• 1 Post
  • 29 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 26th, 2023

help-circle








  • First, let me clarify I bought my Tesla used, before Musk went full fascist, and autopilot came free. The car was updated to the newest hardware for free, since the original FSD equipment couldn’t do it either.

    That out of the way, FSD sucks, and it’s getting worse, not better. When if first come out of beta it was okay. I remember describing it as driving with a teenager, they got the general idea, but would make bad decisions so you had to watch them. Years of updates later and it’s practically unusable to me. It tries to go way under or over the speed limit, it hesitates or slams on the brakes for green lights. It slams on the brakes for cars that pull out with plenty of gap but doesn’t even notice the risky merges. It can not seem to navigate intersections anymore, damn near stopping in the middle of a turn. It actually just updated yesterday and I tried it again, it took me less than 5 miles to disable it again. It is, in my opinion, a hazard to use. I talked to my partner about it and we both agree it didn’t used to be this bad.

    Anyway, the stupidest part of all this, is they changed it so it’s either full self driving all the time or not. You want cruise while you’re in traffic because you know it’ll try to cut in front of someone? Silly idiot, no you don’t. So you now have to have a second profile* for cruise control and lane keep without FSD. And the odd thing is that lane keep and cruise are fine. They function like FSD used to. They can drive the highway with no problem and trust me, I do not have much faith in the car so I’m watching it close. It can’t navigate city streets, but neither can FSD…

    TLDR, my car was a better deal for me than Tesla. After years of FSD access, it’s bad and getting worse, not better. I can’t believe people pay 5 figures for it and maybe that’s why they feel the need to clip perfect drives or defend it.


  • You’re right, there are a lot of very liberal people in the ranks. There’s no disputing that. I’m just saying there are plenty of MAGAs around too, more than enough to cause havoc. And if shit starts going south, the GI bill nerds with degrees will head for the door because they have the qualifications to do so. They can stand up for the constitution because they will land on their feet after they get kicked out.

    Generalizing myself here, the more conservative a troop is, the more likely the military is all they know. The promise of being special and fighting for the America they believe Trump will give them is more than enough to push some of them over the edge.



  • He’s been talking about sending the military after Adam Schiff and other “enemies within”. He definitely heard the SCOTUS arguments. If he’s president and he doesn’t get to fire someone, or everyone, I doubt he’ll hesitate to send a military unit to threaten or even kill them. Who’s going to stop him? Would 15-17 senators vote to impeach him? Would he try to kill them too? Did Tuberville’s General Promotion sabotage leave enough slots open for Trump to install his own “Hitler’s generals”?

    I would say I’m being alarmist, but the man is on TV saying this is what he will do on day 1. If he wins, everyone, left and right, is fucked.



  • Maybe, and while a fair amount of Trump supporters do agree with Project 2025, I bet an equally fair amount of them believe him when he claims he doesn’t know anything about it. Another large share knows it, but thinks the worst parts won’t happen or at least won’t effect them.

    I have family that have been straight ticket Republicans their whole lives and voted for Trump. After Roe fell, they claimed they had no idea that would happen. They said Republicans had been saying they would ban abortion for years, and never thought they’d actually do it. They’ll take the easy way out and ignore Project 2025 the same way until it happens.


  • Not a direct reply, but I wanted to add a more detailed answer to your question than “It’s Fox”. I think that’s slight oversimplification. He’s center right and has become isolated as Fox programing is speeding further* right to capture MAGA viewers before they fall off the political spectrum and into Podcast or OANN.

    So yes, Fox is sprinting to the right and he’s still employed by Fox, but he’s also not one of their political talk shows. He does news and has tried to keep the news accurate, albeit through a conservative lense. NPR had this to say about him last year:

    According to Baier’s current and former colleagues, he stands very much alone at Fox News which has been pushed even farther to the right since the outset of the Trump years. Anchor Shepard Smith left Fox News in 2019 after primetime star Tucker Carlson targeted him on the air and the network did not publicly defend him. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace departed and two commentators who frequently appeared on Baier’s show resigned in late 2021 after Carlson’s avid defense of people who participated in the violent attack on the U.S. Congress in January 2021.

    Some other details from that article are that he has done coverage contradicting the extreme programming from Carlson and tried to do hour-long coverage post 2020 election specifically to dispute Trump’s election claims, but Fox didn’t allow it.

    So he’s still at Fox while his other real-journalist colleagues have left, making him center right at best. I argue, while it may be a less than fair interview, any Fox viewer that is not ride or die MAGA, is probably watching his show. Those are the voters that may be salvageable and Fox is the #1 viewed news media outlet in the country by a huge margin, over one-million more than MSNBC (#2)

    After the 2020 election, Bret Baier was isolated at Fox News https://www.npr.org/2023/04/10/1168753288/the-loneliness-of-fox-news-bret-baier





  • You’re absolutely right, it’s absurd and that’s the point. For the GOP court to say the FTC can do that, they will expect Congress to pass a law saying “the FTC has the authority to ban non-compete agreements of every kind” but that’s dumb and defeats the purpose of executive agencies, we agree. But that’s the point. Congress will rarely if ever be that specific, so anyone can argue a law is not what they meant and the agencies have no deference.

    The end goal is agencies are powerless and Congress is paralyzed, so the judiciary has all of the authority to decide what everything means.