If standards aren't set and enforced for that shielding, it won't just be radio in cars that don't work. That RFI travels like a tiny broadband (as in multiple frequencies) radio station... because it is. The impacts are compounded the more cars are like that.
It's also the fact that if everyone stops using AM, the RFI pollution from EVs and other tech will balloon even more than it already has. Those frequencies are used for a lot more than just emergencies. I'd bet the push for this came from the military or the FCC.
Gore’s VP (Joe)? I don’t remember all of the details, but that was legitimately a contested election by the numbers, not by a sore loser. Won the popular by a decent margin but lost the electoral. It was by a slim enough margin to trigger a recount. As far as contested elections go I thought that could have gone a whole lot worse.
I’m not sure I get the comparison here.
Democracy is perfectly fine until the candidate that loses refuses to accept the results, tries to retain power by force, then continues to try undermine faith in democracy for 4 years and is somehow still the frontrunner for his party.
I get that CPI is a target for bad faith arguments from people with political agendas, this is because it has been politicized. It's an important metric for the incumbent to point at to justify their effectiveness if it is favorable. It's an election year, so that's even more so the case. It bothers me that it has become such a politicized metric because it can be used to dismiss issues that are of legitimate concern. If the perception doesn't match the statistics because people are watching doom and gloom on the news then yes, you're right the statistics are more important than the grumbling of infotainment warriors. However, if the perception differs from the statistics because of personal experience, then it doesn't matter how well the economy is doing by the numbers overall, the experience of those individuals is still valid. And I am saying from personal experience that it doesn't feel that my dollars go as far as they used to, enough so that it impacts my options.
The politicization of the statistics concerns me because it is in the best interest of the current administration (whoever that may be) and those advocating for them to dismiss those who are struggling as outliers or bad actors when any kind of national average is going to minimize local or regional factors. It is the politicization of the statistics that makes them more subject to scrutiny in my opinion, especially in a world where natural disasters and extreme weather events are becoming more common place. We may not need the same "basket of goods" as we once did.
Presidential Immunity would be the single worst outcome for the country, regardless of what happened to Trump himself. It would remove all oversight to the Executive branch. And it would confirm that the Supreme Court is utterly corrupt, because there is no way it could be interpreted as constitutional by reasonable people. Even hearing the case is an obscene waste of time and resources.
I'm embarrassed as an American that we are seeing any of this take place.
I feel like you're putting me in a position to argue against the scientific method, but I don't think that's actually the case. Statistics can be scientific, they can also be wrong. The scientific process allows for skepticism. To not consider questioning the methods given opposing perspective is not scientific, it's dogmatic.
The statistics may very well be accurate, but your level of faith in them is disturbing.
That is a shocking take in my opinion, one that borders on delusional. Statistics are the result of specific metrics collected by people who chose what specific data points to collect, the methods of collecting those metrics and chose the methods of presenting the data. They can reveal interesting aspects of reality that aren't otherwise obvious and can depict a fairly accurate representation of reality as a whole if they are created in ernest using sound data collection techniques, but I'm pretty sure that the most qualified data scientists will disagree with the statement that "statistics are reality". Especially if anyone in control of any part of that process has significant motivation for them to depict something specific.
Statistics are only meaningful when you put them into context of their intent, limitations and error rate.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
And even if the statistics hold true in aggregate, it's not the full picture and can't accurately describe or predict individual experiences. Perception is anecdotal, so it is not a perfect depiction of reality either. But if perception does not match the data, it's an indicator that the data might be suspect.
There is a disconnect between the statistics and reality. I am not sure where, but I suspect inflation is not being calculated correctly. It may be that lower cost items rose at a higher rate, so even though it averages out, it's harder to reduce spending. 17% doesn't seem to match the numbers I've seen for take out and home prices for example.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what's on a chart it matters how many things people had to choose to not buy or do because they couldn't afford it.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. Either way, this is definitely the message that's being broadcasted on loop in a lot of places, especially here. On the surface it seems to be trying to convince swing voters to lean left. If that's the case, it very much misses the mark. I'm not positive that this is a US specific message, but that is my perspective.
I had a much longer rant typed out, but it wasn't terribly constructive. The long and short of it is that we have a lot of problems that need to be addressed in this world that have yet to even be acknowledged (and thus no solutions proposed) because they are being drowned out by the handful of arguments that are the most emotionally charged and thus, least productive to debate. Every election has been a "race to the bottom" and every year it starts earlier, lasts longer, and gets stupider. That is to say, there is no intellectual consideration whatsoever. It is no longer a discussion about governance, it is a cheerleading mantra for a sports team. The arguments are all emotionally charged and feel more like propaganda than discussion - this is what "both sides" are guilty of. The candidates don't even bother to show up to debates anymore, and it doesn't seem to make a difference.
I have my opinion about who is the worst option, but that does nothing to convince someone looking for a reason to vote **for ** someone, not **against ** someone.
Google what exactly? I made everything up myself, you're claiming it's, an advertisement for, what, exactly? There's no real companies even mentioned. There's a radio station that comes up in British Columbia that's close, but not the same frequency.
So you've made a claim, and now you're putting the burden of proof on me. That's the kind of conspiracy theory BS that we need to leave on reddit. I'll look around, but I know you're full of shit, because I am the author. Share your citations.
Archer, he's got the case! Don't let him get away! Calm down Lana, it's empty. I hid it in Ray's wheelchair while he was distracted.
You did what now? I hid... the plutonium, Lana, it's this new thing called SPY CRAFT!
What part of extremely unstable and radioactive did you not understand?!
Well, apparently the core concept, Lana. Who do I look like, Marie Curie?
...
Wooooo!
BS . I made this from scratch after watching a music video I thought was funny.
And what happens when one of his Republican boot lickers buddies get into office? They can either undo it and let him go or use similar justification to imprison their political rivals even if it's not as clear cut.
It would be much better for the justice system to handle it. If they don't, then maybe Biden will need to, but as I said, that is an overall loss if he is forced to.
Couldn't be further from what I want. What I don't want to do is to give the Republicans, or any party reason to argue that whatever measures are taken against Trump are not lawful. It needs to be unambiguous that he violated the law of the land and establish that precedent so that executive action is not required, encouraged, needed or possibly even allowed. Otherwise we have accomplished literally nothing to protect our democracy, quite the opposite, in fact. Presidential decree is not law and can't be expected to survive one administration to the next.
Calling it his number 1 job is hyperbole unless it stands up in court. And if it does, I will agree with you, just show me the court case.
That's the point of checks and balances; to draw a clear separation of power.
Flexing his power to attack his political rivals is exactly what he needs to avoid doing. That is what Trump is doing and has been doing and that is the problem. If Biden has to step in, we've already failed.
It is in everyone's best interest that the current President does not do anything other than watch the justice system play out, just like every other US citizen.
There is no action that he can take that will not make things worse.
Plus masks aren't 100% barriers anyay. Still going to be exposed to some, just less. Honestly ongoing limited mask usage in large public spaces just makes sense.
I guess we'll see how much worse that is than being raised by good ol' fashion network television.
Well, traditional news sources have lowered the bar enough that social media isn't really much worse in a lot of cases. Especially considering how many "news" there is about social media content; it makes it seem that something like Twitter is the "source" that the news is citing. The lines have been blurred, seemingly intentionally so it's hard to blame people for not having a good barometer who grew up in an ecosystem of generalized enshitification.