Well, see, the problem is that the race is currently at the primary election stage. So both candidates are Democrats.
So, if you give coverage to one candidate, that is favoring that candidate over the other. That doesn't seem fair.
But if you give both candidates air time, then you're giving air time to two Democratic candidates and zero Republican candidates. That can also be viewed as unfair (never mind that the Republican candidate is not in an election until November).
The only other option is to give neither candidate air time. That results in a less-informed electorate, and that's not a good outcome either.
All in all, the "give both candidates air time, even if they're both from the same party, as they will be in a primary" seems like the best answer, especially if it's applied to primary candidates from both parties. But it's not quite as straightforward a question as it appears at first glance.
GUIs are weaponry that we point at one another? You seem to be captive to some overriding viewpoint, to the point that you can't actually evaluate reality.
PARC. Where Papert & Kay ran experiments on children for the military. All to answer the question: how fast can we get an above-average peasant trained on our symbol-processing apparati (radars, dashboards, etc). The answer: kinda fast. If you would think about it for a moment, you won't even need this history lesson to see that GUI is mostly a weapon. Facebook: weapon. Twitter: weapon. Excel: mostly a weapon. Photoshop: mostly a weapon. Web browser: weapon...
A major part of why it's so expensive is because of government subsidies to private healthcare insurance. No or little public option is exactly what allows insurance companies to go hog wild on their premiums.
The ACA subsidies are simply a bandaid on a broken system which allows insurance to further break the system as they adapt to what people are willing to pay for a necessity.
Healthcare is really complicated. No one factor makes up a majority of the excess (compared to other rich nations) cost.
The ACA is a bandaid, and may be making things worse over time, at least in some areas. But Americans don't see to have the appetite to really change anything. Probably because most voters are insulated from this by good (enough) employees plans.
A big part of that is also the transfers between private insurance and Medicare, with health care providers accepting far lower rates for Medicare and then subsidizing operations with the rates charged to private insurers. Hospital administration is pretty hellish. As is administering payments!
Any functioning health care system is going to have a "band-aid" exactly ACA subsidies: make sure that those with the lowest incomes can still afford health care. Something in between Medicaid and the full cost. But as we rein in the costs and get healthcare to be a smaller fraction of GDP, the size of the band-aid can shrink.
There has, for 30+ years, been a real problem with politicians refusing to speak truth, or anything close to it. They tell voters what they want to hear. This is often "truth adjacent", and they thus offer partial solutions that tend to not work out.
The US has real problem that require real changes, but the political system is not responding.
IMO, people sense this, grow frustrated, and become willing to take a chance on someone who seems to speak (more) truth, and claims to be willing to pursue real changes.
We are starting to see more moderate mainstream politicians willing to speak more truthfully, and propose policy changes that may not appeal to everyone. But I'm not sure it's happening fast enough.
I'm not sure this works forever. A big chunk of the real humans will eventually figure out that the real human conversation is somewhere else. At that point, X loses much of its influence. Sure, you can - with great effort - shout louder than all the bots with opposing views. So what? Nobody real is listening.
You're overestimating the capability of the average human to discern fact from fiction, and underestimating our susceptibility to disinformation. This is a problem even for educated skeptics. If all your information sources are flooded with disinformation, eventually you'll start paying attention to it.
The defense department probably boosted Anthropic’s terms of service. Now they want to make the terms more clarifying. Defense department wants to be able to use Anthropic for anything they want:
> Anthropic is prepared to loosen its current terms of use, but wants to ensure its tools aren't used to spy on Americans en masse, or to develop weapons that fire with no human involvement.
So, if you give coverage to one candidate, that is favoring that candidate over the other. That doesn't seem fair.
But if you give both candidates air time, then you're giving air time to two Democratic candidates and zero Republican candidates. That can also be viewed as unfair (never mind that the Republican candidate is not in an election until November).
The only other option is to give neither candidate air time. That results in a less-informed electorate, and that's not a good outcome either.
All in all, the "give both candidates air time, even if they're both from the same party, as they will be in a primary" seems like the best answer, especially if it's applied to primary candidates from both parties. But it's not quite as straightforward a question as it appears at first glance.
reply