I kinda hate this framing because it makes it seem inevitable and ever-present. Even on the right it's more like 5% true hate, 28% normal Republican who does not find true hate disqualifying. There's plenty of reason to discredit that or disagree with it etc but it's not the same as being in the 5%.
I was just listening to an interview with an evangelical who was lesser-of-two-evils on Trump, he'll vote for Trump but he's not a True Believer.
Threads was because if you had an Instagram account it ported over.
Bluesky was the Twitter clone made by the old Twitter CEO.
Most people didn't have a problem with Twitter being a corporation, they had a problem with the new owner of the corporation making the experience terrible with his new changes.
I very seriously tried to be a no car household, I got to one car and I just walked a mile to work, rain or shine.
But my wife was a 6 minute drive from work, but due to criscrossing highways it was entirely unwalkable and like a 40 minute bus ride.
NYC, yes. That's the yellow on the map.
Syracuse, no.
They weren't, it was just the example at the furthest end of the spectrum. But your framing of "if it was REALLY bad, Twitter would ban it" can not be the solution. We have legitimate governments tasked with governing based on the will of the people, it's not better to just let Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg decide the law.
We don't dislike government censorship of CSAM. it's all a spectrum based on the legitimacy of the government order and the legitimacy of the tech billionaire's refusal to abide.
I just have a lot of sleep inertia. Sleepy when I get up, not sleepy at bed time.
I did also have a vitamin D deficiency without knowing it though.
If Al Gore had won New Hampshire he would have won even without Florida. It could be important.
That said, it's polling more Democratic than Texas is Republican. By the time you're likely to win New Hampshire you would have already won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and thus the election. Not worth putting resources into.
First creative writing, then art, now this.
"Harris with 3x the support among Muslim voters vs Trump" is another accurate way to report the results of this poll.
For once, this complaint is fully justified. She answered the question and said 'next' and they're implying she didn't answer the question by just saying 'next.'
I feel like sometimes "out of context" means they didn't report on additional relevant nuance in an answer but I'm sympathetic to headline authors who need punchy headlines, you can't have a full 20 minute answer in a headline. But this was a 6 word response and they took the last two and pretended she didn't say the first 4. That is bad.
"Arguing online" is unattractive? It's actually one of the more relevant signs of intelligence if one can state their points coherently. In this 3-part essay I will...