I don't see Biden stepping aside. This is somewhat of a milquetoast piece that ignores the absurd amount of legwork that would need to be done. It's not just a vote at the DNC; it's turning a battleship around in terms of communications against a guy who would paint it in a particularly vile way as weakness. Which is to say, fucked either way.

The only way this conceivably happens is Biden dies before the election, which I'm sure there are contingency plans for, but that is the ultimate in-case-of-emergency-break-glass situation.

These thinkpieces about how Biden turned in a poor showing (he did) that also ignore that Trump was abysmal ... I don't know what to make of that. Biden was low energy and a bit rambly, but he at least allowed the truth to come out of his mouth once. That should not be the bar, but with the candidates we have, it has to be.

I cannot understand how anyone watches Trump and thinks "this guy gets me." He's not the second coming of Christ, he's the second coming of P.T. Barnum.

I went to TSC several times my first year in Texas, mostly for hay and pellets for the rabbitry. And we were not rural. Not exactly downtown on an acre, but in that suburban interface, it was the only realistic choice. I'll certainly not shop there again. Like, I've never set foot in a Hobby Lobby, and the last time I got Chick-Fil-A was in high school, I don't buy Domino's. It is very easy to vote with one's dollars when alternatives exist.

I wonder if he lets Harlan refer to him as “boy.”

This is actually funny if done in a Foghorn Leghorn voice.

This is not a case of great editing ... solid reporting, good numbers, takes a turn in the last graf and then summarily falls off a cliff. You can't claim a trend, show one data point and then run the tagline.

There's a certain level of amusement in trying to picture what those college end-of-party conversations that turn into breakfast at Denny's look like for conservatives. I enjoy a good, heated argument, but you don't bond over those except under very specific circumstances one doesn't run into at that time.

... they said Archly.

I left Facebook in 2014, having had to rejoin because in that era, you had to have an account to get a job. Which is another topic but worth keeping in mind.

If I don't know why I'm somewhere, I leave. Rave, website, bar ... these are all the same questions, just with less external pressure because you aren't the product in the other two situations.

There's always the option to store things locally. You want to get fancy, you can set up a NAS for remote access.

Saying "isn't X also doing Y" implies the behaviour itself isn't the problem, when it is. Doesn't matter who's using dark patterns for rent-seeking; it matters that we've normalized it.

Remember what that landscape looked like. The only major players we know today that existed then are Microsoft and Apple, and Apple had just been bailed out by MS to get in front of antitrust issues. Amazon existed as a bookstore, Google was not around yet, Facebook would still be several years out ... MySpace wasn't yet around. AOL was still a behemoth. Adobe sold perpetual licenses.

This is a far more recent development.

I could swear Google wasn't broadly a thing yet. The startup I worked at in 1999 had an elevator pitch for how we "could be the next Yahoo." Not a great thing to aspire to in retrospect, but Google wasn't on our radar.

Friendly reminder that Thunderbird is a great way to handle multiple email accounts on the desktop.

Amazon's argument seems to boil down to "we sell products, not ads, so the law shouldn't apply to us." The EC response seems to be "what you would like the law to say is not what it says."

Regardless, the fact that Amazon doesn't like the law means it was written to protect consumers from corporations. In the states, we've completely forgotten that government is supposed to do precisely that.

So, IBM walks into a Nazi bar, and after six drinks, slurrs to the bartender, "What's with all the swastikas?"

Raising the payroll cap has always been the sane, easy solution. The notion that after a certain point you make too much to be taxed is one of the most glaring examples of fucking the working class via regressive policy.

Poorly thought-out Facebook posts are forever; coverage of city council malfeasance from two years ago, not so much.

At this point, the goal is to normalize the rhetoric. He's been very effective at being able to downplay things by having said them for years. We know his playbook; he's continuing to follow it.

"Not enough people are paying at $11.99. We need to charge more."

Just because landlords think they can push through 16% price hikes doesn't mean everyone got a 16% raise. So they're trying to steer people from uBO by ... enticing them with higher prices?

Beau has three videos out on it already. He's really good for context on military things.

For an article that tries to push a groupthink narrative to work, the people using the "discouraged" product need to believe the "encouraged" one has feature parity with zero downsides.

I guarantee that no one is accidentally using Firefox because they're unaware of the alternatives.

As to conspiracies, it's not really the businesses, it's the property.

This is the sort of deep learning I can see benefiting society, as opposed, to say, summarizing Great Expectations for an essay.

Here's the truly evil part:

All free-form adverts are supposed to show some kind of sponsored label, though that doesn't appear to be the case on the three posts included in this story. While Leica's shows it, neither Philadelphia post includes a tag indicating it's sponsored content. We understand that's because the Philadelphia posts are no longer boosted by ad spending, so are back to just being normal user posts.

Ad stays up in perpetuity, tag has a shelf life, after which it looks like a normal post. Can you sponsor a post for an hour like it's a seedy motel room?

Also: As these are regular posts with brief decoration, I'd assume uBO might have trouble filtering them out.

That closing quote is ominous:

"Recall is currently in preview status," Microsoft says on its website. "During this phase, we will collect customer feedback, develop more controls for enterprise customers to manage and govern Recall data, and improve the overall experience for users."

I read "so, yeah, we built in all the telemetry connections we swear we'll never use ... just for testing, ya know?"

Always the sign of a stable democracy.

I'm guessing there's a bit of source bias here. I'll buy that Windows won't be dominant in 10 years, but defaulting to Apple doesn't seem backed by the data presented.

If we've learned anything from recent real estate crises, it's that once again, the losses will be socialized, with golden parachutes aplenty.

What happened to due diligence? This is the right move given the situation, but the situation shouldn't have had the opportunity to come up.

When 23andme was first announced, all I read was Startup Offers Access to Inevitable Security Breach Involving DNA.

This is going to be a wild year for the white-collar bubble. Always remember that corporate wants "good enough for cheap" not "best in class."

This, I did not know:

Details about Reddit’s API-specific costs were not shared, but it is worth noting that an API request is commonly no more burdensome to a server than an HTML request, i.e. visiting or scraping a web page. Having an API just makes it easier for developers to maintain their automated requests.

"We don't know what they are until we charge you."

Having seen several sources on this story today, the headline is alarmist and not backed by the story. Here, we have the statistical, nonzero could attempting to coyly play the "lock up the children!" could.

That the AMOC is at risk is not news. But this analysis presents some sobering conjecture that places uncomfortable odds on an "in our lifetime" event.

I have a feeling the invisible hand is going to force an about face for the GOP on climate sooner than they'd like. Yes, for now they can rail against woke companies for making decisions that improve shareholder returns, but it's cartoonish already what with the weather of late — and I'm sure what's to come will involve blaming residents for leaving when there are no insurance companies left willing to touch Florida (point on the map where the bad man ...).

Problem is, residents have different thresholds than businesses, and once commercial insurance starts to decline in availability, no amount of rhetoric is going to fix the grocery stores closing down because they can't get insurance.

Insurance is ultimately a game of musical chairs. For now, there are so many companies and policy types that it's the boring part at the beginning where everyone mocks the loser but there really aren't any stakes. The mockery phase will end as companies increasingly become the last holdouts and shareholders start asking why everyone else left but we're forecasting blue skies.

Glad to see the Times still churning out utterly tone-deaf columns about kitchen-table economics.

I don't care about what the statistics say about the economy; what matters is that all these available jobs are entry-level. The rate of inflation is largely irrelevant when I've been losing purchasing power since 2003 anyway. The real problem is that when I entered the job market, you had to have 15 years of experience to make middle-class wages in journalism, and 13 years into my career, everyone with experience had taken buyouts or been laid off, with those of us stupid enough to think editing wouldn't die being shipped off to centralized production facilities.

Now, I can't get a job paying a subsistence wage in any field. Either the algorithm finds me too old or data analysis and coding, which I understand to be in high demand, don't count if done in a newsroom. I'm still supposed to have more than 20 years of career left and had to move into a vehicle because all the hard work one was supposed to do in one's 20s for the later payout of a comfortable life with vacations and such just ... doesn't count.

I don't care what the Fed does or who's in the White House; I care about being able to afford more than bologna sandwiches for every meal having already given up housing. That much should not be difficult to understand.

I have to believe at this point that a serious generation gap exists if there is an audience for this sort of constant monitoring. Because that's what it is.

Where it goes and whether Microsoft can be trusted are of course very valid concerns, but Jesus tap-dancing Christ, this is surveillance before the data go anywhere. Add that to your AI assistant that works best with the camera on, et voila!

No doubt Google is going to say "hold my beer," and there's no pure Linux offramp on the overwhelming majority of Android hardware, so even if you've told Microsoft to fuck off ...

Must suck to run a little shack surrounded by all those used car dealerships between Mercer and Denny. That hasn't changed since the '90s, right?

Pick one:

• I'm above the law because I'm fabulously wealthy.
• I can't afford this.

Any reasonable person can reach the conclusion that something is wrong here.

What I'm not seeing a lot of acknowledgement of is who really gets hurt by copyright infringement under the current U.S. scheme. (The quote is obviously directed toward the UK, but I'm reasonably certain a similar situation exists there.)

Hint: It's rarely the creators, who usually get paid once while their work continues to make money for others.

Let's say the New York Times wins its lawsuit. Do you really think the reporters who wrote the infringed-upon material will be getting royalty checks to be made whole?

This is not OpenAI vs creatives. OK, on a basic level it is, but expecting no one to scrape blogs and forum posts rather goes against the idea of the open internet in the first place. We've all learned by now that what goes on the internet stays there, with attribution totally optional unless you have a legal department. What's novel here is the scale of scraping, but I see some merit to the "transformational" fair-use defense given that the ingested content is not being reposted verbatim.

This is corporations vs corporations. Framing it as millions of people missing out on what they'd have otherwise rightfully gotten is disingenuous.

Just woke up, read the Post's feed, then The Economist's coverage, and I can safely say I have no idea what's happening. Suffice to say, I'm not grabbing popcorn yet.

It speaks volumes that people are so ensconced in their worldviews that sharing links on the open Web to sites that require an account to view content on causes zero cognitive dissonance.

I'd be very curious to see the Venn diagram of people who see no problem spamming the web like this and people who complain about links to paywalled sites.