She has worked as a staff editor in newsrooms, most notably at Tablet. It’s not accurate to say her career has solely been in the opinion section.
Also, it’s not unheard of for people working on the op-ed side of the house to become editors in chief. Most notable example I can think of would be Katharine Viner at the Guardian. And in the reverse, James Bennet went from being editor in chief at the Atlantic to running the op-ed page at the NYT.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that US policymakers deregulated capital flows with China in the hopes that it would lead to political liberalization. Businesses always just follow the money, but for a long time American policy makers had made it difficult to invest in China, from regulatory uncertainty to restrictions on dual use technology exports to high tariffs.
It really was an intentional decision, largely on the part of the Clinton administration, to make investing in the country easier and improve the economic well being of Chinese citizens in the hopes it would inevitably lead to democratization. Clearly, those hopes were just that though
> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that US policymakers deregulated capital flows with China in the hopes that it would lead to political liberalization.
I'd say "in the hopes it would satisfy the political-donor class." The desired liberalization of the PRC was... not necessarily a falsehood, but not the main reason either.
Weird example. The redditor only identified the perpetrator of the shooting because the police pulled video surveillance from all across campus and widely distributed it. He wouldn’t have been able to associate the vehicle with the suspect without those images.
Technically, the law did allow the president to approve a one-time extension if there was a deal under negotiation. But every subsequent extension (I think we’re on number 3 or 4 now) had no legal basis in the text of the legislation and both Apple and Google are clearly in violation of the law for not banning it from their app stores after the 1st extension
This is a bug in the system that should be corrected. The fourteenth amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.
Allowing the executive branch sway over the enforcement of laws that they're ostensibly beholden to prevents enforcement at all, which robs the citizens of the United States of the protection they've been afforded.
Your president can disregard laws to favour outcomes he prefers. How do you not see that if the president can willfully ignore laws, you have no justice at all anymore?
Even this is too charitable. A short timeline of January 2025 would be something like this:
- Jan 16: The Supreme Court issues its opinion, upholding the legality of the TikTok ban. The Biden administration declines to enforce it, preferring to let the incoming Trump administration handle the matter.
- Jan 18: TikTok voluntarily turns off its services. Google and Apple remove the app from their respective app stores. Trump declares on social media that he will sign an executive order "to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect".
- Jan 19: TikTok restores it service after being assured by the incoming Trump administration that TikTok would not face penalties.
- Jan 20: The Trump administration signs the aforementioned executive order.
However, Trump's executive order was untimely (the law already should have gone into effect), and at any rate it's dubious that the executive order would've been legal regardless. The TikTok ban (PAFACA) had a specific provision for when an extension could be granted. From Wikipedia:
> The president may grant a one-time extension of the divestiture deadline by as long as 90 days if a path to a qualified divestiture has been identified, "significant" progress has been made to executing the divestiture, and legally binding agreements for facilitating the divestiture are in place.
Notably, none of these requirements had been met. There were no identified buyers; there were no binding agreements. The Trump administration's refusal to enforce the TikTok ban might have been the first lawless act of the second administration, and it happened only within hours of Trump being sworn in.
I’m curious, has the author seen or read any of Joanna Stern’s other reporting before? Her stories are often silly frames that explore the experience of using consumer technology. She’s not an aggressive industry reporter, her purpose is to explain or reveal what the user experience of new technology is, often for an unsophisticated audience. See for example her story about using conversational chatbots while out camping[1] or how to use tech to unplug from tech[2]. This seems like a perfectly fine niche for a writer and the vending machine story is of a piece with her past work.
This article can serve both her beat and also, this story in its specifics and that she/her editors chose to report it, self-congratulatory and also advertisements for Anthropic and WSJ itself. Both your statement and this blog can be in agreement.
Why is someone who brings in $15.10 of value to a company a decent worker but someone who brings in $14.90 of value someone that can be written off completely? Obviously, we can quibble over the exact numbers and how one assesses value. But that’s kind of the point, we should let people figure that out for themselves what they’re worth and what they are willing to pay other people for.
I understand that there are concerns with race to the bottom dynamics and ensuring a minimum standard of living, but there are better tools for addressing that than the minimum wage (a more generous EITC or negative income tax for example).
There are many vacant minimum wage jobs. I think the issue here is just that you overestimate the number of people who cant get a job because minimum wage exists. If you are a decent worker you are able to get a minimum wage job in this country, so if you cant you are by definition not a decent worker. Looking at the micro scale (employee only worth $14.90 to a single company) is largely irrelevant because there are plenty of other companies that find decent employees to be worth $15/hr. The level of incompetence you need to have to not be worth a minimum wage job to any company is so high that you are actively hindering business from being done.
If you’re worth $14.90 to the company they’ll likely hire you, even if just to free up someone who is worth $15.50. The people who wouldn’t be hired at $0 are what you need to solve to fix homelessness.
>Someone who wants to tell you something true doesn't lead their communication with emotional distraction.
This seems needlessly cynical. Someone can have multiple objectives in writing, to tell you facts and also to capture your attention or to convey an emotion and motivate you to action. Very little writing is done with a single purpose in mind. We don’t expect academics drafting research papers to eschew concerns about the impact the writing will have on their career for example.
Starting a story with an anecdote that humanizes the information is simply acknowledging the reality that people want more than just facts. If the latter was all they wanted, most of us would only read encyclopedias and textbooks.
In this case it really was just pointless distracting filler. The article would have been better without it. I reach for different books when I want drama or entertainment than when I want data and research. This article promises one thing and then clumsily shoves something else in randomly throughout. It really is obnoxious.
No, it’s not true. The bill which banned TikTok (H.R. 7521 Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act)[1] was introduced by Mike Gallagher and Raja Krishnamoorthi in 2024, but a near identical bill, the ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act (H.R.1081)[2] was introduced by those same lawmakers in February of 2023, long before the Gaza War began, though it did not make it out of committee at that time. It’s conceivable that the bill’s passage was prioritized by house leadership due to concerns about content on TikTok, but the text of the bill contains no reference to the Israel-Palestine conflict and its very obvious from public statements by both co-sponsors that the primary motivation for this bill was concern with Chinese influence.
The bill had no traction, "until Oct. 7. The attack that day in Israel by Hamas and the ensuing conflict in Gaza became a turning point in the push against TikTok, Helberg said. People who historically hadn’t taken a position on TikTok became concerned with how Israel was portrayed in the videos and what they saw as an increase in antisemitic content posted to the app."
Around the time the second bill was passed, banning TikTok was polling at 50%. Why make this complicated? Banning TikTok is popular. People don’t like it because it’s brain rot. Many vice bans poll highly.
Completely disagree. Look around, mass protests start and governments fall when banning social media. There are 80 million daily active users of TikTok in the US, Trump would never, ever be so stupid as to piss off 80 million people by suddenly blocking their favourite app. That's the whole reason of this standoff.
Netanyahu is on record saying TikTok is the most important purchase for Is-ael. Ellison is Jewish and recently has turned more religious, holding well documented meetings with Is-eli officials. You should listen to both of them. They are saying the quiet part out loud, while their slavish defenders like you have not yet received the script. Wait for AIPAC to send you the script weak little boy, before the Adelsons reprimand you as they do our congress.
Iraq today is a self-governing parliamentary democracy and the US has had no direct say in their governance since the first parliament was seated in 2006. That the interim government installed by the US was not democratically elected doesn’t say all that much, especially given the country was in a state of civil war immediately following the removal of Saddam from power.
Democracy is a tool, and any tool can be used for good and bad. By good, that means for us full equlity, including self determination.
As an Assyrians, my nation suffered greatly under the old and the new regime, and will most certainly be eradicated.
Democracy didn't stop my assyrians from being taught Arabs and Kurds came to civilize, it didn't stop endless settlement of Arabs and Kurds, it certainty didn't stop the death threats, and most certianly didn't give us a voice that we could use, and it didn't help my nation from being forced to flee even in times of peace(like today).
After all my nation never chose to be part of said Iraq(or Turkey) and by extension it didn't chose to be part of said democracy
This was a joint agreement between two sovereigns. You’re correct to say that it’s within the power of a sovereign to reneg on their word, but it’s a violation of international law and the UK would have every right as a sovereign itself to seek redress through whatever means it deems appropriate.
Also, it’s not unheard of for people working on the op-ed side of the house to become editors in chief. Most notable example I can think of would be Katharine Viner at the Guardian. And in the reverse, James Bennet went from being editor in chief at the Atlantic to running the op-ed page at the NYT.
reply