Me and your cat have no idea what you’re talking about…

It’s like meowschwitz in here

I love him

Federal, not state convictions.

This forgiveness is for people who have been paying on their loans for 10 years. I don’t think there are many people who:

1. Took out under 12k
2. Have been paying for 10 years

AND

3. Make a lot of money

Why? Interest is a bitch. If there are people who meet those three conditions, there probably aren’t many of them.

It’s important to note that this isn’t some new blanket forgiveness. These are people who have been paying on their loans for 10 years. People who should’ve already been eligible for loan forgiveness under existing policies and who have already paid more than they took out in many cases.

And his wife?

… to shreds you say?

Absolutely, but Musk specifically said weather wouldn’t be a problem like regular satellites, which was just not true from my experience.

Overall though, I just think people should be aware that it’s not a good replacement for if you already have access to other Internet services. I’ve seen people discuss how they want to ditch Comcast for it. It’s a lot more expensive and definitely not as consistent. Again, it totally has an audience and purpose, pros and cons.

I had Starlink too and it was definitely unreliable. It’s also absolutely atrocious in any kind of weather like heavy rain or snow.

It’s better than nothing for sure, but definitely look into it more, especially if you’ll be relying on it for work.

I’d love to discuss this more if you’d be interested. I teach mass communications and visual literacy courses at a university and have over a decade of experience. I’m always interested in discussing these things further, as media literacy is extremely important and we can only educate others and make improvements with our literacy skills through discussion, learning, and practice.

Could you tell me more about the authors you mention and where you got the information from?

One thing I like about Media Bias Fact Check is that their methodology is transparent and clear. Yes, there is a certain level of subjectivity, as there is with any analysis like this. They utilize fact checking best practices and have ethical funding. Even their competitors rate them to be accurate and credible.

They are considered reliable not because people use them, but because of their methodologies, transparency, and factuality. Nothing is 100%, but it’s a good resource in my opinion.

This article, and the source it links to, appears to be talking about the UK actually.

When I watched it live, I believe the count said 2 Democrats didn’t vote for the quorum that came before the vote, so yeah I’m guessing they just weren’t there today.

Completely agree. Not only is it disturbing how little people care, but there’s a far bigger picture.

Right now it’s celebrities shilling products. What happens when it’s political figures? What happens when the messages spread misinformation or violence?

It doesn’t matter whether or not you fall for it as an individual. It will impact society. Full stop.

People need to be more understanding and compassionate. If you know so much and are so great at identifying these things and so technologically savvy, help educate those around you. Vote in every election, including local elections, to vote into power people who understand these issues and will act on the best interest of the people.

That’s a fair counter, and I definitely agree there are many things that could be changed to improve the situation.I also think the US needs to move away from large vehicles, and it’s a huge problem that so many people are purchasing vehicles that get poor mileage and are ultimately bad for the environment.

I would argue though that there are some issues with the motorcycle suggestion. First, in many areas of the country it’s only feasible to ride a motorcycle about half the year due to weather. In the New England area, it’s only feasible in the summer. Otherwise, the snow and ice make it far too dangerous. Plus, if you have a family/children, then you also need some kind of car, so now you have to buy, register, inspect, and maintain two vehicles. There are also costs for getting a motorcycle endorsement on your license and an additional fee each time you renew your license to maintain that motorcycle endorsement on your license.

The problem with the “pay per mpg” would be older cars. I used to drive a very old car with very bad gas mileage. I also lived in that car. There’s risk of disproportionately impacting people with low income. Of course, that could be countered based off the the year of the car, or income, or some other thing – but I’m sure there would be loopholes and other issues there.

Anyways, really interesting topic to consider. Thanks for the respectful discourse!

I get what you’re saying, but I’m not sure you realize just how much that would hurt people. Europe is much more densely concentrated and has far better public transit options. Many parts of the US are extremely rural. My nearest grocery store is a 30 minute drive away. There are no stores in walking distance at all. There are no sidewalks. There are no busses, trains, or cabs in my area, and that is not wildly uncommon.

If costs of gas doubled, at least without viable alternatives, it would absolutely bankrupt people. And it would disproportionately impact poor people in rural areas where it’s very common to commute to work 30-60 minutes of driving is a common commute. While it varies by state, US federal minimum wage in the US is $7.25/hour. Many people commute for work, and an hour drive one way is also not uncommon.

Let’s take 7.25 an hour x 40 hours = $290 before taxes.

We’ll keep it simple and say a person uses only 1 gallon of gas per day to get to and from work which, at $8 a gallon x 5 days a week = $40. Just that travel to and from work and no other travel at all (or maintenance on the vehicle) would be 14% of pre-tax income.

So many things need to change so I understand the perspective, but I think it’s really important to consider the widespread impact. Obviously the US has a lot of issues contributing to this situation.

Did I hear a rock and stone?

Honestly I’m advocating for genocide…

gasp

The law hasn’t really caught up. There are regulations from the FCC, including in regards to distributing false information, but only for broadcast television. Fox News (and many others, such as CNN, MSNBC, etc) are cable news channels run by private providers, so they are not subject to those FCC regulations.

While companies have sued, such as Dominion, there really aren’t any grounds for the audience/consumers suing. They didn’t suffer any damages.

That being said, there do need to be changes in how ethics are enforced in media and journalism.

Honestly, I’m constantly asking this question regarding most social media platforms. What will it take for people to stop using platforms they don’t like? It’s not just the support, it’s the actual monetary value of their interactions with those platforms – you’re handing those companies money by utilizing their “free” platforms. I teach online undergrad courses in mass communication, visual literacy, etc. Students talk about their use of social media platforms and many complain that they don’t even like them or don’t like their policies. When I ask them why they continue to use these platforms they don’t like, they say it’s easier to keep in contact with grandma, or military member, or someone overseas (or similar response).

Is call, text, and email not covering those individual communications? Are there not other formats that could be used instead of platforms that you don’t like? It’s much deeper than just that “simple” question. For many, it questions their idea of how culture and society. Especially younger people, who grew up with social media all of their lives, it’s difficult to picture an existence without it, to live with the “FOMO” (fear of missing out), etc.

It’s honestly a really interesting topic, and it will be necessary to question our idea of culture and what’s “normal” when it comes to social media usage.

New England consists of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.