No one is shocked by this. The conservative politicians knew what the outcome would be and the people who voted for them aren’t hearing about this inside their echo chambers.

I expect that, if more conservative voters actually heard about women actually dying from these bans, some of the more moderate ones would switch sides on the issue. They’re not hearing about it, though. I brought it up with an anti-abortion family member and they hadn’t heard anything about the deaths attributable to abortion bans.

Actually, an example of this just popped up. This article states that Trump admitted to stiffing his employees by not paying overtime. If you listen to the video at the bottom, though, he said that he hates paying overtime and would “get different people in”.

He didn’t require people to work, then fail to pay them overtime. He would send the workers home and bring in a new shift.

I wouldn’t call that stiffing his employees. I wouldn’t even call that controversial. This article twists Trump’s words to make up a story about him rather than focus on the very real threat that he poses. It dilutes the negative press against him and makes it look like the left are liars, just out to get Trump.

This kind of journalism needs to die. Trump is an awful human being and says plenty of awful stuff. We don’t need to bend the truth or lie about him. We just need to report the actual shitty stiff he says.

I don’t have anything at my fingertips. I thought I had some comments on articles that bothered me in that way, but maybe I never finished those comments. I had problems with lemmy not letting me post with my vpn turned on…

I’ve had several times recently where I felt that an article was making a mountain of a mole hill to make Trump look worse. I wrote, but apparently didn’t post, comments saying, effectively, "Trump makes himself look bad enough without exaggerating or lying. Tell the truth about what he says and he looks like a fascist maniac. Exaggerate and you make people wonder if you’re always stretching the truth.

Normally when I see a headline like this it is taking Trump out of context or giving a very uncharitable take on what he said. Every once in a while, though, what he said is truly as ad as the headline makes it sound. This is one of those times.

He is literally calling for either The Purge or Kristallnacht! This man is calling for mass murder as a way to solve crime.

I think they are clarifying due to what has happened with Ubisoft. They’re also using it as an opportunity to spread the word farther that they won’t do the same thing.

deleted by creator

Why do they say “could” at this point? The operative word here is “will”. Using “could” downplay the severity of this and, even if only slightly, lowers the likelihood that people who are in danger will evacuate. Using “could” is irresponsible at this point.

Can you recommend some models to try?

It’s pretty amazing to me that a company hasanagednto become so reviled that Walmart is the better and more ethical option.

There is one near me that is now a church.

They still exist, but the Pizza Hut chain and it’s remain restaraunts are shadows of what they used to be. Pizza Hut was awesome in the 80’s. Now the old one near my house is a church.

I don’t know Korea’s laws but this would likely be illegal in the US, too. It depends on whether it could be proven that you knew that the stocks were issued in error. And even if it wasn’t a criminal act, the company would be within their rights to recover the mistakenly issued stocks.

Honestly, as replacements for their legacy, these look spot on. Modern versions of what came before. I’m so glad the postal workers are receiving new, safer equipment.

Right now, if he were able to convert all of his $241.8B to cash, then distribute it evenly among all of the employees at all of his companies, he could give each of his 146,000 employees $1.6M.

No one person should be that wealthy. I don’t necessarily think that billionaires should be abolished, but I do think they should be paying a shit load more in taxes than they are.

Also, before anyone says it, yes, I know it’s not as simple as converting his holdings to cash. I’m just saying “if it were possible”.

Right? The $5k dependent care FSA does save me about $1k per year but I’m still shelling out $21k for day care with $16k taxed.

Whether they have wifi on ship or not isn’t the issue. Sometimes, when a ship goes into an operation, they will turn off all signals except passive or directed signals so that they can’t easily be detected. Having a communications signal that isn’t under the control of the ship’s officers is a huge security risk during operations.

Someone is going to be court martialed over this.

I take it that you would argue that the media bias bot is worse than nothing?

I’m not arguing in favor of the media bias bot in particular here. I’m just kind of thinking about what might be a better solution. Given the fractured media landscape at the moment, it seems unreasonable to expect everyone to immediately have know the various biases of each news source. Having tools that help with that, even if they are themselves biased, seems like a good starting point for understanding the bias of different news organizations. Is there a better way to develop a similar tool that provides more useful information?

Okay, I can certainly see that perspective and, after reading the link posted by @ayyy@InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works I can see how this scale is problematic in other ways since news bias isn’t one-dimensional.

Is there a better way to educate people about the bias of particular new organizations, though? It seems unreasonable to expect everyone to develop their own individual assessment of every news organization. There are simply too many of them offering too many different spins. This attempt at providing something easily digestible seems like a reasonable starting point. It’s certainly not perfect and has a lot of room for improvement but is it worse than nothing?

Thank you for the link, that was helpful!

This is an honest question because I see the media bias bot being consistently downvoted and don’t understand why. Can you fill me in? Why is the media bias bot hated so much? It seems fairly reasonable in its assessments. For example:

• Daily Vox: Left with High factuality
• Huffington Post: Left with Mixed factuality
• MSNBC: Left with Mixed factuality
• NPR: Left-Center with High factuality
• Reuters: Least Biased with Very High factuality
• Forbes: Right-Center with Mostly Factual factuality
• Fox: Extreme-Right with Mixed factuality
• OAN: Extreme-Right with Low factuality
• Newsmax: Extreme-Right with Low factuality
• Infowars: Extreme-Right with Very Low factuality
  • Conspiracy Level: Tin Foil Hat
  • Pseudo-Sci Level: Strong