Unattributed

Yeah, that will be a big one to watch in just a few weeks.

True. Definitely easier said than done, but I welcome anyone who is actually willing to get a metaphorical concussion from banging their head against those brick walls.

I won't say there isn't room for concern, especially as there are quite a few people that are starting to think that the issues between the parties are irreconcilable. And the problem is, one party seems more disingenuous than the other -- at least that's my perspective.

Oh! This is just the beginning... Just watch the first Tuesday in November, when a lot of special elections happen. ;)

But, the real stuff won't happen until November, 2026 -- which will be the mid-terms where a bunch of our Senate and Congressional seats will be up for elections...

This is terrorism as a cause of death. There is nothing in the way they analyzed the information that would consider policy or internation affairs -- that's irrelevant to this study.

While this article makes a good point overall, the focus on just the death rates doesn't really tell a complete or cohesive story.

The rates that these deaths are discussed needs to be analyzed from the perspective of what percentages are they of the overall news stories. And, there is a need for a deeper analysis of the context of the stories. For example, a story that is really about a war may mention gun violence or terrorist deaths - and it is likely to be repeated several times throughout the story. However, that story is about war, and not really about the type of death.

The reason for the skew in representation is quite simple: metrics / telemetry data. These outlets have developed very sophisticated systems that track the engagement with the articles they publish. The amount of information they are able to gather allows them to build profiles of their audience, and from there be able to predict the engagement that each article will get. IOW -- they are serving their audience, and the audience has shown that this is the information that they want to engage with.

One additional thing: in building these profiles, they are taking into account revenue streams, everything from subscription levels, advertising engagement, etc. They are living on thin margins financially and have to absolutely everything they can to make a profit.

There's a lot in the list that @soupbrick@pawb.social posted that makes him an interesting competitor... ESPECIALLY the revolving lobbyist door, and the stock trading issue...that's the kind of stuff that really should be dealt with.

Well, I know which outlets I will at least read news from (even if the information contained in their reporting may be dubious -- like Faux News or NewsMarx).

What timeline are we living in where MTG is actually starting to talk sensibly about some of the bull-puckey that Trump is pulling?

Don't get me wrong - she still is not a good person, in fact she is downright despicable on many levels. But crap, she's actually talking against Trump on two issues now.

But, honestly, I doubt her sincerity on the tariffs issue. It's most likely that she's concerned that the businesses that have been stuffing her pockets for years won't stuff her pockets anymore.

FWIW - I'm not arguing about any of this... I'm just expounding on my thought process.

There were a lot of business class systems in the mix they were working on... I saw a bunch of Dell Optiplex, and HP Workstations in there... I think that was from either (a) some businesses / schools donating them, or (b) after market recyclers donating the ones they couldn't get working and didn't want to spend time on.

No matter what, however, the bottom line is that a high percentage of these systems will be given new life -- and that's what counts.

Moore's law was about the technology -- but I am talking about the application of the technology. It was unusual for most businesses to base their purchasing / refreshing decisions around the idea that the technology would be good for 2-3 Moore's law cycles. This was especially true back in the days of Mainframes and later "Mini" computers (shrunk down versions of Mainframes -- not Mini PC's) where companies like DEC and IBM went to great lengths to ensure that upgrading to a newer system didn't impact other operations in a business.

Most of this carried on with Vax and Unix Systems (like Sun workstations, SGI, etc.) in the same lifecycle.

When PC's started coming into the business world, the thought was that they would fit that same lifecycle -- and many of them did. This set the mark for early PC's when IBM brought them to the consumer market. The IBM PC was, after all, the consumer version of a business computer.

Apple, Commodore, TI, Atari, et al. were a bit different -- coming at things more from the entertainment, education, and hobby side of things.

I see what Steve is doing here is attempting to push things back towards the business lifecycle, and with good reason: it's better for the planet if fewer machines are abandoned due to the arbitrary whims of some marketer's concept of profitability.

Businesses tend to stick to a 3-5 year life-cycle. But I've gotten the feeling that even there they are cycling things through a bit more rapidly... It's just that they tend to do it in waves so it's not quite as noticable, or as big an impact to the budgets.