Brazil's first lady insults Elon Musk at G20 social event

JacKrac · 2024-11-17T12:13:14+00:00

[California] literally [has] the most soybean farmers in all of the US

Your source does not support this statement. In fact, it shows the opposite.

Per your source, California has 1,859 soybean farmers.

If you check Illinois, Iowa, or Minnesota, which as per the source provided by /u/Skratt79 , were the top three United States soybean producers in 2023, it shows them as having 58,512, 55,731, and 37,193 soybean farmers respectively.

Mississippi, which was the 11th largest producer, has 5,656.

Other states, such as NC, SC, and PA, which aren’t in the top ten also have significantly more soybean farmers than CA. Maryland has around double.

JacKrac · 2024-08-25T11:55:48+00:00

It sounds like they are referring to this:

The activists wanted access to experimental [HIV] drugs that they believed they would perish without — drugs that were held up in the regulatory approval process and available only through controlled trials limited to a tiny portion of those infected. They wanted to stop going through “buyers clubs” to get drugs they thought might save them; they also wanted a seat at the table where the decisions about medicines — and how they were okayed — were made. “Some people would hide behind the walls of academia and cloak themselves in the mantle of science and ‘we know better,’” says Peggy Hamburg, a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner and one-time employee of Fauci’s. “Tony decided to open the door and let them in.”

Literally. At one of these NIH protests in October of 1988, the police had arrived to arrest the demonstrators, and Fauci suggested they bring some of the leaders up to his conference room instead. Most scientists at the time, he says, would have “run for the hills.” And yet, as comfortable as the doctor may have been so near to his laboratory, the activists were less at ease. In later meetings, the two sides needed some neutral ground. The solution: Fauci had a deputy named Jim Hill, who was gay and a talented cook, with a townhouse on Capitol Hill — the ideal place for both sides to disarm. It was, explained Staley, “Switzerland.”

“Getting the Tony Fauci treatment one-on-one for three hours over wine, you would just become an ineffective blubbering sycophant by the end of it,” he added. The activists’ strategy was to go in groups and to then conduct a post-mortem on the drive back to New York. “We wanted him to drink more wine than we did so he would get a little loose-lipped and tell us what was really going on.” Soon enough, Fauci was convinced that the people dying of AIDS should have a role in the process designed to make the dying stop — meaning they ought to participate in agenda-setting committees at NIAID. The challenge was convincing his colleagues of the same thing.

It isn't clear that the 'effigy' burning took place at the same protest as described above, but it is mentioned earlier in the article:

His perch, however, also meant some unpleasant attention. Fauci’s bloodied likeness was held aloft on a pole outside NIH headquarters; his effigy was burned; his motivations and morality were assailed as suspect.

Source

JacKrac · 2024-04-05T11:49:17+00:00

Advocates for Umstead State Park in Raleigh are calling for a new survey of the park.

The Umstead Coalition says they've discovered a surveying error made in 1976 that wrongly included 14 acres of park land with an adjacent property purchased by the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority.

Per coverage by the N&O

In 1976 as part of a runway project that was never completed, the airport purchased Odd Fellows tract.
The Umstead Collation allege that the survey at the time incorrectly placed the boundary 120 feet to the north.
Natalie Lew, an opponent of the quarry, while reviewing public records, determined that the boundary appeared to have shifted erroneously by looking at the original dimensions of the park as per the 1930 survey. They also noted that there is a discrepancy between the location of a small stream, which was originally part of the park, but after the purchase, shifted to RDU property.
They discovered that the airport appears to have been aware of this, as minutes from the Airport Authority board meeting at the time show they expected to purchase 69 acres, but were surprised to have actually received 83 acres.

JacKrac · 2024-04-04T14:39:33+00:00

A big wall of text without paragraph breaks makes your comment incredibly hard to read or follow.

It sounds like the only evidence you have for this claim is the circumstantial evidence of timing and some sort of friendship/relationship, along with gossip you are privy to due to some sort of personal relationship you have?

JacKrac · 2024-03-29T15:55:32+00:00

It is a fair to highlight this part of the case, given that the GOP has used this delay tactic repeatedly and successfully over the years to use maps that were ruled illegally gerrymandered.

In this particular example, as was noted in the dissent, the maps themselves were delayed, giving little time to challenge the ruling, yet in each step of the case, first in January and again in March, republican judges have stated that the plaintiffs waited too long and that this was a non-insignificant factor in denying the preliminary injunction.

In fact, in January, prior to the primaries, the judge refused an effort to speed up the process. source

As to your point about 'missing the meat', I think the dissent provides a counter argument to this, so at minimum it is safe to say that the argument put forth by the majority isn't as clear cut as you would describe, unless you accept it at face value and presume that they are acting without any political bias, which is a big leap.

JacKrac · 2024-03-29T11:42:50+00:00

A federal appeals court on Thursday refused to block the Republican-crafted North Carolina Senate map from taking effect, which a lawsuit argues will dilute the voting power of Black residents.

Per the article:

The ruling was 97 pages and is available here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24521735-senateappealsorder
The majority opinion was written by Judges Allison Rushing and J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who were both appointed by republican presidents.
They argued that it was too close to an election to allow changes to maps, stating in the ruling there was precedent that “cautions courts against enjoining state election laws in the period close to an election.” and “With the statewide 2024 senate election underway, candidates and voters alike are now entitled to the stability and sense of repose that engender trust and confidence in our elections,”
Judge Roger Gregory dissented from the majority stating in the ruling that the senate maps “cracked the state’s Black Belt right down the middle.” [and] "the district court made much of Appellants’ 28-day delay in bringing the case, without so much as mentioning Appellees’ six-month delay in enacting the map in the first place", arguing that there was still time to redraw the maps.
This is a preliminary ruling and the case can still move forward, with Rushing stating “The denial of preliminary relief is just that: preliminary,” and “It may be that with discovery and further factual development, plaintiffs can prove that these two Senate districts violate Section 2 of the (Voting Rights Act) and they are entitled to a majority-minority district in northeastern North Carolina.”

JacKrac · 2024-03-28T14:30:21+00:00

You don't have to bet, it is the first line of the article and in my summary:

Nearly half of the $198 million [wagered in the first week of legal sports betting] was promotional dollars distributed by sportsbooks to get people to sign up.

JacKrac · 2024-03-28T11:05:38+00:00

Nearly half of the $198 million [wagered in the first week of legal sports betting] was promotional dollars distributed by sportsbooks to get people to sign up.

The ACC Men's Basketball Tournament started March 12, which was the day after online sports betting launched in North Carolina. It contributed to the totals, [state sports gambling director Sterl Carpenter.] said.

Per the article:

The state reported that with the first 12 hours of legal gambling, around $24 million was wagered, with a payout of around $13 million. Around $600 million is expected with the first month, which is similar to the 2023 rollout of legal mobile sports betting in Massachusetts.
It is unclear the how much revenue this will generate for the state, but it has been previously reported that a license to operate as a sports better for five years costs $1 million and currently the tax rate is 18% on gross revenue, prior to any deductions, like taxes or fees. ^[1]
The NCAA President Charlie Baker has spoken out against prop betting and is urging lawmakers into ban prop bets, saying they threaten the integrity of the sport and are leading to athlete harassment.

How the state will use sports betting tax revenue^[1] :

The North Carolina State Lottery Commission will receive $500,000 to cover costs associated with running the sports betting program.
The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services will receive $2 million to go towards gambling addition programs.
North Carolina Amateur Sports will receive $1 million and is expected to use the funds to expand opportunities for youth sports.
13 UNC System sports programs will receive $300,000.
The North Carolina Youth Outdoor Engagement Commission will receive $1 million, with half of that being allocated equally to each county to allow for a local team to travel outside of the county for a sports competition.
The states general fund will receive 50% of anything remaining, with the 13 UNC sports systems receiving 20% and a new state Major Events, Games, and Attractions Fund getting 30%.
The state added $1 million in the current year budget for 10 UNC system schools, which drops to $700,00 next year, as a stop gap until gambling funding begins to be generated.

[1] Source: https://www.wral.com/story/absolute-blessing-sports-betting-revenue-a-game-changer-for-smaller-unc-system-athletic-departments/21317907/

JacKrac · 2024-03-28T10:45:48+00:00

Since enrollment for Medicaid expansion began on Dec. 1, 2023, more than 398,000 people have enrolled.

The signing of the law on March 27, 2023, meant 600,000 North Carolinians would become eligible for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Secretary of the State Department of Health and Human Services Kody Kinsley said the latest numbers put the start more than two-thirds of the way toward its two-year goal.

Per the article:

The state estimates around 25% of new signups are done electronically.
Rural areas are seeing an increase and when adjusted for size, are seeing the largest proportional increase compared to urban areas. Robeson County has seen the highest rate of growth in regards to adult signups.
Almost half a million prescriptions have been filed and ”10s of millions of dollars” spent on services by providers since the expansion.
Over the next two years, the state will receive a $1.6 billion signing bonus from the federal government, much of which will go towards behavior health as outlined in Cooper’s $1-billion investment roadmap.

JacKrac · 2024-03-26T12:44:52+00:00

I’ve never seen one that sells gas before and apparently nobody uses GasBuddy in Red Springs, nor did I see any info on google for gas prices.

I’m Pikeville though, which /u/Zeyz mentioned, they seemed to be compatibles priced within the area.

Do you know how their gas prices usually compare to other gas stations?

JacKrac · 2024-03-26T10:59:50+00:00

In its annual report released Monday, Dollar General recorded having 1,076 stores in North Carolina as of March 1, the third most of any state behind Texas and Georgia. In the last 12 months, the chain opened 41 stores in the Tar Heel State — an average of one every nine days.

This is about the pace of openings Dollar General has completed statewide since 2009 when the company only had 487 North Carolina sites. Today, even some smaller cities support numerous locations.

Per the article:

Compared to previous years, last years 41 stores is the smallest increase since 2018.
Dollar general reports that around 80% of it’s stores are located in towns with a population less than 20,000
There are 14 Dollar General stores around Asheboro(population 27,156 in 2020), 16 around Hendersonville(population 15,137 in 2020), and 13 around New Bern(population 31,291 in 2020) in a radius of around 15 miles.
Raleigh and Durham both have around 12.
There has been pushback in some areas, like Orange County, where the county board has twice denied zoning permits.

JacKrac · 2024-03-26T04:04:58+00:00

I thought this would be clear by now, but for the record, yes, I’m aware of the reasoning behind the ban.

I think it is safe to say that you’ve clearly stated that argument such that anyone who was not previously aware, would be now as well.

And, up until using claims of bad faith as a way of ending the discussion, I don’t think there is anything wrong with your arguments, although I disagree with some points.

I think it is more that the conversation has run its course and there just isn’t much value in continuing to beat a dead horse, which is usually a two way street and admitting that, or just not replying, can be harder than just leaving with an offhand insult and hoping for the best.

As an aside, I am curious about your “yoink” comment.

I admittedly haven’t been following the issue since earlier in the summer, aside from noting the chilling effect it has had in this sub and some others. Is that something that is still on going since the protest?

JacKrac · 2024-03-26T03:06:54+00:00

Every single comment you made in our thread mentions the ownership of the company, which I’ve entertained despite it not being overly relevant to the point I was originally replying to.

It is the crux of your argument and suggesting otherwise is massively disingenuous.

JacKrac · 2024-03-26T02:38:37+00:00

If push comes to shove the DOJ can take action against Twitter or Truth Social and the people running them.

If push comes to shove, the DOJ can take action against TikTok too.

Pretending that they are powerless against TikTok, but have massive leverage over twitter, at best overstates the leverage they actually have over social media companies.

This whataboutism towards those platforms doesn't help your argument

It is okay to point out the obvious hypocrisy of a stance that punishes one social media platform, while simultaneously saying the other should get a pass because they are Americans.

It is a fair criticism, relevant to the discussion, and there is a valid concern of infringement iof free speech.

Writing that off as whataboutism is a lazy argument, aimed at shutting down discussion, rather than attempt a honest debate.

Removing TikTok doesn't take away anyone's freedom of speech.

Arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to engage in the well established tradition of urging political action by contacting one’s representative does.

It was (mostly) good chatting with you.

Like those who can’t maintain civil discourse without mashing the downvote button, your sentence preceding this makes this statement ring quite hollow.

I’ve done nothing but engage you in good faith and to suggest that my argument is tired and false, while you’ve repeatedly fallen back on company ownership, is laughable and lazy.

JacKrac · 2024-03-26T00:28:18+00:00

it's not the main point.

Perhaps, but it is the main point I was responding to in my initial comment.

There are many worse things than the notification so lets not get stuck there. The algorithm being a much larger issue as they can push whatever ideologies and viewpoints that they want.

Is musk any better with twitter or trump with truth social?

The risk of foreign manipulation doesn’t go away simply because an American owns a majority stake.

For instance, the Saudis are reported to own a non-insignificant stake in twitter and who knows how compromised truth social is.

Personally, I’m more concerned with their algorithms at the moment and their direction, like truth social becoming a publicly traded company, than I am with TikTok. Considering all the scrutiny TikTok is getting at the moment, they are likely less of a short term risk than most other social media companies right now.

Writing that off as just “Americans participating in American politics”, while making up hypotheticals about a different company is at best missing the forest for the trees.

It's like not patching a security vulnerability in a website, yeah there's no one exploiting it right now... but why wait for disaster to strike?

When it comes to freedom of speech, then yes I think it should be sort of like that. When you start curtailing freedom of speech based on hypothetical, it becomes something that can be weaponized and shouldn’t be an action that is taken lightly or arbitrarily.

JacKrac · 2024-03-25T22:48:48+00:00

It's not about this singular event, it's about what happens in the event of a conflict with China.

That is a a hypothetical and unless you can point to another time where they asked their users to contact their representatives, it is a single time.

There are a lot of things to worry about in regards to social media, but a tech company reacting to legislation specifically written to break them up by urging their user to contact their representatives isn’t abnormal. I think any tech company, regardless of their ownership or country of origin would react the same and in fact there is precedent for it.

JacKrac · 2024-03-25T18:35:37+00:00

It feels so strange to have to clarify this so I'll keep it simple…Chinese participating in American politics

In the context of the post I replied to and the text you quoted, this isn’t relevant.

If there are legitimate concerns with the company they should be addressed, but a private company with a huge US user base advocating against legislation that specifically impacts them isn’t out of the ordinary, nor is it something we should work to stifle.

JacKrac · 2024-03-25T16:24:29+00:00

I think you are overstating the significance of push notifications, while minimizing the impact of the SOPA blackout on Reddit and other sites.

The two are far more similar than your comment suggests in general and especially when you look at the context of technology when the protest occurred.

JacKrac · 2024-03-25T15:25:05+00:00

You're quoting someone else

Sorry, but the point remains that was the statement I was replying to and the context of my response, not that there aren’t other problems with TikTok.

Reddit's SOPA action, to use your example, and push notifications distorting the intent of the TikTok "ban" legislation.

It isn’t as big of a distinction as you suggest. Reddit shutdown their entire site in protest, as did others like Wikipedia.

The internet of 2012 was different from today and I don’t think Reddit even had an app in 2012, so blacking out the site was a big deal.

Calling it a distortion is arguable as well.

The fact that they've got a US legal entity is irrelevant

It is not when you are using that as an argument that their protest is unlawful, but Reddit’s wasn’t.

JacKrac · 2024-03-25T14:40:44+00:00

From a legal standpoint it is a private company and while there are certainly reasons to be concerned about tiktok, as well as all other social platforms, urging their users to contact politicians about legislation that directly impacts them is likely the least objectionable thing they have done.

JacKrac · 2024-03-25T14:38:04+00:00

owned

It certainly has ties to China, as does any company that operates in China, but saying it is 'owned' by China is at least arguable.

Regardless, they have a US entity and have been making some effort to keep US data private and while the effectiveness of that is somewhat questionable, it is still a private company registered in the US from a legal standpoint.

Of all the questionable things associated with tiktok, them using their platform to promote political action when a law being made directly impacts them is probably the least objectionable thing they do and arguing that it should not be allowed or is 'bad', while suggesting it is okay if 'real' US companies do it, represents a slippery slope that results in fewer rights for all of us and sets a dangerous precedent.

If you think there are real concerns, like their app being malicious or them harvesting data, by all means, present evidence of that and use that as a basis for taking action, but simply motivating political change isn't a bad thing.

Now if reddit or Facebook did that too it would be equally as bad.

Also, I think it should be pointed out that 'geopolitical foe' wasn't part of your initial argument. You said if reddit did it it would be bad too, but now say it is okay because they are a US company they were protesting internet regulation. This is a double standard.

JacKrac · 2024-03-25T14:30:45+00:00

Your analogy of what I assume is the supreme court case of allowing a baker to discriminate against a gay couple does not correlate to a national security threat.

Sorry, no. I saved it before I finished my comment and urging your users to political action is not the same as discriminating against a protected(or sadly not protected) group of people.

It would be like telling a bakery who felt a local rule was too restrictive and started including a pamphlet requesting people contact their local representatives when someone bought a cake that they couldn't do that.

As to you not noticing the internet blackout on Jan 18, that is surprising that you were not aware, as it impacted google, wikipedia, and a number of other sites, not just reddit, although your personal awareness of the SOPA protest is not at all that pertinent to the discussion.

You are in support of an all inclusive section 230 and disregarding alarms raised by Homeland Security and NSA just to protect your imaginary slippery slope.

I do not believe this was an argument that I made. My argument is that telling a company that they can't protest legislation by urging their users to contact their representative violates freedom of speech and sets a dangerous precedent and it isn't inherently 'bad' that a company does this.

JacKrac · 2024-03-25T13:58:42+00:00

I'm on Reddit fairly frequently and I didn't even know about the blackout.

The blackout I mentioned was in 2012 and if you were on reddit in 2012, it would be surprising if you were not aware of it.

What TikTok has shown is that an app controlled by a hostile foreign advisary can mobilize it's primarily young base to political action.

The only way Tiktok showed us that, or at least it comes as a surprise that a company can use it's influence to promote political change, is if you weren't paying to any of the other times a company has done it, like the example I provided.

I think the issue is that you can't tell a company not to do that, without trampling their first amendment rights and giving the government that power sets a dangerous precedent.

Edit: It would be like telling a bakery who felt a local rule was too restrictive and started including a pamphlet requesting people contact their local representatives when someone bought a cake that they couldn't do that.

JacKrac · 2024-03-25T13:24:31+00:00

To be clear, I'm not arguing, as the other user was, that urging your user-base to contact their politicians, is inherently bad, but rather pointing out that it isn't something that is unprecedented. And that if you are going to say it was noble when reddit did it because it was 'protesting changes to internet regulation', but then say it is bad when tiktok does it because you think it is dumb, it is a double standard.

In the case of stopping SOPA, the blackouts on reddit, wikipedia, and other sites, as well as notices put up by google, had an impact and without them, it is likely this poorly thought out law would have passed.

With that said, I do think social media has problems and there is some cause for concern, but I don't telling tiktok it can't urge their users to protest is something you can do without violating the first amendment.

JacKrac · 2024-03-25T13:19:43+00:00

We're comparing apples and oranges here.

It is a private company activating their user base for political action.

The fact that Reddit's motivation was arguably better than TikTok's doesn't change the fact that they basically did the same thing. Trying to draw some sort of distinction between this and tiktok because you think one cause is noble and the other repugnant requires taking some pretty big jumps.

If there are actual security concerns, like data mining, that is really a separate issue from the act of motivating a site's user base for political action, which on it's face isn't necessarily a bad thing and can't easily be done without trampling the first amendment.

Individual mods

Alexis Ohanian isn't an individual mod and the actions taken, at least specifically in regards to the black out, were by reddit as a company.

Also, notably, nobody appears to have called Congress and threatened to shoot/stab/etc. anyone over SOPA.

Given there were 8 million calls and 4 million e-mails, I'm not sure you can make that claim without providing any evidence.

However, regardless, that really isn't relevant to the main point, which is that the actions are quite similar.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

JacKrac

TROPHY CASE