I mean, yah, there’s no libs to trigger on right wing sites. And what’s the point of spouting right wing rhetoric if you’re not making someone visibly angry about it?
Also, twitter and Facebook let them all back in, so why go to the shitty knock offs?
News outlets make a fraction of the money they did 3 decades ago, people having previously payed directly for a newspaper. Now they basically have to rely on web page ad revenue and subscriptions which most people won’t sign up for since they can get the news for free somewhere else.
So news outlets understaff to cut costs, leading to more mistakes and less due diligence. journalists get under paid, so independently wealthy people have an easier time taking the positions and pushing personal agendas. And news outlets need outside funding to stay afloat, making them beholden to the interests of those outside interests.
So yah, the quality is worse, objectivity is down, sensationalism is up to drive clicks, and they’re pushing agendas and world views way harder than they used to.
When metrics become targets they cease to be useful metrics.
Worth adding that “unemployment” in this context just means people who are claiming unemployment benefits, a things that runs out, and when they run out, they no longer are counted by it.
Also difficult to claim unemployment if you lose a gig economy job. So many people who lost their “job” doing something like uber eats are not represented.
A better metric is workforce participation rate which is at an all time low. There are a lot of factors to that, including a higher rate of retirement, but that alone does not account for the record low number.
See, it isn’t new and it isn’t AI, but it’s the same line of development as modern LLMs. They’ve just rebranded existing projects and lines of development as “AI technology” to be marketable.
Might be that information about when you do and don’t use the output is helpful for training. Like, if you use the output, good sign the output is good.
That is also for NG plants is the bigger win TBH, coal is such a minor part of power generation in the US these days. Methane powered NG plants also have a worse heating effect as, although it produces less CO2 per BTU, it also has between 5-12% leak rate with in the supply chain, depending on who you ask, and that methane has about 40 times the GHG power as co2.
I do not think any but a slim minority on here seriously believes that Trump is preferable, but being better than trump does not make one immune to criticism and doesn’t entitle Biden to enthusiastic support from people who didn’t want him as the candidate in the first place and only settled on him in the primaries as a compromise.
If a second trump term is as bad as we fear, then the democratic establishment should probably work harder to speak to the concerns of disaffected voters. A failure to make real commitments to pursue significant policy changes is tantamount to voting for trump at this point.
Doing better than trump is a low damn bar.
The consumer confidence index has been on a down ward trend over all since an initial jump with vaccine rollouts. If you pick small parts of the graph and focus on fluctuations that support your argument you can make it look good but if you map it all the way back to the end of lock down, the trend is clear.
There are also other metrics beyond the consumer confidence index, such as Gallup’s economic confidence index which shows the same over all downward trend.
This is just the reality the number show, people are not happy with the sate of the economy and they don’t expect it to get better. Telling people they should be happier because unemployment is low is an awful political strategy.
There are many different metrics that can be used, in politics and campaigns we’ve focused on one set for a while now because it generally gave us an accurate idea of how people were going to feel. If it no longer accurately predicts that, then we need a new set for political discussions.
This is not a case of online spaces filtering experience, nation wide polls and indicators suggest that people are generally unhappy with the economy. To turn around and tell people their wrong for not liking the state of the economy because one set of metrics looks good is tone def at best and political suicide at worst.
This is a serious issue with the Democratic Party right now, they’re relying on metrics and measurements that do not properly reflect the realities of the average voter. It goes beyond just misreading economic numbers, they are struggling to even understand what voters will respond positively to in general.
Many of the questions they ask in polls are somewhat obtuse and don’t touch on what voters think the issue is. They ask “how important is X to you” but be it, immigration, environment, healthcare, or guns. All that question does is tell the party how much to talk about certain issues, not how the voters want them to be addressed or treated.
Decision makers with in the party apparatus have a strategy of working with in narratives that are accepted by the voters they’re trying to court. Narratives crafted and popularized by traditional media/news/journalistic sources. Ideally these narratives would be crafted to best reflect reality, a difficult task that requires a lot of talent and large dedicated staffs. Right now though narratives are being crafted by under staffed, underfunded teams, at the behest of powerful moneyed interests who are keeping news sources afloat; revenues from digital distribution having failed to match that of old print and cable distribution. These same interests provide the bulk of funding for political campaigns.
So narratives are crafted that are divorced from reality the public is experiencing, in a shallow effort to control public opinion, making the public increasingly distrustful over time of these traditional news sources. The party relies on these narratives to communicate with voters. They also takes ques on what policy to support based on how the voters identify with the narratives and what the campaign donors want. But increasingly voters do not identify with the narratives at all, so the party is left speaking past voters trying to speak to narratives that voters ether haven’t seen or are baffled by.
How much you want to bet that a lot of that money is going to end up being used to pay trumps legal fees, fines and settlements?
See the consistent problem these kinds of groups have, is that there just aren’t enough people who agree with them and fit their preferences to do even a fraction of what they want.
They think they can just repress everyone who doesn’t agree with them, but repression is expensive and inefficient, and it takes more people to maintain that kind of governing system than a system where people just go along with it.
I mean, they didn’t need machine learning systems to do this. they’ve been paying people to take pictures with him for a while now, got plenty of mouth pieces they have on the payroll too. Just a bit cheaper now.
This election was going to be dirty with our without this nonsense. As far as ride or die trumpers are concerned, there are no rules this election. They’ve convinced them selves the last election was stolen, so, they have a moral blank check to do anything in their minds.
Those were literally all candidates in the 2020 primary? How am I in 2016, the primary candidates of note in 2016 were Clinton and Sanders.
Newsome is hardly new to the talk about potential candidates and is far from exciting. Whitmer is maybe a bit more appealing but we’ll see how much that holds when she starts talking to donors about funding her campaign.
Tulsi is exemplary of the issue with “moderate” democratic candidates, they’re all two bad days from starting to post about the “woke mind virus”.
Eh, it doesn’t move the needle very much though. It only really does anything when there’s already a very close situation. If the case were otherwise then there would probably be a lot less spending on campaigns
I think they wanted to, but the young alternatives that the party leaders and donors liked have almost 0 popular support. Buttigieg, Harris, Yang, Gabbard, and Klobuchar were all relatively “young”, the party insiders liked them, the donors/media owners don’t hate them, but the average democratic voter ether dislikes them or is apathetic.
The people who do have popular support say things that scare donors and media owners. So they have spent years trying to convince the party and moderate voters that they’re not viable candidates.
So Biden it is because incumbent advantage.
Eh, I mean they did mess around, but they were mainly just exacerbating existing issues and fault lines.
They talk a lot about the housing crisis in California as the result of over regulation of development, but I think that’s only part of the problem. Even if you stripped out all of the regulations that slow down the process, I doubt we’d be in a much better place in a few years.
Rather we’d have a bunch of new shiny buildings sitting nearly empty because they were built as assets more than as homes, and filling them would depress the price of housing and thus decrease the value of them as assets.
We see this in places like Vancouver, and all over china. China built housing like mad, way to much even, and yet, the cost to buy a house or rent is still sky high in the places people need to work for their jobs.
There is a shortage of housing, and we do need to build more capacity, but, we need to choose how and where we build based on a larger number of metrics than what traditional for profit developers are willing to consider.