What? Is there a logical explanation for this other than exactly that...a conservative attack because they got their snowflake feelings hurt by calling out their Daddy Donald's glaring and incontrovertible incompetence with a fairly clever call out?
Lie. The hypothesis is that the account was removed because it ruffled the feelings of conservatives, whether working at instagram or exploiting the reporting mechanism.
"Oh, being bribed/extorted by the government we took control-of doesn't count, because internally the lügenpresse still has unreasonably-biased employees who keep accusing us of being bad people who'll abuse government power. But don't worry, we will fix that soon..." /s
____
P.S.: I wanted to add something that wasn't ironic, but I'm having a surprisingly hard time unpacking my own sarcastic-intuition into arguments. Perhaps:
1. The MAGA bloc angry at companies moderating Dear Leader have already struck back, and they will not be satisfied by less than a reversal into cheerleading.
2. It can be hard to judge what most employees think when the corporation itself is under some duress.
3. Sometimes the circumstances of a "reversal" demonstrate that the original concern was extremely valid.
I think True Believer is worse. I would say that if someone is willing to try something while still willing to accept that it might not work but need to confirm they'd be a rational person. A True Believer will not accept that the thing is not working and try to rationalize why others are still wrong.
Apparently current GPS screens are compatible with your eyes and the viewing conditions you find yourself in. Congrats! May your eyes never darken and your trails be easy!
For others, some of those advantages do matter. Different strokes for different folks! Cheers mate.
Yes, and by the same token, multicellular organisms are literally just sophisticated mitosis and survival optimizers for our cells. But when you take that optimization "to the limit" the cells develop weird things like body plans and back pain and Mozart.
Both examples involve the same "aha" moment: even though it's true that you are literally 'just' doing XYZ, unbelievably complex patterns and sub-goals can emerge.
If it's a "thundering herd" problem where everyone's harness falls back to less popular providers that don't normally see that much demand, I'd say the probability is pretty good.
Classic cascading failure is consistent with providers failing 80 minutes apart instead of simultaneously.
>but launch facilities cause a great deal of local pollution to air and water. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/...
Importantly this was a paperwork issue, not actual pollution. SpaceX reading of the rules was that only Texas regulated this category of discharge not EPA, but this was quickly resolved. The same unmodified water deluge system was later operated with the blessings of the EPA (guess it wasn't that bad!), so I wouldn't lose sleep over this one. YMMV
I'd like to 2nd schiffern' s comment. Your comment gives a persuasive perception of competence. But that's not sufficient to accept your point. I'd love to have more data and details to work with so I can decide which viewpoint to trust here. So any sources you could provide would be really helpful. otherwise it doesn't sound responsible for me to just trust the "experts" either.
This was pointed out to me a while ago, but it seems to hold true:
Whether someone appreciates a modern engineered landfill is a useful Shibboleth for distinguishing real evidence-based environmentalism from narcissistic signaling "environmentalism."
I'm one of those folks who appreciate a well-engineered landfill. We had a great one in Nevada County, CA. Now that I've moved back to Texas, I've learned the difference the hard way, although not as hard as the people who lost their homes.[1]
You know it's funny, I originally wrote "a good modern engineered landfill," but I felt it was getting too wordy so I deleted the unnecessary word. Based on how my words (apparently) came across, clearly I should've kept it!
Indeed, I should say, a well-managed modern engineered landfill is great, but a poorly-managed modern engineered landfill is terrible. I honestly didn't think this needed to be said, that it was too obvious and too cliche, but indeed on this point of fact we find ourselves in violent agreement with each-other! ;) Cheers mate
Not sure if this counts as 'modern', but I had the unfortunate experience of driving near Seneca Meadows[1] recently. I can't begin to describe the visceral level of horrendous stench that is perpetually downwind of this facility.
And please, no fake canned complaints about "politicizing." The story is nakedly political from top to bottom (no pun intended).
reply