I don't go to McDonald's at all because not even the fries are gluten free. They used to be glorious beef tallow fried, and now they're seasoned with a wheat based flavoring.
Basically the only fast food left to me is Taco Bell, which as you may know earned its place by surviving the franchise wars.
News isn't watched, it's read. There's extraordinary convincing power in having a talking head say things to you. You're way more likely to believe it regardless of truth. It's why they all do it.
I don't think so. In latter decades CNN descended into a spin zone with blatant conflicts-of-interest, such as:
- CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux was married to Karine Jean-Pierre (Biden's press sec, 2022-5)
- CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour is married to James Rubin, (was Clinton admin asst. secretary of state for public affairs, 1997-2000)
- Jen Psaki's 2017 revolving-door when she was said to be actively shopping herself for a job at CNN while still Obama's WH communications director (no 12-month "cooling-off" period). Left WH 1/2017, joined CNN 2/2017.
- for decades now, CNN seems to function like a retirement home for Clinton-era operatives like James Carville and Donna Brazile. In particular this was a blatant conflict-of-interest in the 2016 primary (Hilary vs Bernie, and the DNC shenanigans). I've seen many bloggers say that TV loves these commentators not because they're that relevant or insightful, but because they steer candidates and their budgets towards big wasteful traditional media spends (and not more targeted internet campaigns, like Obama 2008 or Trump 2016).
- the legendary 2004 takedown of CNN's Crossfire debate show (a younger Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala) by Jon Stewart ("You're on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making prank phone calls! What is wrong with you?")
I don't find talking heads persuasive, and one simple antidote is to flick between coverage of the same issue on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, PBS, ABC/NBC/CBS, BBC, DW, RT, foreign channels, etc. to see conflicting narratives, or sometimes conflicting facts.
Maybe the better converse question is: when did CNN stop being any more credible and up-to-the-minute than other news sources (incl. internet ones, or SM)? Maybe late 1990s. Its rise and fall parallel the Clinton admin.
(Why did this get downvoted? I'm genuinely interested in how CNN went from being a premium news source (Somalia 1993) to the current thing, after several takeovers. This has contemporary relevance, like an inability to make objective criticism of the DNC in 2016 or 2024).
Orthogonal to whether people find print vs video trustworthy or authoritative, which I think is conditioned by what each person grew up considering to be trustworthy or authoritative.
I was delighted to find that "expand selection" was a supported function, doubly so when I noticed that it was ctrl+w (what I'm used to and this may be from the IntelliJ defaults), but it... doesn't do anything.
Even selecting it from the menu does nothing.
An internet search turned up nothing useful. And oddly 'expand selection' is not listed in the keymap?
None of this makes any sense. And if expand selection doesn't work I'm simply not going to use it.
edit: I found that (possibly my intellij mappings) remapped ctrl+w to "close editor" and I deleted that and now it works.
It's weird that it's not to be found in the keymap editor though... I had to manually insert it as a binding AND why would it show up as "Expand Selection Ctrl+W" in the select menu when it isn't? That's got to be a bug or two.
>2.3. Acceptable Use
>The Service uses technology provided by multiple third party AI subprocessors (the “AI Providers”) including but not limited to: Anthropic, PBC (“Anthropic”), Google LLC (“Google”), LiveKit Incorporated, OpenAI, LLC (“OpenAI”) etc., as may be updated from time to time. Customer may not use the Service in a manner that violates any applicable AI Provider policy which are listed on https://zed.dev/acceptable-use-policies, including Anthropic’s Usage Policy, Google Gemini’s Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, GitHub's Acceptable Use Policy, LiveKit’s Acceptable Use Policy; OpenAI’s Usage Policies or Sharing and Publication Policy; and Community Guidelines; each of which may be updated from time to time and are expressly incorporated by reference. Customer is solely responsible to check for updates to the applicable AI Provider policy from time to time.
>Customer may not use the Service in a manner that violates any applicable AI Provider policy
Zed has built in support for accessing ai models. You don’t have to use the ai features. But if you do, zed can’t be seen suggesting it’s okay to abuse the Claude api for legal reasons.
We simply don't need online age verification. It's not the state or private business' job to parent children. It's their parents job.
This is not only unnecessary, but will with 100% certainty lead to negative downstream affects, either via leaks, or the state being able to find people for things that aren't crimes once they're adults.
There's simply no good reason for it that outweighs the bad. But what it really boils down to is completely unnecessary.
sure, but it is what it is. the places with scanners may be more sophisticated than i give them credit, but you cannot deny there are places that do not card every person every time you visit. online places will never not know it was you. if you cannot see the differences, then you're just deliberately being obstinate about it
>Not so sure about that. Handing an ID to a bouncer at a bar or similar is not logging anything. Mainly it's some big man that you can see gears turning to see if the date is correct and a cursory glance to see if the photo matches. Sophisticated places might have a scanner that does what ever validation it does, but again, it's just another cursory check of the photo. Most of these people really don't care.
Not necessarily true. There's a local stripclub that scans and saves the scan to fight chargebacks and the like. It is definitely logging stuff. They've told me that they were going through the logs once and the bartender ended up googling my fullname. We're cool and I didn't care, but this what you said is not a blanket true statement. I trust a physical business that I can visit far more than some ID verification company that is going to get hacked at some point.
I've seen this before in London too in some venues. They have full-on computers that scan your passport and take your photo, for the express purpose of storing this info.
why would you trust a physical location who typically wouldn’t have a robust architecture or any opsec but not trust an online first business that likely has opsec and monitoring?
This is exactly the reason I used to be almost exclusively an r/all browser back when reddit was worth using. I didn't want a curated feed tailored to my beliefs. I wanted to know what was going on. Then in ~2015 free speech was killed, and it seemed like every new feature added was one that increased censorship. Like post locking wasn't a thing the petty tyrants could do. Now they lock posts and sticky their midwit opinion at the top of the thread, and ban whole communities with racist biases. So I strived to be less of a redditor and quit completely when they killed Apollo & third party apps. No use for the site anymore.
Basically the only fast food left to me is Taco Bell, which as you may know earned its place by surviving the franchise wars.
reply