Yup. Money.

$400 million is a significant lever.

If you stop to ask yourself “Well, that’s really stupid, why did they do that?” the answer is typically “Money.”

Yeah, no. Your career ended during the debate.

When I’m on camera, I never do a background replacement and I’m always in front of bookshelves. Anyone can ask “What’s that thing behind you?” and I’ll take it down and show them.

Personal information from 50-60 years ago is still relevant?

Aha… makes more sense now:

“One of the newly unredacted documents, for example, discloses the Social Security numbers of more than two dozen people seeking security clearances in the 1990s to review JFK-related documents for the Assassination Records Review Board.”

Also a good idea to have a password or code phrase. This is something that’s been advised for child abductions for years now.

“Your mom sent me to pick you up.”

“What’s the password?”

“. . .”

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article231037078.html

The hand in front of face thing is interesting, and in the video you can see clear distortion around the headphones which could have been a result of a replacement background.

I’d have requested they turn off all filters and see how they react to that. “Oh, I’m not running any filters.” would be a clear lie and a reason to end the interview.

Basis for a super fun movie last year:

Thelma:

https://youtu.be/RFAFsDEM0j4

Bonus: The actress, June Squibb, is legit 95 years old(!)

World is not for US news or politics. See !news@lemmy.world or !politics@lemmy.world

Newsweek is in a really weird space right now, they aren’t WHOLLY unreliable like a New York Post or Daily Mail, but they definitely seem to be sliding that way.

They were always 2nd tier compared to a Time Magazine or U.S. News and World Report, but not unreliable.

That seems to have changed in 2018 when Dev Pragad and Johnathan Davis took over.

Here’s the worrying bit:

https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/04/inside-newsweek-ai-experiment/

“Newsweek believes that AI tools can help journalists work faster, smarter and more creatively,” reads the updated standards page. “We firmly believe that soon all journalists will be working with AI in some form and we want our newsroom to embrace these technologies as quickly as is possible in an ethical way.”

My prediction is, within 2 years, Newsweek will officially become AI slop and can be safely disregarded as a valid source.

Lemmy.World is the instance.

!world@lemmy.world is the US free community.

As outrageous as this is, it made me curious… for me, the Department of Education is just one of those things I’ve kind of always known about, but did you know that the current office and secretary was created in 1979? Under Jimmy Carter?

🤯

It’s amazing how… recent… a lot of these cabinet positions actually are:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States

Homeland Security - 2003 (that tracks)
Veterans Affairs - 1989
Education - 1979
(Previously “Health, Education, and Welfare”) - 1953
Energy - 1977
Transportation - 1967
Housing and Urban Development - 1966
Health and Human Services - 1980
(Previously “Health, Education, and Welfare”) - 1953
Labor - 1913
(Previously “Commerce and Labor”) - 1903
Commerce - 1913
(Previously “Commerce and Labor”) - 1903
Agriculture - 1862
Interior - 1849
Attorney General - 1789
Defense - 1947
(Previously “Secretary of War”) - 1789
(Previously “Secretary of the Navy”) - 1798
(Previously “Secretary AT War”) - 1783
Treasury - 1789
(Previously “Superintendent of Finance”) - 1771
State - 1789
(Previously “Secretary of foreign affairs”) - 1781
Vice President - 1789

I removed the other one, it had no engagement.

I was always told that when someone asks how you are you say “Unbelievable!” because it can mean everything and nothing.

As outrageous as this is, it made me curious… for me, the Department of Education is just one of those things I’ve kind of always known about, but did you know that the current office and secretary was created in 1979? Under Jimmy Carter?

🤯

It’s amazing how… recent… a lot of these cabinet positions actually are:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States

Homeland Security - 2003 (that tracks)
Veterans Affairs - 1989
Education - 1979
(Previously “Health, Education, and Welfare”) - 1953
Energy - 1977
Transportation - 1967
Housing and Urban Development - 1966
Health and Human Services - 1980
(Previously “Health, Education, and Welfare”) - 1953
Labor - 1913
(Previously “Commerce and Labor”) - 1903
Commerce - 1913
(Previously “Commerce and Labor”) - 1903
Agriculture - 1862
Interior - 1849
Attorney General - 1789
Defense - 1947
(Previously “Secretary of War”) - 1789
(Previously “Secretary of the Navy”) - 1798
(Previously “Secretary AT War”) - 1783
Treasury - 1789
(Previously “Superintendent of Finance”) - 1771
State - 1789
(Previously “Secretary of foreign affairs”) - 1781
Vice President - 1789

No. She wasn’t a good candidate ANY time she ran.

The ones that were SURPRISINGLY good were the Gex games. Looks like they’re getting a remaster too.

https://youtu.be/PXr2cRbo6Go

Don’t get me started on Xfinity “10G”.

https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/xfinity-10g-internet

The money she had access to when she became the nominee was already spent, it would not be replaced if she broke with Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/harris-campaign-finances.html