Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE
150% and 225% of what? I assume it’s the Federal poverty line, but the lazy journalist didn’t bother to check.
Stephen Miller, who yelled at Lyons during morning phone calls with administration officials
No, you have it all wrong, it’s that two have the wrong color. Get out of here with those extra letters, you Euro weenie!
Normally, I am all for Techdirt’s takes. But I think this one is off the mark a bit, because I legitimately think that infinite scroll and auto play are insidious, and actually harmful enough to be treated as a dangerous design decision.
The whole point of Section 230 is that communications companies can’t be held responsible for harmful things that people transmit on their networks, because it’s the people transmitting those harmful things that are actually at fault. And that would be reasonable in the initial stages of the Internet, when people posted on bulletin boards (or even early social media) and the harmful content had a much smaller reach. People had to “opt in”, essentially, to be exposed to this content, and if they stumble on something they find objectionable they can easily change their focus
But the purpose of the infinite scroll and auto play is to get people hooked on content. The algorithms exist to maximize engagement, regardless of the value of that engagement. I think the comparison to cigarettes is particularly apt. They are looking to hook people into actively harmful behaviors, for profit. And the algorithms don’t really differentiate between good engagement and harmful engagement. Anything that attracts the users attention is fair game.
The author’s points regarding how these rulings can be abused are correct, but that doesn’t negate how fundamentally harmful these addictive practices are. It will be up to lawmakers to make sure that the laws are drafted in such a way that they can be applied equitably… (So maybe we’re screwed after all…)
16, and that’s just the things I’ve said this week
What’s most remarkable is that there is any issue that can get a unanimous ruling from this Court.
That joke is a gas.
It doesn’t matter. He has all the approval he needs to stay in power until Jan 2029, and if he sticks around later he won’t need anyone’s approval to do it.
But to make sure all the notes are at the right pitch, you need a tuna fish.
And it would be exceedingly strange if the justices take this claim seriously. The Constitution’s language is clear. The issue was settled in Wong Kim Ark. And Trump’s lawyers want to implement a 145-year-old idea that was deemed unworkable even by one of its preeminent original champions.
What the author fails to take into account is that this Court is bought and paid for. Once the justices rule in favor of their benefactors, they will be awash in gratuities…
But not before! That would be a bribe, and the Court is above bribery! They do have morals, after all.
I zoomed in a bit for you…
A small price to pay for the massive gains they will personally make by insider trading
No, the apocalypse is here, just ask any recent college graduate. AI is coming for their jobs first. In fact, I’ve heard many people claim that the output of their AI is just as good as an entry-level hire, so why hire anyone?
What happens 10 years from now, when AI hasn’t measurably improved, but now all the humans who would have moved into those mid-level jobs aren’t there to do it?
You’ll probably have to pay in Dogecoin, or Sam Altman’s shitty WorldCoin. Sam wants to assign you a wallet by scanning your retina, so that tracks.
I can speak to one part of it, I used to be one of those people who held the viewpoint that “Well, they are breaking the law to be here, aren’t they?”
Until I was set straight that simply being in the country without proper authorization is not actually a crime. Yes, some people might commit crimes in the course of coming here, like people who somehow evade border checks and make their way in without declaring themselves properly. But simply being undocumented is not a crime. Most people who are here without authorization came here legally (for instance, on a tourist or student visa), then simply didn’t leave when they were supposed to. That is not a crime.
And this is also the reason why immigration “courts” are not part of the judicial branch here, they are administrative courts under the Department of Justice. And that is because they don’t decide criminal matters.
But, explaining all this takes too long, and simply calling them “illegal” is much simpler, isn’t it?
Only an idiot would sign that shit.
Isn’t that the demographic they are going for, though?
Just like the spammers who deliberately put bad grammar and spelling in their emails, they know the people who will click in spite of the obvious red flags are easy marks and can be fleeced for more before carrying on to the scam.
That’s a real Profile in Courage right there.
“We’re doing the wrong thing, but I will go along with it because I’m afraid to speak out publicly. I mean, you’ve seen the crazies who vote for me, right? One of them might pop me…”