If NPR is really concerned about getting balanced news to the masses, then their decision to quit twitter, in the lack of an alternative and equivalent platform, seems short-sighted and more like a temper tantrum of a kindergartner, than that of a thoughtful and mature news organization.
It also reinforces the conspiracy theories that they were never truly independent. By making a stinker about this issue, they are trying to paint Musk as the evil overlord hell bent on strangling anyone he dislikes. NYT, WaPo and other leftist media outlets are going to join (yet again) this bandwagon, guaranteed.
I'm one of the people who thinks "government-funded" is a fair label (though "state-affiliated" isn't as it implies editorial control).
However, not putting up with someone's (or a company's) antics is not a temper-tantrum, nor a factor in if their decision was "adult" or not. If an organization is offended by a company's decision, then what's wrong with their decision to leave?
Why would they tarnish their brand by having all of their posts accompanied by a label that they deem to be false?
While I don't have proof, I believe the screaming of NPR about this issue was deliberate (yet again) attempt at painting Musk as the "Evil Overlord" about to destroy the very fabric of fairness, democracy and society.
And I never implied NPR cannot or should not leave if they disagree. The BBC example was simply drawing parallels with someone who made no stink about this and chose to stay. To my knowledge, there was no attempt from NPR to have that label corrected, which seems to be the first logical step.
Off topic, I never found NPR to be neutral or unbiased. They are great pretenders of neutrality though.
Its been a while since I last went into a deep dive about this, but i think the term did exist before. Black pepper, other spices, as well as ginger or garlic can add "heat" to a dish without chili peppers.
Fresh peppercorns certainly retain their heat during cooking. They are occasionally used in Thai stir-fries. If you eat enough, you will get crazy effects 4-12 hours later: The palms of your hands and bottom of your feet will tingle. It's wild.
Also, chillis lose some heat with cooking. Again: From Thai cooking, fresh chillis are used sparingly as a topping, but Bird's Eye chillis can be used in a stir fry enough to kill a small child (joke, but they can use a lot).
It's funny; the ambiguity of English "hot" makes it difficult to even think clearly about the different kinds of hotness. Ginger and garlic can produce similar sensations of hotness to what you get with chilli; I sometimes make a Nepalese-style lamb "curry" that has no chilli or pepper in it. It's very mild, but you could be forgiven for thinking it's flavoured with chilli.
It seems to be because the sensation induced in the mouth is literally that of heat. I remember Adam Ragusea on his excellent YouTube channel pointing out that capsaicin makes the mouth much more sensitive to temperature. So funnily enough, the sensation of something being too hot temperature-wise, and something being spicy is pretty much the same thing. It's also why cold water seems to help for a bit, but does nothing to eliminate the effects of the capsaicin as opposed to something like milk.
There's 'spicy', but then it can also be ambiguous (unless your tolerance is really low) with something that is full of flavourful spice notes but without the, er, heat.
I'm not sure Hindi does either though? Garam is certainly ambiguous.
Very cogent explanation, and an important point that you highlight - factual real-world risk/threat model is far more important than hypothetical "the-world-is-burning" scenarios.
Having a correct threat model is the first step towards building reasonable security controls. But far too many are willing to pander to the "It rather involved being on the other side of this airtight hatchway" [0] scenarios.
My understanding of US history is that almost all meaningful worker protections were fought for and seized by labor unions. Things like the 40 hour work week, paid leave, overtime pay, etc.
Any rescue beyond the $250K insured limit is basically tempting other banks to take similar risks in the future. It is a bad omen for the American financial machinery.
And I sincerely hope I am wrong on this count, and this is just an outlier...
With govt intervention.
- Shareholders suffer the exact same amount.
- Execs suffer the exact same amount.
- Depositors don’t suffer
So what exactly has changed in the personal fortunes of either execs or shareholders after the govt intervention to change their incentives even a little bit?
The only “moral hazard” being created here is that depositors are being told that it’s ok to deposit your money in a single bank account in smaller non systemically important banks.
If you think encouraging depositing money in banks outside the big banks is a moral hazard, then yes, this action has furthered that.
Otherwise I’m struggling to see what other moral hazard has been created relative to the govt not intervening.
Rescuing depositors by ignoring FDIC limits is violating the law. From the FDIC page: "Depositors should note that federal law expressly limits the amount of insurance the FDIC can pay to depositors when an insured bank fails, and no representation made by any person or organization can either increase or modify that amount." [1]
Thanks for the pointer, and I confess I overlooked that part.
That said, I hope my faith in the people making this call is not misplaced, though at some level I feel tormented because this does not seem fair. Only time will tell.
The depositors in SVB were not only not normal depositors, but should have know about the insurance cap and behaved accordingly. Instead, we've emptied the FDIC insurance fund on a bunch of people who should have known better, so if shit goes south, normal depositors are unlikely to get the same consideration.
So once again, different treatment for different people, stratified by social class.
Why would giving the depositors their money back tempt banks to take risks? SVB has totally folded. Its stock, and probably its bonds, are equally as worthless as they were before the government stepped in. I guess it could tempt other businesses to take risks like keeping all their money at one bank, but I’m not sure how big a deal that is.
Nobody pays out money for uninsured goods. Making the depositors whole is sending a signal that (a) FDIC insurance limits are worthless and can be ignored, (b) Depositors can continue to be callous in their financial behavior, and (c) Banks can take known-stupid risks, worst case the bank will collapse, but depositor money is rock solid safe.
While a company parking millions of dollars will require several accounts to meet that FDIC limit, having two to five accounts at separate banks is certainly not out of reach for almost all institutional depositors. Spreading risk, that simple.
(Again, all this is hindsight, and I am not exactly privy to what forced startups to park their funds in a single bank, so take my commentary with that grain/rock of salt).
These aren't behaviors that add any value to society:
> Depositors can continue to be callous in their financial behavior
Depositors should be able to select a normal bank and put their money in without having to do a huge deep dive on the books of the bank. In this case the problem was with having too many treasuries or something? Why do we want a small business with $400k in the bank to have to figure out the bank's treasury holdings before they are able to start their ice cream store?
Do we want them to have to open multiple bank accounts each time they hit $250k? How is that not just 'busy work' for a business owner (and thus raises the bar to entry for new businesses in the market)?
That said, the vast majority of people don’t need to worry about the $250k limit. But companies do.
Should there be a separate limit for business accounts? Or is every business just supposed to juggle dozens+ of accounts if they’re big enough to stay safe?
Roku had $500 million in SVB. That would need 2000 accounts. But even small local business may have to deal with $1-2 million just in savings and payroll and such right?
> Or is every business just supposed to juggle dozens+ of accounts if they’re big enough to stay safe?
You don’t need dozens of accounts to diversify against short-term risk, and the long-term risk is pretty low since, while uninsured, even in failures a large fraction of uninsured deposits tend to be returned, and bank failure is still pretty rare (in terms of probability of hitting any given depositor per year.)
And, if you do, there are, in fact, businesses you can go to whose entire business is facilitating this.
We have, after a lifetime of careful savings, several times the FDIC limit and we don't exceed the limit in any one bank. This is a minor annoyance, but we do it. It's especially important for CDs, etc.
I can't imagine anyone taking that risk, but it's typical of the Government to reward people who are less careful than I am.
Sorry, but shit happens and so yes, we all need to learn and exercise some financial prudence. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket," is not a "weird financial hedging game," it's common sense.
What prevents the US from having a Voter ID card like India does? A unique ID that is required to vote. That way, you only qualify to vote if you have a Voter ID, and once you turn the age of voting, you must get a Voter ID, like you got your SSN. For those who vote by mail, include a copy of your Voter ID with the ballot.
That will significantly reduce, if not eliminate, most of the fraud and put this argument to rest.
The problem with that in the US is that we have no form of ID that almost anyone who is eligible can obtain for free or very low cost.
We mostly use driver's licenses, and for people who don't drive states also offer IDs that look a lot like driver's licenses but are only for ID and are issued by the same agency that issues driver's licenses.
In many states they have closed many of the licensing offices, and cut back the hours licenses are issued at others. The closures happen disproportionately in poorer areas with a higher percentage of non-drivers. The reduced hours often leave office issuing licenses and IDs on weekdays in the middle of the day.
This can result in having to take a long trip on public transit to reach an office, and a long trip back, taking up much of your day. For many poor working people that can mean a day's wages lost.
The lost wages, transportation costs, and fees for the license or ID can come to over $100 which is a lot for many poorer people.
If we introduced an ID that is given to every citizen when they become old enough to vote, at no cost to them, and that can be obtained easily locally there would be little objection to requiring that to vote.
But most of the politicians pushing for voter ID are the ones that most benefit when poorer people cannot vote, and so tend to also be opposed to making the ID cheap and easy for eligible voters to obtain (and are also the ones closing license offices and reducing hours).
Maybe in the sense that you do not have to give any money to the agency that issues the ID.
Not free if you have to take a day of unpaid leave from work to go to that agency, or travel a great distance to get to their nearest office, or have to pay to get supporting documents (e.g., a certified copy of your birth certificate) to get the ID.
It looks like at least a few states that require an ID like Oklahoma and Michigan charge fees (initial and reoccurring) for a state ID at least. What form of accepted ID is free?
> In addition, voters may use the free voter identification card they received by mail from the County Election Board when they registered to vote. The law allows use of the voter identification card even though it does not include a photograph.
> The problem with that in the US is that we have no form of ID that almost anyone who is eligible can obtain for free or very low cost.
Wrong. Every American citizen has Social Security Card as well as Birth Certificate or Naturalization Certificate.
If you make a law that diverts 20% of election funds (and PACs) towards Social Security Administration they can make Social Security Card into a proper ID. Added benefit would be reduction in identity theft.
Functioning democracy is not cheap. But if a poor county like India with population 5x of the US could manage the voter IDs, we have no excuse for dragging our feet.
And a worry from progressives that any "Voter ID" system is being manipulated to disenfranchise black people and poor people, as has happened in the past.
I agree, and the only fix to those concerns would be a free, universally issued ID from the Federal government rather than letting states set up a mismash of confusing and difficult to access systems. No one complains much about drivers' licenses, but national ID tends to bring out the crazies.
It still wouldn't work. People will complain that either they are not properly checking people are who they say they are or they will say it is too difficult to get an id and it will disenfranchise the poor/minorities.
Ive never met a poor or ‘minority’ person that didn’t have an ID unless they were homeless. The later argument of progressives is extremely demeaning to minorities to the point where it borders on explicit racism.
> Ive never met a poor or ‘minority’ person that didn’t have an ID unless they were homeless.
It's a good thing we don't have to depend on your limited experience to make policy decisions. There are millions of Americans without any ID. One survey in 2006 put the number at 21 million.
> the later argument of progressives is extremely demeaning to minorities to the point where it borders on explicit racism.
You should probably tell that to the minorities themselves, like the Congressional Black Caucus (https://www.ibtimes.com/alabama-voting-rights-congressional-...) for example, since they don't seem to have any issue with making that same argument or speaking out against voter suppression.
It can absolutely be a burden to get a state ID or drivers license and it can cost money that people don't have to spend. There's nothing "demeaning" about acknowledging that fact. The problems are real, and they don't even only impact minorities anyway.
No, it is none of those.
Show me the money.
A voter id card required to vote is akin to a poll tax.
If we have a voter id requirement,
we have to have all voters have a place
to go get this ID.
Seven days a week, at least ten hours a day.
Who will pay for this?
Wealthy people refuse to pay their fair share of the tax.
I can't afford to pay any more tax.
Something has to give.
What government services will you cut to fund this noise?
This isn't so much of a problem since almost every other developed and even most still developing countries have a form of national ID which every citizen is encouraged and/or required to have.
It isn't a unique problem that the USA has and has been solved by almost every minimally organised country in the world.
American exceptionalism can go quite far sometimes.
Americans are weird about paying for a lot of things with taxes that other countries manage to do just fine and to their benefit. It would benefit the US to do the same and make sure that everyone can easily and without cost get a federal or state ID that they could use when voting.
Unfortunately, some Americans want the exact opposite of that and are actively working to make it harder and more expensive for the "wrong kind" of American people to get the ID they need to vote. If we all wanted more secure elections in America we'd have it already, but instead half the country just wants to prevent people who have every right to vote from being able to.
> If we have a voter id requirement, we have to have all voters have a place to go get this ID. Seven days a week, at least ten hours a day. Who will pay for this?
I agree that this is necessary; it must be Federal, free and readily obtainable.
That largely makes it unworkable; not for cost reasons (we do plenty in government that we don't pay for, including the existing free issuance of Social Security cards to everyone) but political ones.
The folks who want voter ID largely don't want this setup. They want a patchwork of confusing state-level requirements that are tough to navigate.
There is almost no adult who can navigate adulthood and responsibilities without some form of identification. Tertiary School, Alcohol, Dispensaries, Job, Phone, CC card, Military Draft, etc.
Irrelevant. What is relevant is if they have a form of ID that is acceptable for voter ID in their state. Around 10% of eligible voters in the US do not.
Yes it is. It means that adults have a state issued ID. What eligible voters do not have IDs, where are you getting 10%. If it's the elderly, I'm sure they can organize to have an ID drive. It's not a problem. There may be a lack of desire, but if even actual poor countries can accomplish this modest feat, surely the US can.
The politicians pushing voter ID are well aware of the demographics of that 10%, and have little interest in addressing their access challenges because of them.
> A recent voter-ID study by political scientists at the University of California at San Diego analyzed turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and found “substantial drops in turnout for minorities under strict voter ID laws.”
> Myrtle Delahuerta, 85, who lives across town from Randall, has tried unsuccessfully for two years to get her ID. She has the same problem of her birth certificate not matching her pile of other legal documents that she carts from one government office to the next. The disabled woman, who has difficulty walking, is applying to have her name legally changed, a process that will cost her more than $300 and has required a background check and several trips to government offices.
> Last week, during the federal trial on Wisconsin’s voter-ID law, a former Republican staffer testified that GOP senators were “giddy” about the idea that the state’s 2011 voter-ID law might keep Democrats, particularly minorities in Milwaukee, from voting and help them win at the polls. “They were politically frothing at the mouth,” said the aide, Todd Allbaugh.
What? Millions of Americans don’t have any government ID, and that group is disproportionately racial minorities and poor folks.
Make IDs universally available (I.e. free federal IDs handed out proactively by driving offices out to rural areas and workplaces) and I don’t think you’d see much resistance to this.
The problem is that the “you need to have ID to vote” folks would never support such an idea. Complete mystery as to why!
It also reinforces the conspiracy theories that they were never truly independent. By making a stinker about this issue, they are trying to paint Musk as the evil overlord hell bent on strangling anyone he dislikes. NYT, WaPo and other leftist media outlets are going to join (yet again) this bandwagon, guaranteed.
Did BBC quit? No.
NPR, grow up, be an adult.