Eleopteryx

Strange comment. I have to imagine that the part you find "good" is the lowered viewership? Or what is the "good" part to which you're referring?

Feeling somewhat validated in my choice to upgrade to a discounted phone from 2019 rather than spring for a newer phone with 5G support. I just had a feeling 5G was going to be something I would certainly eventually want to have, but wouldn't make a huge practical difference in the short-term (the next couple of years).

Your reading of the situation seems predicated on a conveniently pedantic definition of "automatic" from my perspective. I watched the entirety proceedings as they transpired and don't recall witnessing much hesitation from Republicans, but it's definitely possible that by not "following conservative media" I overlooked the actually agonizing deliberation that transpired behind the scenes. I would love to educate myself more on this topic, can you link to any examples of what you're talking about?

"Numerous examples" is fantastic but what he said was a generalization and as a generalization it holds up. What % of congressional Republicans would you estimate "did not automatically spring to his defense"?

It actually doesn't depend on when it was said. It was wrong. But, for the record, he said it in October 2016.

His argument that Donald Trump would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton because the former would be easier to remove from office than the latter, arguing specifically that "congressional Republicans would [not] automatically spring to his defense, if he overstepped the line". Doesn't seem like a great example of keen political judgment in hindsight.

I've tried a strategy like that in various contexts. e.g. not uploading a photo of myself on a Slack workspace. How differently might people read what I'm saying if they assume that I'm white versus knowing that I'm black?

I thought it wise to try this strategy when looking for employment, but I think it actually works against me in that case. If the employer knows I'm black then they can filter me out from the get-go and save both of us time rather than be dragged through a pointless interview process. It's hard to really quantify the exact degree to which my race is a detriment to how I'm perceived, but I sense it often enough to know that it's there in some capacity.

I'm almost certain that's what op meant to get across.

Funny how quickly this Bloomberg article manages to segue into "Bernie Sanders doesn't want poor people to have electricity"

>My DNA is not just mine, but it's really shared property.

But you didn't get a cut of the $300m.

>Yes, they're incompetent.

So you feel confident in asserting that, at the time that the person made that tweet, the quality of the Python code that they shipped was poor, or it took an inordinate amount of time to produce? All because they had to look up len()?

>It sounds like the poster has been rejected from a job interview for missing a semicolon or writing “length” instead of “len”.

These kinds of anecdotes make me often wonder if candidates are "disqualified" for far more superficial reasons, and if interviewers hone in on pedantry like this to legitimize their reasoning perhaps even unconsciously. I have trouble believing most candidates wouldn't make at least one trivial mistake of that sort and I am equally reluctant to believe the same interviewers would disqualify any given candidate for a mistake so trivial.

>Twitter isn’t a phone call, but it also isn’t a message board.

Well, Twitter is Twitter. But Twitter is probably closer to a message board than it is to a phone call.

It seems like the reason why the publisher dropped the book is to cover their ass in terms of legal repercussions. This actually presents a compelling question: "does Britain have free speech?" if you can get zapped for being racist or being perceived as racist in a book. The author asks this outright... but from there really just segues into telling how great and not-racist the book really is if-you-only-knew.

The aforementioned question is the only point I should really care about. If a book is harmful to a publisher's brand because of social/PR/profit ramifications, then it makes sense for them to drop it. That's not a free speech issue. If the barrier to publishing the book is legal, that's worth discussing. But beating me over the head with "but my books's not even racist tho!" isn't really getting to the core of the issue at hand.