Target isn't the NFL but the NFL knows they're more powerful than the current political moment and it was valuable long term to have Bad Bunny play their big show and risk losing 500,000 viewers for 20 minutes

"we're going to have high prices for a little while but as soon as this ends the prices will drop" - famously popular economics of the Biden Administration

I'd have to look into it. I don't put much stock into allegations made alongside allegations that I know to be false, like "the New York Times is a pro trump newspaper"

When I read the New York Times I do not come away with the perception that they are a pro trump reporting newspaper

Bouie is stripping people of human rights?

Which figures here are stripping people of human rights?

Every thread of these becomes "well Twitter is worse" and on the whole yeah. Obviously I'm here and not there, I like bsky more. But it has its pathologies, primarily in the sheer number of insane trolls who like to brigade people for fun and pop up infinite new accounts when they get banned

Chris said it too bsky.app/profile/chri...

Major figures, including Bouie, have been brigaded off this site, in some instances multiple times.

Maybe these people are making "unpopular and insane claims" but they are loud enough, numerous enough and unpleasant enough to run people off. And that's bad!

Quick search says that beer, cider, wine ABV was lower, but whiskey has basically always been 80+ proof, so a pint of whiskey per day... Yeah.

Wasn't ABV on everything back then way lower, though?

I don't know what makes that a "confusion problem." I like seeing the large accounts that I follow, because I follow them for a reason, interacting with people

I do look at people's replies, particularly large accounts that I follow and are interested in, because the "social" part of "social media" is something I value, and I think it degrades the platform when a disproportionate number of responses to those accounts are unhinged antisocial responses.

I don't know what "algofeeds" are, I don't use "for you" or recommendations. I'm talking very specifically about antisocial behavior posting antisocial responses to mainstream figures. It's bad and they shouldn't do that.

Do I have a study that proves that it's a "disproportionate percentage"? No, but I do think it is true based on my experience using this site, so I think it's good for MY to call it out.

A disproportionate percentage of people on this site are dedicated to making it unpleasant for professional use. This is observable in the replies of a number of large accounts of mainstream journalists, and it's good to call it out to try to get other power users to discourage this behavior.

6.3k followers on a pretty small website is a pretty big account

We were missing our best team defender tonight, Jabari, but it's the coach's responsibility to game plan around that instead of just assume that "toughness" can make up for it

The modern NBA is not built on individual defense. The Warriors proved that over and over. A "defensive guru" coach needs to understand that, and it is embarrassing if he has to rely on "individual defense" when he can't build a functional team defense.

Donald Trump said he was anti-war and voters believed him because he was opposed to the only war the US was involved with at the time, the war in Ukraine. He also has the advantage that he uniquely among politicians can brazenly lie and suffer no consequences

The point is that trying to be "anti war" is bad, because many wars are good. As you said. Because "I'm only for good wars" is a statement without substance. Everyone is for only the good wars

the messagists would say "arming the ukrainians to fight the war is actually pro peace, not pro war, and I would simply snap my fingers and ensure that all American voters believe that" and sorry folks that dog don't hunt.

"we have become involved in two wars since Biden took office"

this is why breaking politics along an anti-war line is (on the merits) bad. the Ukraine war is good, and we should be fighting that war

He doesn't know how to conduct an actual negotiation, which is why he so quickly devolves into bullying threats, because that's always how he's gotten his way in the past.

Haberman's book on this was excellent. His business deals in New York always involved buying his way to success or having friends in government offices. His negotiations were little more than his opponents negotiating their own surrender.

I *do* believe it, but mostly because his history of negotiations mostly amounts to him bullying or buying over people who are poorer than he is. So when he has to *actually* negotiate with people who are belligerent and don't have to fold, he gets frustrated quickly.

You're telling me educated elitists succeeded in organizing and maintaining the wealthiest and most successful societies in existence? Where do I sign up for more?

I don't know if the cathedral is real or not, but if it is real, it is actually good

"I can't read" is pretty good, just hard to adapt