grue

so i pictured a netflix show where he lives on twitch 24/7 in a big brother type living room.

Would it kill Lemmies to read the article

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0sSXESbTaM

You didn't mention a "PSA interview" (whatever the fuck that is). You only mentioned that he "went to the media." How the Hell was I supposed to know you were talking about something other than the thread article?

What boggles my mind, though, is that rather than come out and say the report was poor quality and clearly omitted many important issues and thus has limited to no utility, DNC Chair Ken Martin went to the media and tried to sell it like there were important conclusions drawn and that the DNC was enacting them.

Why are you lying?

Back in factual reality, here are some of the things Ken Martin actually said about the report:

When I commissioned a comprehensive review of the 2024 election, I started a process to answer those questions while interrogating where our party has systemically and historically fallen short. I didn’t want that process led by anybody directly tied to the 2024 cycle – either the campaign or the consultants involved – and I did not want to put my own thumb on the scale for what might be produced. What I did ask for were actionable takeaways for the future. I wanted real, in-depth, specific recommendations to improve our allocation of resources, tech, data, organizing, media strategy, and more. I chose someone who I thought could produce this type of report.

When I received the report late last year, it wasn’t ready for primetime. Not even close. And because no source material was provided, fixing it would have meant starting over, from the beginning – every conversation, every interview, every data set.

I am not proud of this product; it does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards. I don’t endorse what’s in this report, or what’s left out of it. I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on it.

I was surprised by how weak and digressive it was.

When they announced their intention to bury it I assumed that meant it was accurate and on point, and they wanted to bury it for exactly that reason.

On the contrary: the new DNC leadership is entirely different from the old, so the new leadership decided to bury it because they understood it was weak and digressive. You got it exactly backwards because you didn't understand the leadership changed.

1. ~~Old DNC leader commissions bullshit, delusional report.~~ Edit for correction: the new leader commissioned the report, but picked the wrong (i.e. old-guard) person to do it and got bullshit delusions as a result.

2. New DNC leader realizes that it's delusional bullshit and decides not to release it.

3. Progressives demand it be released anyway.

4. “It does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards, but I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word,” new DNC leader says.

5. Lemmy idiots blame new DNC leader anyway.

Little chance construction would be finished by Inauguration Day anyway.

I suppose he could've joined some of those Arctic indigenous people that hunt whales in canoes.

This whole "you have no expectation of privacy in public" nonsense needs to end. Even in "public," we had the concept of stalking as a crime!

The technology now goes so far beyond that there are no longer just two categories: we now have public, private, and panopticon.

IMO, real down only remains necessary for stuff like backpacking, because it's lighter and packs smaller than any synthetic of comparable insulation amount. Unless you need that, synthetic is better.

Eh, a Tacoma is generally going to be better than a 3500 for climbing over obstacles because it's more nimble and has better approach/breakover/departure angles. A bigger vehicle (aside from the tires) isn't necessarily better for that sort of thing.

Engines have gotten somewhat more efficient in the past 25 years, but not that much more efficient. For example, a 2026 base-model Tacoma is a whopping 3 MPG more efficient than a 2001 base-model Tacoma (according to the EPA, anyway; according to vehicle owners they're the same).

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=16989&id=50081

Internal-combustion engines are a pretty mature technology, especially once you're talking new enough to have fuel injection. Other than stuff like Atkinson-cycle engines (which only apply to hybrids), the small refinements in efficiency since the '90s aren't anywhere near enough to overcome the vast size/weight/capacity difference from a reasonably-small truck to a gigantic one.