• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle
  • Let’s say the pre-Trump economy is worth $100 trillion, and a particular billionaire’s share is $2 billion. Let’s say Trump catastrophically decreases the economy’s value to $50 trillion, while increasing corruption such that that Trump is getting more power, and the billionaire’s share is $10 billion.

    This is followed by a collapsing market that creates a dip in share prices or private valuation, the assets of which can be bought for pennies on the dollar, eventually leading to that billionaire having $30 billion in a total economy worth $20 trillion.

    Win/win for Trump and the billionaire, at the cost of everyone else.

    That’s basically what’s happening, and will continue to happen.





  • Put a paper towel flat on a table (long side left to right, if you have a half size towel). Take your pointer finger and thumb on each hand, and touch the left thumb to the bottom left corner of the towel, left pointer to the top left, and mirror on the right hand. Keeping the left-right length of towel taut, slowly pinch both hands. From the side view, the towel’s center will rise on the left-right axis (the U-shape). Finish pinching to complete the motion.

    The bug’s center of gravity is above the feet, so it turns out that as long as you keep the paper towel taut, the body is lifted and it quickly attaches its feet to the towel.


  • For anyone wondering:

    Take a paper towel, grip both ends, gently place paper towel over the stinkbug and close both ends keeping the length taut (not putting any pressure or touching where the stinkbug is, just letting the U-shaped fold in the center where you are not touching enclose the stinkbug). Gently twist to seal exits while not squeezing the stinkbug.

    You are now holding a paper towel with a non-activated stinkbug. Do what you will with that stinkbug.


  • Yes, all well and good, and upvoted for the rational response of course.

    I understand there are standards. But the enemy of the good is the perfect, and if journalistic standards require perfect evidence and won’t otherwise represent the best-fit explanation, then they are easily exploited by bad actors like Trump who will intentionally withhold perfect evidence. The public good is served by reporting from a reasonable person’s perspective what the most likely explanation is, including the terminology that goes with it. Here, that is a “lie.”

    I’d also argue their concern in this case isn’t standards, but legal liability for defamation. At least from a legal perspective, reporters and publications have clear defenses at this point to saying “lie” since regardless of subjective momentary intent, the preponderance of people / jurors should accept contextual evidence of intent like his prior statements.

    And even journalistic standards should be addressable by calling it something like an “apparent” lie to allow the possibility of other explanations, while still calling it what it almost certainly is.