They spent decades and millions in litigation defending these districts, the Supreme Court sided with them in 2024, and now they're already redrawing everything again to lock in a 7-0 sweep. The question isn't whether there will be a lawsuit — there already is. The question is: will it move fast enough to change anything before the August primaries? Probably not. And everyone knows it. The slowness of the courts is the strategy.

Interesting how the same people who champion 'the will of the people' passed this map after midnight, restricted the opposition's amendments, and ignored an open meetings law, all within a three-day special session. If a so-called 'third world' country did this, everyone would be calling it an electoral coup. Here they call it Republican governance.

The point about the ATS filter is something most people completely ignore. I applied to over 40 jobs through LinkedIn with zero responses, switched to cold-messaging founders directly, and had three interviews within two weeks. The system genuinely isn't built for people like us. The freelance-first advice is also underrated my first "real" job offer came from a client who just asked me to go full-time after eight months of freelance work. Nobody asked about my degree once.

Some good points here, but this article is painting a rosier picture than reality for most people. The "specialise in a niche" advice sounds great until you realise most people don't have the financial runway to spend 12-18 months building a portfolio and doing cheap freelance work while bills pile up. This is survivorship bias dressed up as a guide. The people who pull this off usually already have some advantage — savings, family support, a network from a previous job, or they're in a country where cost of living allows it. Also, the article casually says "offer a week of free work." That's easy advice to give and genuinely damaging to those who can't afford it. The structural barriers to employment without a degree are real and a listicle of hustle tips doesn't dismantle them.

The comparison to tobacco is provocative, but it may oversimplify the issue. Tobacco is inherently harmful at any level, while social media seems more like an “environment” than a “product”. Its impact depends heavily on how it is used, the design of the platforms, and even the social context of the young person. <br><br>Is the problem really social media itself, or a broader attention model that incentivizes excessive use and rewards extreme behavior? If that is the case, does it make more sense to restrict access, or to rethink the incentives behind these platforms altogether?

Whether it was deliberate, negligent, or just an extraordinarily unlucky coincidence, the outcome was exactly the same. And that's what makes this so uncomfortable to resolve. At some point, "we didn't mean it" stops being a defense and starts being an indictment of its own kind. How do you run a major operation in a country without anyone in the room knowing what May 18th means? The internal review found no conclusive evidence of malicious intent, yet some employees refused to hand over their phones. So we're stuck in this strange middle ground: a company that was either deeply cynical or deeply ignorant, with no way to tell which, and an apology that was, frankly, flawless in execution. Which almost makes it worse. The real question nobody seems to be asking is whether intent should even matter here. If the harm is real, does the reason change anything?

I've just blocked my boss

I reply to everyone because my block list has already taken care of removing all the jerks from my life lol

The wrong question is "is leaving someone on read disrespectful?" The right one is: since when does reading a message obligate you to reply? We don't expect anyone to read an email out loud the moment it arrives. But on WhatsApp we act like silence is a crime. The problem isn't the person who didn't respond, it's that we've outsourced our self-worth to a little blue checkmark.

Most devs reach for `<div>` soup or a `<ul>` for key-value layouts. But there's a native HTML element built exactly for that — with accessibility semantics baked in — that the majority of the industry just... ignores. How many production codebases have you seen that actually use `<dl>` correctly?

If you played the Western version and found it hard, you were actually playing a censored, watered-down version. The Japanese release has different bosses, more lore, and a completely different difficulty curve, it's almost a different game. How many of you actually know the real Dynamite Headdy?

I'll push back a little here. The résumé isn't broken by accident. It was designed to filter fast, and fast filtering always cuts corners. The real question nobody wants to answer is: are companies actually willing to slow down their hiring process to be fairer? Because every "fix" proposed costs time and money. Until there's a business case attached to inclusion, this stays a LinkedIn conversation.

Hot take: portfolios didn't democratize hiring. They just moved the gatekeeping from "did you go to the right school" to "did you have enough free time to build side projects." A single parent working two jobs is not less talented. They just had less margin. We keep calling that a skills gap when it's actually an access gap.

Sanchez has the technical purity of Cuban boxing and the physical tools to trouble anyone at heavyweight including Usyk. If he gets past Torrez Jr cleanly, that fight writes itself. Cuba has been waiting decades for a heavyweight king; this might finally be the generation that delivers it.

I feel sorry for those who are going to be fined and have lost the chance to provide affordable entertainment for their families. The platforms, content creators, studios, and the government that profited from this all deserve a kick in the butt, since they’ve always found ways to rip us off.

What this episode reveals is something deeper than a simple messaging problem. Framing everything as "bad messaging" is, to some extent, a way of softening what is actually happening. American defense officials themselves admitted, anonymously, that they had "spent the better part of two weeks reacting to the first announcement" and that they didn't know what the second one meant either. That isn't poor communication — it's the absence of a coherent decision-making process. The pattern here is one of foreign policy driven by impulse and personal grievance. The first withdrawal was announced after Chancellor Merz criticized how Washington was handling negotiations with Iran, and the second announcement came when Trump questioned Hegseth about why the deployment had been cancelled, saying the U.S. should not "treat Poland poorly" — apparently because he simply likes Nawrocki. In other words, the American military posture in Eastern Europe is being determined by political affinities and momentary dislikes, not by strategy. The problem with the "messaging" framing is that it assumes a well-defined policy exists and is simply being explained poorly. But allies are still trying to determine whether the administration is reducing its commitment to NATO overall, or simply reshaping it around governments Trump sees as more loyal. That uncertainty cannot be resolved with better communication. It stems from the policy itself being incoherent. The European response is telling. NATO chief Mark Rutte praised Trump's decision while simultaneously stressing that it would not change the push for Europeans to become less dependent on a single ally. The alliance's own leadership is publicly managing American unpredictability, preparing its members for a future in which the U.S. may not be there. That is an enormous signal, and it plays out regardless of whether Washington's messaging is clear or confused. Trump has even suggested he might pull the U.S. out of the very alliance it helped found after World War II, which places any one-off troop announcement within a context of permanently degraded credibility. Poland may celebrate today, but what Sikorski called "all's well that ends well" is really a normalization of a transactional and volatile relationship — one that Poland, given its geography, is less able to ignore than most allies. The question the article raises about poor messaging is real, but secondary. The core problem is structural.

bro I literally paused my game to read this article about pausing my game. the disrespect. anyway going back in, my teammates are waiting and they've been waiting for 4 years

"The real question isn't whether he was wearing a mask it's that we live in an era where deepfakes and AI filters are so commonplace that **we can no longer trust our own eyes during a live broadcast**. And that should scare you a lot more than any conspiracy theory."

The "avoidance pattern dressed up as a principle" line hit harder than expected. I've been telling myself for three years that my open source contributions would eventually get noticed by the right people. They did get noticed — just not by anyone with the power to change anything for me. Contribution without visibility is just charity.

One thing I'd add: the isolation problem compounds. The less you network, the less you know what skills are actually valued outside your current team, so you double down on the wrong things, which makes you even less relevant outside your bubble. I watched this happen to a senior dev I really respected. By the time he realized it, he was five years behind on everything that mattered in the market.

Moderators are free to flag a post, but we administrators do not flag posts in such situations

I'm not sure if the platform considers a post I've written in which I've included a link to my product or service somewhere in the body of the text to be spam.

Moderators in each community and site administrators can flag a post when it violates community or site rules; these posts are then restricted from comments and upvotes and are automatically removed from the homepage

My question is this: if I’ve posted something that’s considered spam and I create multiple accounts to generate engagement such as likes and comments on that same post, will the post remain on this list for a while, or even for 24 hours on the homepage?

The debate Bezos is missing, or avoiding, is about the difference between tax incidence and tax visibility. Federal income tax is the most visible part of the American tax burden precisely because it shows up as a single line on a pay stub. But visibility isn't the same as weight. A serious proposal to help struggling households would start with payroll taxes, which are regressive by design and cap out in a way that systematically favors high earners, or with consumption taxes, which take a larger share of income from people who spend most of what they make. There's also a fiscal arithmetic problem that the proposal quietly sidesteps. If the bottom half of earners accounts for only 3% of federal income tax revenue, eliminating that share doesn't free up meaningful money for those households — it just shifts the accounting. The nurse in Queens gets $1,000 a month back, but if the services that keep her neighborhood functional get underfunded as a result, the net gain is far less obvious than Bezos makes it sound. The smartest version of this argument would be a straight expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which already functions as a negative income tax for the working poor and has decades of evidence behind it. Bezos doesn't mention it, probably because it already exists and doesn't need a billionaire to champion it.

Well, you've got a point there.

But be careful, this isn't going to benefit everyone. Those who already have a background in software engineering or cloud tend to benefit a lot from it. But for those who are just starting out or stuck in more routine roles, they definitely won't get anything out of this.

This raises an interesting question: is full privacy in an AI actually freedom… or just removing the only remaining safeguard? If no one can see or audit conversations afterward, how do you ensure the system doesn’t become a perfect space for abuse, fraud, or worse? At the same time, without that level of privacy, many people simply won’t use AI for truly personal things. Maybe the real issue isn’t “private or not,” but who gets to decide where protection ends and responsibility begins.

I never let myself get pushed around; I plan my deliverables to leave room for leisure and rest, and when I realize a client is going to want results on a tight deadline, I'd rather just pass on the project. Losing out in those cases means gaining more peace of mind.

It’s something I’d like to try. I feel a little out of shape. But just the thought of going for hours without eating makes me give up mentally, lol.