Most people don’t need AWD. Most people who think they need it are wrong, and they could easily live without it. I say this having lived in several snowy places, including rural mountains, owning cars with and without AWD.

Regardless of AWD, if you buy an SUV, don’t think that you can ignore the weather. It’s very common for SUV drivers to believe that their car is suitable for the snowstorm, drive at high speeds, and get stuck in the ditch. Please don’t be that guy.

I like how you mixed a few notions together in a way specifically designed to induce chaos.

Even assuming that AI can take away jobs, which is itself I think inaccurate, and provably so, that has nothing to do with people lacking money. In an ideal world, we could use technology to improve productivity so that we would need to work less.

So then what you are actually asking is a different question. What you’re actually asking is, what happens if we create an economic system that takes away most money from most of the people, to much larger degree than is currently happening. And for that, all you need to do is go look at the history books.

Finally, your question as posed is partly self-contradictory. You’re talking about AI being competent enough so that it can fire everyone, but improvements in technology are not always monetized. They can also lead to extreme cost savings. If for example, if I don’t have the money to hire an accountant, but I don’t need to because the software package is good enough to handle all of it for me, then there’s no problem to be solved. And this is true for any number of so-called white collar jobs.

So then what we actually see is that jobs change and evolve over time. The word computer used to talk about a person who did arithmetic and other such operations. Now it’s used to refer to the machine itself.

If you have the child at home, then there is no auto-generated birth certificate. If you’re at a hospital then they’re probably going to document it, and whether or not you take the piece of paper, it’s in the system and can be printed out as needed.

Yes, every article should mention his horrible crimes. It really is that bad. Where’s the apology? Where’s the rehabilitation? … Without those, you have a horrible criminal who’s unfit for any public service job, and it’s the duty of media to repeatedly bring it up.

Using a third party YT front end is a medium run fix. Your home screen is your subscriptions, and you won’t see mixed or shorts unless you want to.

Plus, you won’t be logged in, so you can’t easily comment, and YT comments suck anyway so your life will be happier.

Zomfg the airlines are poorly run. Great! Let’s regulate them again. Bring back the 70s. MAGA by regulating those mega corporations, busting those monopolies.

The appearance of corruption is corruption. Judges know that. Everyone knows that.

We can explain away things, but it was his job to make sure we wouldn’t need to. This is not an edge case. And if it were, why didn’t he disclose it, as basic CYA? … Oh, yeah, we know why.

“If I could talk to my great grandfathers, I would say that the old times are gone. So much has changed. When all else fades away, The Pirate Bay will remain. It will always be with us.” -Brule

I’m not disagreeing with you, except that we should remember that a lot of rich people inherited their wealth. So it’s not that they directly screwed over other people, but maybe that their parents or grandparents did.

Your choice of language shows that you are in fact “out to get him”. I’m not sure you know what the word gaslighting means, but I won’t blame you for that because it’s kind of a fancy buzzword these days.

Nobody is saying that people are out to get Biden. People are saying that many mainstream media networks are setting magically low standards for Donald Trump and absurdly high standards for Joe Biden. This is incredibly obvious once you look at a few examples, so people can’t effectively deny it, and instead they try to deflect. That’s what you tried to do, and it’s not working.

Remember that Trump was convicted of over 30 felonies. That’s pretty bad, but it’s even worse because he committed those felonies to cover up the fact that he was sleeping around because he knew that if people found out, he would have lost the election. In other words, he broke the law to win the presidency, he succeeded, and nobody should ever forgive him. Any responsible newspaper should be reiterating this fact anytime they write a political article about him.

But that’s not the worst thing he’s done. We have clear proof from the defamation case that he committed sexual assault, and sadly he couldn’t be convicted of that because of the statute of limitations, but there’s no doubt that he did it. This again should be brought up anytime a responsible newspaper wants to write an article about his presidential run.

I could go on and on, but it’s not necessary. If you look at the above two examples, you see that the man has no moral integrity. He’s a terrible human being, he does terrible things to other human beings, and he’s going to keep doing that until the day he dies. We all know it, and every journalist with a conscience has a duty to point it out whenever they report on him.

But they don’t. They ignore it. Instead they write about how Biden looks old and sometimes gives incoherent answers. Instead they say that Biden should withdraw from the race. And that, my friend, is the problem.

Nice article, bad headline. We were never conned, at least millions of us weren’t.

I think that depends how you write your web scraper. Of course the web scraper is going to load the page, just like your web browser does, which by all accounts is not an issue. What happens after the page is loaded depends on how the software is written.

Sure sure, there are dozens of options. That’s not the issue. IMO internal DNC power is what is at play. It doesn’t matter what Biden does because he’ll retire soon, but a young leader would take power away from corporate backers for decades to come.

Also, to hell with the Times.

He spoke carelessly, but he didn’t exactly say what the author said he said. You can in fact do many things with it. Copyright doesn’t care what you do if you aren’t copying. That’s the definition of the word.

I like how they already frame it as him taking the bait. Because they’re desperate to have an excuse, and they want to blame the moderator or his opponent for tricking him into being an a******.

They know that he will, they know that he’ll say ridiculous things, and they’re trying to come up with as many preemptions strategies as they can.