https://cpb.org/pressroom/Corporation-Public-Broadcasting-Statement-Regarding-Executive-Order-Public-Media

Read CPB’s statement.

Nah this is 60 minutes putting pressure on their new handlers to not squash the segment. Now everyone knows it’s coming, and if it doesn’t air people will notice. I think it’s a wise move.

I wonder if this question doesn’t say more about the psychology of the person being asked. People vary in the degree to which they identify with their future selves. I believe this characteristic is often called psychological connectedness. It seems that people who have a stronger psychological connectedness would likely prefer the erased hour. Personally, I’m more inclined to choose the one minute, because the immediate experience feels more real to me. However, I think some of the technical questions about the long term impact of being tortured complicate things. Like would I be suffering PTSD for the next 20 years? If so, then things become much less apples-to-apples.

Honestly what are you talking about?

It was a long time ago and only briefly, but I agree this does not sound at all like what I recall from a CBT session.

More than Abrego Garcia? Probably because he had a court order not to be deported.

Maybe the staff don’t want to come back after being doxxed.

I think this is the wrong time to be having that argument. Particularly since the issue here isn’t truly admissions criteria. It’s about crushing dissent. I don’t love Harvard for a lot of other reasons, but we can talk about that maybe after the wannabe dictator is dealt with.

There is no way that these two didn’t talk about how to answer that question before the press event. This isn’t the president of El Salvador saying he doesn’t want to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, it’s him saying that he is on Trump’s side.

It does have to pass the Senate. I can’t see this overcoming a filibuster.

If people think the big risk of AI is fake nudes… man, I wish that was the worst that could happen.

Criticism is not censorship. You’ll just have to learn to live with the fact that people can tell you when they think you’re being an ass. Free speech, you know.

Most Americans are not MAGA. If this guy gets back to a US court, and he can deliver testimony about what Trump’s DHS is doing, and what things are really like in this Salvadoran gulag, that’s the kind of primetime drama that gets people’s attention.

I for one agree that kind of sexualized criticism is inappropriate. I think a reasonable person would read it as trying to demean Schumer by associating him with other-than-straight behavior.

I dunno pretty sure they consume groceries

Read #6 Lemmy!

Scam or not, the current market cap for crypto currencies is $US 2.67T https://coinmarketcap.com/

Yeah but how do you get the information from the IRS into the systems that manage this hypothetical program? How do you get your parents’ and grandparents’ IRS data correlated with your own? What about people who don’t file taxes? The risk is that all that work falls on the applicant. Or if the program administrators do all that work, that’s where the overhead costs come in.

This is something which happens with existing public assistance programs, where so many requirements have been put on the aid application that people give up trying to to prove they made less than X dollars in the last 12 months, or lived in the state for at least 5 years, or have passed a drug screening, and so on. Too often that’s done intentionally to stymie a program, but the phenomenon exists regardless of motivation. The more complicated the program requirement are, the more people will fail to get aid they should, and the more it costs to administer.

Has it worked well for France? I’ve been arguing that such an approach would work much better for the US.

Using self-identified racial identities for aid programs is too easy to argue is itself racially biased. Even if you can make good contextual arguments that race-based aid is a compensation for race-based oppression, either current or historical, that’s not a winning political position.

Using metrics like generational wealth, income, education is a much easier argument to make, even if in effect it would disproportionately benefit these identity groups.

The primary downside seems to be that administering such a program is more complicated, which means more of the expense goes to overhead, and more people will not get the benefits they could because of the difficulty of navigating a more complex process.

Maybe that’s all it is.