That’s not how half-lives work though

There’s plenty of precedent for that though. HSA money, personal mobile device usage, credit for using mass transit… they are compensating specific things. Food is a bit odd to be honest; I’m not sure why they don’t just pay you cash.

Removed by mod

There a huge difference between apolitical and not wanting to be spammed by left-wing echo chamber talking points. Who do leftists think they are reaching on Lemmy anyways lol.

Practically speaking that seams to have the same meaning

Nice username thats gonna be worth big money some day

Mostly off topic but check out the flash game “Timemu” (time emu). A silly little game involving coordinating your efforts across multiple timelines, it reminds me of Portal.

Source https://youtu.be/iioIRryc4_o Yikes… I think in context he was referring to politicians but he might have mentally been thinking “black politicans”.

Is it? Is it a well established fact exactly? Because nobody has shown me any evidence of it and the only people who ever bring this up are leftists.

Look, you come to me with the claim that liberal news outlets are focusing too much on lies by Kamala Harris, with no evidence except a made up hypothetical, in addition to the made up hypothetical in the original post. I point out that in terms of numbers they are reporting about 8x as many falsehoods for Trump as his opponents, which is apparently a problem in itself- I guess because it belies the fact that Trump lies even more than that? I’m not going to scroll through the thousands of examples but from what Ive seen all their fact checks of Biden and Harris are substantial- not meaningless mistakes or inaccuracies. Meanwhile, Trump made the embarassing mistake of confusing two black lawmakers on that helicopter ride and that was front page news on sites like NYT. I would say the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders to prove that they are being unfair towards Democrats.

As far as the role of media goes, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think that the loss of credibility and increased political polarization that happens when news organizations become activist outweighs the benefits but that is just my opinion.

I read through a few of her articles just now. I’m not detecting any pro-Trump bias: she seems very skeptical of the Trump/Gabbard/RFK alliance and has been in the news for talking about how “shaken” Trump was after the DNC. Also, even if she was a secret conservative that is not indicative of NYT as a whole.

Where do you see they fact checked Kamala harris about a sunset in Pittsburgh? I searched and couldn’t find it.

Also, it’s not like any fact checkers are obligated to report 1 lie for harris for each lie for Trump. They focus more on Trump because trump tells more lies. I couldn’t find this data for NYT, but the Washington Post logged 511 misleading claims for Trump in the first 100 days of his presidency and 78 for Biden over the same time period.

Those numbers seem fair to me. You suggest that liberal news outlets are more likely to call out Democrats than Republicans for equally small falsehoods, but the numbers don’t seem to back that up and it doesn’t make any sense to me. Unless you can provide any evidence I don’t believe it.

The job of independent media is to be honest and truthful. It is not to do whatever is necessary to prevent a given candidate from being elected, with the ends justifying the means.

I don’t get it, is the joke that NYT is secretly pro trump or something?

Yes and so was Harris. I mean, prior to selecting Harris, Biden literally said he wanted a woman of color as his VP. If harris picks a white man as a running mate, that will likely be a diversity hire as well (although hopefully she doesn’t say she wants a white man as a running mate out loud so she at least has plausible deniability).

I’m not saying she’s unqualified, her credentials are plenty good enough for the job and much better than Trump or Vance. Its also not necessarily a bad thing to intentionally pick a running mate with a different upbringing than you, so you get exposed to different world views. But it’s not racist to say she’s a diversity hire when Biden literally said as much.

That is true, thank you for explaining that to me. Although I read the dissent and what Sotomayor said was that the president would get their day in court to determine if those actions were constitutional, not that this ruling pre-approves them to do so. Meanwhile Roberts said these concerns are overblown… idk really, I don’t like the ruling, it basically feels like an expansion of qualified immunity to the president, which makes things more difficult for prosecuters but not impossible.

The big thing everyone is missing here is the ruling says the president cannot be prosecuted for actions that are constitutional. So this does not mean the end of democracy or whatever people are saying. The president can’t stay in office after his term expires. The president cannot order his political opponents killed- in fact, the Supreme Court issued a statement on that just this year.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303384/20240319133828340_AFPI Amici Brief 3.19.24.pdf

Did you read the article? The scope of this ruling is pretty narrow.

That’s kind of a weird take. Centrists have not always done that (otherwise society would get steadily more conservative century after century) so you can’t just wave it away as meaningless. Instead I think liberals need to look at what is driving away centrists. (it’s immigration)

Nuance people, NUANCE. Condemning Hamas is NOT the same as endorsing Israel’s actions, and certainly not the same as saying “genocide is fine”.

Lol that’s a take for sure. Funny that this is on a post about trying to have nuanced discussion. I guess calling Hamas a terrorist group makes me a zionist, since if Isreal is bad Hamas must actually be good.