lower than normal. The older bloc vote and the youth always stay in when looking at the numbers. Why would any older person vote for someone younger and less “wise to the world” in their eyes. If we want younger elected officials then we have to get the younger voters to engage and vote as well. At least that’s my opinion. McConnell keeps getting elected because younger voters don’t vote if they don’t feel represented by who is running. They opt to sit out, which is the worst thing to do. That’s what I’ve heard my peers say when I ask if they voted. If they don’t like what they see politically they just disengage.
Sounds like Kentuckians like to suffer. I say this as a Texan and my fellow Texans love to suffer and constantly vote against their own best interests.
What if instead of taking over Twitter handle X, he had taken over Twitter handle of say NY Times. Not blocked it or suspended but straight up takeover. They’re part of that company’s brand. X May have not been important monetarily to that person but doing something like this without offering some sort of compensation signals to all other companies who use Twitter that their handle isn’t safe. This may be a unique instance because he wants the X Twitter handle for their rebranding, but it is an asshole move and undoubtedly others will be watching closely.
I agree. They are within their rights to do whatever with their database, their service. But if their decisions impact someone else’s business then they shouldn’t be surprised if someone takes legal action.
I feel like Max and RBR are a runaway train for the rest of the season, but if the rest of the field gets to battle more then I’m all for it. Was really great seeing Lando and Lewis really duking it out, had us on the edge of our seats watching the race.
You know and I think that’s okay. To a certain extent almost all professional sports will have celebs show up who have no interest in the sport. I agree with you that too many look disinterested or get annoyed when they’re approached by media for an interview. They’re obviously not the main attraction, and it wouldn’t kill them to feign interest, just say it’s cool, be honest and say they don’t know anything about the sport but are excited to experience the event and learn more about it. Even if it’s all a lie it goes a long way in improving their image, promoting this wonderful sport, and maybe even draw in some of that celebrities fans to actually check out f1. I mean that is the whole reason these celebrities are invited to the paddock and are shown in the team garage during races isn’t it?
This cat has 9 lives. Really hoping he lands on his feet and does well at AT. He truly is one of my favorite drivers both on and off the track. Really wish him the best and hoping he finds a good drive next season.
I thought being on retainer meant that they get paid to be ready to take on a case if needed and ensure they get at least partially paid for their services. I bet a major case like this would call for a whole team of lawyers all billing for hundreds of hrs of work. I don’t think a retainer would cover everything. I could be wrong though, I’m not a lawyer.
“Competition is fine” says the guy that was born into wealth and was given a huge leg up in life. Although, I really hope they duke it out in court with Meta just so they burn through piles of money needlessly.
Which is a way I’m assuming to data mine every user on the fediverse. Safe to say that anyone that connects to the fediverse via Threads will essentially expose all Non Threads user to the Meta data miners?
WTF is threads?
But then they’ll say “well legancy admissions and the money that brings allows the institution to admit those of lesser means”. However you dice it, what matters the most is that they now have more reason to discriminate. They always did but the way I see it the schools that are impacted most by affirmative action seem to be the ones that have had these legacy admissions. Always been Pay To Play, and now there’s no reason to even try to allow even a minimal amount of outsiders into their exclusive club. All these kids and families that jumped onto Blum’s ship for the lawsuit have been played and don’t even know it.
Interesting. I know the FIA is getting flack for the penalties and how long it took to implement it. Either the drivers really can’t control their car or they were just hoping the officials would give up enforcing the rules. The commentators made a good point, if the race was wet the drivers would do everything in their power to avoid running off the track to avoid losing grip. Here it’s obvious they were pushing the limits to gain an advantage. Next time keep to the track limits. Those that did this race avoided penalties and moved up some slots.
Well then is it better to say that we should redefine what happiness means? Or is it that happiness means something different to each individual? Sometimes I feel like what I define as happy is really just being content to someone else. This is more of a philosophical question, or maybe more specifically a metaphysical question. What is happiness?