Agreed. I'm friends with a few journalists and even the ones who had a steady job at major outlets were working it like a hustle. There really isn't a good way to do it that doesn't involve some level of either corporate or wide-public investment and both of those have an easy chance to get corrupted.

I mean, yes, but they're minimal. They don't charge enough for a subscription to fully cover their revenues. Plus serving ads has always been something news outlets have done for revenue.

But hey, if they can just fuck off, I guess we can maintain either ads all over the page or let Sinclair/Newscorp run everything.

The issue isn't data transmission and hosting, it's paying someone a living wage to do this work professionally, along with their editors, graphic artists, analysts, and everyone else along the way that writes the news. It's a bit absurd that people complain about ads and low quality reporting/analysis while simultaneously demanding all journalists work for free. Hell, if you get a library card you'll probably be able to legitimately access the article right now for free in a way that still pays the journalist.

Probably a rosé then.

It's very common for teens to be impulsive and reckless because they're basically biologically programmed to be so. It's not something they can control, really, it's something they're experiencing. If you didn't go through that, it's all good, probably safer frankly, but it's not like people are aberrant for being reckless while maturing.

Israel has labeled BDS, the actual peaceful option, terrorism.

Fun fact: she's Mitt Romney's niece. He once put her in a binder.

I'd like to note that in this situation where you've expressed you don't like either major party, you only believe one of those parties should reform the situation (Democratic), which means that inherently you know one is acting more in good faith than the other. I doubt it even occurred to you that a Republican would want to reform the FPTP process because you know they won't do it and have no incentive to.

If you implictly know that there's a lesser of two evils and yet choose to vote third party in the general, it's just as much on you when the worse of the two evils wins.

Because it's not about the amount of money or the ability to fight it, it's about the way the income or other wealth was generated. The IRS audits the rich all the time, it's just easier to have someone fix a mistake or catch tax evasion/fraud when the underlying income/wealth is only generated from a few sources. If you make 7 figures because that's your salary, it's still pretty easy to audit you.

Not really, that's a minor part of the opinion. The more important part is they tell you how much food you're going to get of what kind and then they give you that food. I don't think anyone would be able to win a case on "my burger didn't look like the burger in the ad" because every burger looks a little different. Lots of things that are the same don't look the same and let's not suddenly pretend we get McDonalds for the appearance. They'd win false advertising if, say, a quarter pounder was only 2 oz.

I dunno, seems like the judge is explicitly acknowledging it.

There is a legal, regulated, mostly safe method to buy cigarettes. It is inaccessible if you are under a certain age, but only the seller/provider is punished for violating regulations. It's okay to have restrictions on what children can consume.

While current laws on illegal drugs do not work, arguing against any regulation whatsoever is similarly silly, the laws obviously work. Smoking rates have dramatically declined since those laws and public education campaigns began.

If you're a power user there's a minor learning curve to prevent shit from breaking and some mild inconveniences like being unable to use NFC. Location can also just not work at times. Overall, I'm glad I made the switch.

At least we're not unique.

All Eastern religions have their own problems and crimes committed in the name of their beliefs. Christianity might have some of the more global harms, but it's hardly alone in being harmful.

If there is a quorum in the chamber but more Democrats than Republicans present, in theory they could successfully vote for a Democratic Speaker while in the minority. There is nothing that says the Speaker of the House has to be a member of the party that holds the majority. However, Republicans/the Speaker Pro Tem will almost definitely make sure this doesn't happen. I say almost definitely because, as we've seen, they're not that great at strategy these days.

Building up a new economy is not a crash. A crash is when the current system gets wrecked and it's possible something better emerges from the ashes. The problem is that an economic crash primarily hurts the poor, even if they don't own the stocks/property/means of production. They're the ones whose jobs and homes are lost.

Consider, for example, the Bengal famine. Entirely economic, there was literally enough food but it became prohibitively expensive due to market forces driven by the British. The rich British aristocrats didn't suffer, Indians did. In Venezuela when the market crashed, rich people got out or are able to weather it. Poor people are either stuck having to attempt to make the best of a terrible situation, or flee and seek aid as migrants.

It's a Catch-22. He's a contender for the presidency and the former president who has a real shot of winning. He's also under indictment in multiple jurisdictions. The things he says are news, regardless of how stupid they are, because he's saying them to become president and avoid jail.

The first time around they didn't have to give him so much coverage early on in the primary race. This time, they don't have a choice because it's actually relevant news. That said, most networks have toned down coverage of Trump significantly. Actually most news orgs are more focused on the shutdown than the recent debate and Trump's bullshit.

Styles change over time. I don't see you calling people slobs for leaving home without their hat.

People thought that was the case with finance until 2008, instead we had people left homeless and jobless for years. Wealthy people have a safety net when the system fails. Poor people do not. If the U.S. crashed, people would die from the fallout. People died in the last recessions and they weren't mostly the rich.