As much as police departments do like mass surveillance, I doubt they'll be interested in random citizens dumping dashcam footage of annoying drivers. Even they have limits.
Shouldn't Andreessen be spending his time trying to rescue Claude? He's the one who said we had to elect Trump in order to keep AI research in the public domain.
A proper Congress would but in this case he is doing exactly what the people who nominated and confirmed him wanted him to do. It's not like they didn't know what they were getting or that he made these views secret until he got the job. In the GOP caucus even medical doctors were happy to endorse this.
There are many flaws to the peer-reviewed journal industry but "routine" retractions for political reasons really isn't one of them.
Unless you're in political science or something. I guess there ALL the retractions must be political.
That's why he's confused. In Trump's orbit, truth is measured by how closely it accords with what the powerful have to say. The memory hole is only supposed to be used to chuck out things that aren't official doctrine anymore.
I understand the canary theory. The point is, other countries are already PAST the canary and on to even worse things like banning social media. So they're even farther along on this ride than the situation in the US would suggest.
You mean the Texas one, yeah, I guess. But these other countries aren't just talking about adult sites, some of them are just talking about basically all social media.
Epstein died years ago now, and America is the one place where conservatives, try as they might, really CAN'T force through these laws the way other countries with slightly weaker protections on speech can. Yet there's been a huge flood of these laws in the past year -- all abroad, where American conservatives, well, aren't.
I hope I'm not just being ornery here.
Obviously, but they've been saying that for years, here anyways. In the past year there's been a flood of new laws, abroad. So something has changed, clearly.
I'm kind of surprised how rapidly this all seems to have rolled out, after years of what seemed like mainly just talking about it. What changed behind the scenes?
The Republicans don't need it. The Democrats do, so they can carefully explain to us which abuses of power they think are okay and which ones they think are not.
The level of easy institutional surrender has really been beyond belief.
Unfortunately, since they're the ones who write half the history, I'm sure they'll come off quite cleanly when people look back to this in thirty years.
Of course it was intentional. It is always important for us to remember, this is the kind of country that most of our fellow Americans said they wanted to live in. This is standard behavior in an authoritarian country. It's only weird because you didn't think it would happen here.
Possibly not reading it right but this study doesn't actually seem to address that chicken or egg problem. It just says that believing in immigration conspiracy theories correlates with watching fox.
I have my own theories about your question (I think it's both) but that's just from personal experiences with people I know.
Exactly the kind of catalyst I was wondering might have happened. Thanks for the explanation, and the link.
As much as police departments do like mass surveillance, I doubt they'll be interested in random citizens dumping dashcam footage of annoying drivers. Even they have limits.
Agreed, this kind of view is depressingly normal in my experience.
Major relative to Kenosha.
Shouldn't Andreessen be spending his time trying to rescue Claude? He's the one who said we had to elect Trump in order to keep AI research in the public domain.
A proper Congress would but in this case he is doing exactly what the people who nominated and confirmed him wanted him to do. It's not like they didn't know what they were getting or that he made these views secret until he got the job. In the GOP caucus even medical doctors were happy to endorse this.
There are many flaws to the peer-reviewed journal industry but "routine" retractions for political reasons really isn't one of them. Unless you're in political science or something. I guess there ALL the retractions must be political.
That's why he's confused. In Trump's orbit, truth is measured by how closely it accords with what the powerful have to say. The memory hole is only supposed to be used to chuck out things that aren't official doctrine anymore.
Which is exactly why this wave of new social media bans is so alarming.
I understand the canary theory. The point is, other countries are already PAST the canary and on to even worse things like banning social media. So they're even farther along on this ride than the situation in the US would suggest.
You mean the Texas one, yeah, I guess. But these other countries aren't just talking about adult sites, some of them are just talking about basically all social media.
Don't be silly, that kind of law would get in the way of all the misinformation the backers of these laws are spreading!
Epstein died years ago now, and America is the one place where conservatives, try as they might, really CAN'T force through these laws the way other countries with slightly weaker protections on speech can. Yet there's been a huge flood of these laws in the past year -- all abroad, where American conservatives, well, aren't. I hope I'm not just being ornery here.
Obviously, but they've been saying that for years, here anyways. In the past year there's been a flood of new laws, abroad. So something has changed, clearly.
I'm kind of surprised how rapidly this all seems to have rolled out, after years of what seemed like mainly just talking about it. What changed behind the scenes?
The Republicans don't need it. The Democrats do, so they can carefully explain to us which abuses of power they think are okay and which ones they think are not.
The level of easy institutional surrender has really been beyond belief. Unfortunately, since they're the ones who write half the history, I'm sure they'll come off quite cleanly when people look back to this in thirty years.
Of course it was intentional. It is always important for us to remember, this is the kind of country that most of our fellow Americans said they wanted to live in. This is standard behavior in an authoritarian country. It's only weird because you didn't think it would happen here.
Apparently they would just rather sit and watch TV while the population dwindles around them.
Possibly not reading it right but this study doesn't actually seem to address that chicken or egg problem. It just says that believing in immigration conspiracy theories correlates with watching fox. I have my own theories about your question (I think it's both) but that's just from personal experiences with people I know.