Without paywall: https://archive.is/wkU2c

Summary:

The U.S. just handed the fossil fuel industry a big win. No matter how you look at it, that win will be short lived.

Electric vehicles are already displacing millions of barrels of oil per day, saving hundreds of millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering into the atmosphere.

With or without U.S. support, the world will march on towards cleaner sources of energy.

Alternative link: https://archive.md/VxJFh

Immediately following American air strikes, Iranian military officials jetted to Beijing to negotiate the purchase of J-10C fighter jets and AWACS from China.

Pakistan’s air force is equipped with Chinese-built fighters and missiles, and in a recent air battle against Indian forces shot down several top-line Western-built fighter jets and drones.

Chinese defense firms build equipment that is comparable or superior in quality, at considerable cost savings head-to-head against gear from NATO countries or Russia.

What’s more, other militaries are struggling to build weapons at all, given that supply chains for the most advanced munitions and systems run through China for rare earth metals, and the other BRICS countries for raw materials.

If China agrees to supply Iran, it will remake the military and diplomatic landscape of the Middle East, for decades to come

Interesting times… /s

Yes I do!

They are working towards requiring it for all travelers.

Why: Think of this as a trial working towards full automation. They aren’t there yet and are not probably legally allowed to do so, but the idea is that you can be fully tracked like the British, Chinese, and other biometric adopted countries.

Prevention: Reliability and legality. As I mentioned I don’t think they can force it in the US for travel yet as it’s not legally allowed, nor is biometrics entirely reliable as is apparent when facial recognition fails.

Anyone have a link to the company who made it? My morning searchfu is failing me.

While the message is not entirely off, it’s worth realizing that polling approval numbers are all over the place. While Nate Silver might not peg it, be does at leas provide more polls which shows this:

As he says:

Now these differences aren’t too surprising. It’s normal for individual polls to disagree because of sampling error. But variation in how polls are conducted (whether they interview adults or registered voters, the variables they weight on, etc.) can make those differences even larger. For example, Trafalgar, InsiderAdvantage, and RMG all have Republican house effects while Ipsos tends to have a strong Democratic house effect. …

Inevitably, there’s a lot of disagreement from survey to survey, not just because of statistical variation but because pollsters have long had trouble pegging down Trump’s popularity — and often underestimated it.

Which is to say, polling is still more of an art.

This is not to dampen the delight too much, but reality is much more complicated than a poll.

You mean like his own National Security advisor leaked information on previous operations?

As Hanlon’s razor goes:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Incompetence in the white house is easy to see.

This is the roll call of the motion to table the impeachment. It’s listed by alphabetical last name, but you can find your reps in there.

While I sympathize, I also have read enough history and law to know that the executive branch has many option and powers to leverage to make this happen.

The SAC, aka the third option is a prime example.

Further the executive has the ability to deploy forces for 90 days, but still must notify the speaker of the house within 48 hours of deployment.

These are just two examples.

But if Trump can’t even report within 48 hours, then they need to assert their power.

This android only.

From the article:

Meta managed to do this even when:

• You aren’t using the app (but have a session open in the background).

• You haven’t logged into your account in the browser.

• You’re browsing in incognito mode.

• You’re using a VPN.

• You delete cookies at the end of every session.

The captured data includes:

• Complete browsing history with specific URLs

• Products added to cart and purchases made

• Registrations on websites and completed forms

• Temporal behavioral patterns across websites and apps

• Direct linking to real identities on social networks

You’re not affected if (and only if)

• You access Facebook and Instagram via the web, without having the apps installed on your phone

• You browse on desktop computers or use iOS (iPhones)

• You always used the Brave browser or the DuckDuckGo search engine on mobile

I hate this sort of post, not for what it’s saying but how it’s saying it. This is one news organization writing a story about another news organization poll, and no links to the data are evident. Links to the original news story which aired via a YouTube link, but there’s not even a transcript of it up as I check yet.

So, it’s great that there a backlash, but without context of the data it’s not worth citing.

This is the image:

This is the tweet: https://x.com/DeptofDefense/status/1933947548965781863

Listen to the first half of this podcast as Chenoweth explains what the cavets are to this rule. She describes it more of as a descriptive rule not prescriptive rule, and suggests many other circumstances going on in addition to achieving this rule. Further régimes have adapted to this rule since it was first discovered and she’s still truing to see what that adaptation means.

You Are Not So Smart: 313 - The 3.5 Percent Rule - Erica Chenoweth

Episode webpage: https://youarenotsosmart.com/

Media file: https://stitcher.simplecastaudio.com/aa9f2648-25e9-472a-af42-4e5017da38cf/episodes/2512fbaa-aa0a-406c-9829-7c1d58ff70d6/audio/128/default.mp3

She has become the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority in decisions that reach a liberal outcome, according to a new analysis of her record prepared for The New York Times. Her influence — measured by how often she is on the winning side — is rising. Along with the chief justice, a frequent voting partner, Justice Barrett could be one of the few people in the country to check the actions of the president.

Overall, her assumption of the seat once held by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has moved the court’s outcomes dramatically to the right and locked in conservative victories on gun rights, affirmative action and the power of federal agencies. But in Trump-related disputes, she is the member of the supermajority who has sided with him the least.

So not what they wanted, but not RBG. Still to much authoritarianism for me from the SCOTUS.

Alternative link: https://archive.ph/UO9ND

Fascinating idea and I look forward to reading the book. As someone who has never seen protests be that effective as compared to other constituency pressure mechanisms, it’s an interesting counter point.

The OP’s article indicates 3.5% of the population, which for the US at the moment would be around 340 million. 3.5% would be 11.9 million people.

Rough guesses are that the protest saw about 4-6 million people out yesterday.

I’m particularly curious about the paper’s coalition building concepts about tying immigration to other value such as worker rights, private sector interests such as agriculture, racial justice, etc.

Beyond this I wonder if the analysis from ten years ago takes into account the technological isolation, manipulation, and echo chambering of modern politics. I would venture to guess that the 3.5% might need to be higher in a population that doesn’t listen to ‘untrusted opinions’.

Write at rite, right?

Hugging face is repository and Machine learning hub. https://huggingface.co/huggingface

I love this fact, and am curious where you learned it?

🤣🤣🤣