Steve Jobs loved the iMac's terrible hockey puck mouse. Jony Ive is probably to blame for the terrible (yet very thin) butterfly keyboard making it into Apple laptops. However, these missteps do not prove that Apple doesn't care about user experience.
Do you actually not understand or is this a political quip? If you spend any time around normal Americans its really not surprising. Having thousands of soldiers stationed for a decade+ over seas in a war zone in a war of attrition with no real objective, is seen as very different than "bomb the commies bringing drugs into the country". US people are really anti war, very pro bombing communists, terrorists, and drug cartels. One puts American soldier's lives at risks, one doesn't. Go to your local working class dive bar and talk politics for an hour and it should clear up why this is a very popular move, but being in Afghanistan isn't.
That's an interesting point. America is a good example of an economy where the majority of businesses are designed to channel the majority of their revenues to the ultra wealthy. I could see an exodus of ultra wealthy people where it opens up greater economic opportunity for regular people and small businesses.
> America is a good example of an economy where the majority of businesses are designed to channel the majority of their revenues to the ultra wealthy.
A boy is born into the Colonel Sanderson's plantation. Young eyes see thousands in stooped labor on vast fields disappearing to the horizon.
attention is finite. land is finite. resources are finite. access to qualified doctors is finite. access to food is finite (something we'll realize at the next great famine). access to water is finite. your time living on earth is finite (and shorter the less money you have).
we operate at a scale where that matters nowadays.
From where the higher IQ groups would get their even higher IQ inspiration from and push up / raise their networks of influence? (improve social mobility).
How their daily lives will cross vs common experiences with substantial opportunities creators be permanently aborted?
How that wouldn't produce irreversible consequences in a population?
You could say, oh wait, just loosing one Elon has zero impact in a population and yet whole humanity might not become multiplanetary without that one guy in the country that had created the conditions for that raising a ton of talented guys up.
I must have imagined the hang Mike Pence chants. You know his kids were in the building, huddling in a secure location and could hear those chants. They probably also saw the noise they made for him during subsequent news reports.
The capital police saved lives that day and prevented assassinations. Some of those officers died from injuries sustained by the attack on America.
> A deliberate misspelling of lead, originally used in instructions given to printers to indicate which paragraphs constitute the lede, intended to avoid confusion with the word lead which may actually appear in the text of an article. Compare dek (“subhead”) (modified from deck) and hed (“headline”) (from head).
Further:
> In 1990, the American author and journalist William Safire (1929–2009) was still able to say: “You will not find this spelling in dictionaries; it is still an insiders' variant, steadily growing in frequency of use. […] Will lede break out of its insider status and find its way into general use? […] To suggest this is becoming standard would be misledeing […] But it has earned its place as a variant spelling, soon to overtake the original spelling for the beginning of a news article."
Maybe not now. I wasn't alive for the Vietnam war but I remember saying anything bad about the Iraq war 2 was a quick way to get fired and a bunch of death threats for a few years. Now things have flipped, but you've got to keep in mind that attitudes change and people like to pretend they never supported viewpoints that have become unpopular.
Star Trek (1960s), MASH (1970s)—shit, the entire history of sitcoms that are regarded as decent-or-better is mostly just one fairly "political" series after another, going back to the earliest days of TV. I mean FFS today people'd probably complain that the first Star Wars movie (not just ROTJ, to which you allude) is "woke" because Leia's the only consistently-competent character out of the three leads, and is by far the least-whiny. "Boo! Why is the elite-educated noble woman who's also already deeply involved in an armed resistance so much cleverer and more-effective and cool under pressure than our farmboy hick hero who's away from home for the first time and wallowing in a whole pile of recent trauma and grief, and this random flaky braggart scumbag they picked up?"
Anyway, stuff like Dirty Harry or a bunch of traditional Westerns are extremely political in the same ways that "woke" movies are (presenting and normalizing certain roles and behaviors, presenting politicized views of history and of certain groups, ways of life, and attitudes, and using caricatures of their political opponents as bad guys), they're just not liberal so that means they "aren't political".
Hell, most of the silent films that were good enough that anyone still gives a shit about them are plenty political, and often (but not always) rather liberal.
> I mean FFS today people'd probably complain that the first Star Wars movie (not just ROTJ, to which you allude) is "woke" because Leia's the only consistently-competent character out of the three leads
Compare+contrast with 'The Last Jedi'. Turning the male characters into total idiots and sending them off on a massive wild goose chase, before the day is saved by completely breaking the physics of the Star Wars universe, making all the previous heroes look like idiots for not using a relativistic kill vehicle against the Death Star!
I don't remember hearing any complaining about strong female characters in the era of Leia, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Major Kira, Susan Ivanova, and so on.
What has changed is not so much that writers' work is influenced by their politics. As you said, that has always been the case. What has changed is that writers these days don't recognize that their work needs to be a good work of art first, and a way to express their views second. They lack any skill in subtlety or nuance, so the work becomes little more than a soapbox for the writer that is off-putting to all but the most ideologically aligned audience.
I like to use Star Trek in the 90s as a good example of what I mean. While there are episodes where the writers got preachy (they're only human I suppose), most of the time the writers were very careful to not openly take sides on the issues they raised. Even if you got the sense that the writer for an episode might feel a certain way about the topic, the characters wouldn't tell the audience how to feel. They didn't call other characters who disagreed with them names. They didn't just bully their way to victory in the story. The topics were treated as complicated issues where reasonable adults could disagree.
Compare that to shows/movies/books today. The writers treat the story primarily as a vehicle to express their opinions on issues. They have characters tell people "this is how a decent person behaves", with the understanding that the message is really meant for the audience. They have characters who agree with them call their opponents bigots or worse insults. They portray said opponents as villains or morons who only hold their beliefs because of how evil/stupid they are. They have the "good guys" run roughshod over anyone who disagrees with them, and they get to win despite their bad behavior. And often, the writers (and even other people involved like actors) will openly express their contempt for their audience when speaking about the work. They pick fights where none needed to happen, saying stuff like "if you don't like this then I don't want you as an audience member anyway". They are, in short, bad writers who don't have the skill to successfully let their social views influence their work.
The result of all this is that these writers don't succeed at persuading anyone. In years past writers could actually make progress on advancing the things they believed in because they had the wisdom to not openly preach to people and call them names. They respected people enough to let them draw their own conclusions, and as a result were successful. But writers today aren't good enough to persuade people to continue breathing, let alone something more controversial than that.
There is also an uptick in how much politics get forced into art, with people trying to claim "everything is political" and the like. But that isn't nearly as big a factor as how bad today's artists are at using political themes in their work.
I think you'll find if you do a little research that Republicans use the idea of trickling down to justify their tax cuts. They even make the CBO change their accurate models to "dynamic scoring" models to help sell those tax cuts.
No, "trickle down" is just what the opposition called it.
"Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy."
The argument was never that "tax cuts for the wealthy make it down to the middle class", it was supply side - lowering taxes gives people more money (in general) which stimulates economy activity.
reply