cyorir

My guess is the parent poster means residents are leaving. I know people who live in an apartment in Manhattan. The only way they can afford it is by renting out a room through AirBnB whenever they can. However, the pandemic+recession means much less demand for AirBnBs in Manhattan. On top of it, they have less work because their industry has effectively shut down from the pandemic. The result is that they can't afford Manhattan because the landlord refused to reduce rent, so they'll be moving out.

Susie Greene: You sick fuck, Larry David! What do you think you're doing, sending invites straight to spam folders?

Any "Twitter is a _ propaganda channel" seems a bit odd when you consider that users choose who to follow, who to block, what topics to follow, what keywords to mute, whether or not to see targeted ads, etc. Twitter might be able to do a better job of tackling outright misinformation that spreads on the platform and they aren't always perfect when it comes to banning or suspending accounts (or failing to do so), but in general it's hard to say that a platform is just a propaganda channel for a specific ideology when it is inhabited by a diverse range of incompatible ideologies. Users tend to sort themselves into bubbles of like-minded accounts, but that is on users rather than Twitter.

> Edit: at least point out why you're downvoting me, this is a straightforward answer to the question.

> which for me is a litmus test as to whether you are a "crazy leftist"

Implying that those who disagree with you are "crazy leftists" might be one reason for a downvote, for a start.

I don't find that surprising at all. When I looked through Upwork job postings during a period of unemployment, I saw a post from a restaurant asking for a coder. The job was to create a script to cheat in an online poll from a local magazine. The poll would be used to determine which restaurant would get an award and be highlighted by the magazine, so the restaurant had an incentive to cheat. Naturally, Upwork refused to remove the post.

That's essentially technocracy. I think some amount of technocratic decision-making is good in a government, but at the end of the day you still need that government to be informed by the needs/desires of the people (democracy, more or less). Democracy should be informed by the technocrats, not replaced by technocracy. In this case, I think voters should be listening to ecologists to understand the effects that reintroduction of wolves will have, but it's good that it's still up to the voters to decide whether to prioritize restoring the ecosystem versus making life easier for those in the agriculture industry.

How many problems do you have available?

Not so much faulty as incomplete. There is still value in a partial picture.

Note that on the extreme end of consumer GPUs, there is the 2080 Ti which comes with 11GB.

> I challenge you to find a single journalist who isn't "lying by omission".

If we're issuing challenges, then I challenge you to prove that every single journalist IS lying by omission.

A lie by omission is intentionally leaving out facts to misrepresent the truth. Another way to describe it is that a lie by omission is the cherry-picking of facts.

This differs from providing a limited subset of the facts for other reasons. You may not have all the facts yourself, you may not be certain of every fact you have, you may be practically limited by the amount of information that you can convey to your audience (perhaps because the audience only wants to read a 1-page article instead of 10, or perhaps because you don't have the time to write 10 pages instead of 1). In none of these cases are you necessarily lying by omission, as long as you choose to present facts that are representative of the broader set of facts that you have instead of cherry-picking facts to match a given narrative. You may still have implicit bias; that does not mean you are lying by omission because you are not necessarily intending to be biased.

Do you believe that every single journalist is intentionally skewing the truth and cherry-picking their facts to match a hidden agenda? I don't.