Where did you get the idea that he's the least bought? It's factually inaccurate.
He literally publicly offered oil executives whatever they wanted for a billion dollars, and though he didn't make that much (that we can prove) has been delivering on that promise since. [0]
While being "honest" in the sense of "staying bought" and delivering the promised graft is somewhat commendable, it's not exactly evidence that he holds some sort of moral high ground.
How is this any different than Biden making sweeping environmental promises and then allocating billions to those groups?
I don't see any difference and this is something that all candidates do at every level - local, state and federal elections. I mean, look at what Mamdani promised in order to get elected.
When I was young my parents were scared that the MTV generation couldn't focus long enough to watch the "real news".
Not long ago I feared that twitters short form content was shortening peoples attention spans so much that they would stop being able to appreciate nuance at all... Then came TikTok.
I don't know what comes next, but I promise you it will be worse. Either way, it's a race to the bottom and we're not there yet.
Don't you see, someone just has to say "this is not a bribe", and, like magic, they can finagle their way out of their corruption. "Bribery" has a very narrow definition, which conveniently doesn't apply to the corruption in question.
Does that work? Congress is so broken now that nothing happens. Sayings like “act of Congress” describing slow progress it would be simple for the lobbyist to just back another candidate to eliminate this “would be a shame” threat
Are there any countries that don't use the quid pro quo definition of bribery? At best, they try to keep a lid on it by capping campaign contributions, but that's not really "bribery is illegal" (if we accept the more liberal definition), more like "there's a limit on how much you can bribe".
The Ottoman Empire kind of acknowledged the futility of trying to suppress corruption, opting instead to codify it and set thresholds for excessive abuse.
Progressive for its day, it only partially succeeded since enforcement was no less prone to corrupt influence.
As the romans famously said, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Literally: “Who will guard the guards themselves?”
It's why the 3 branches of government worked so well for the US for so long. They each want to protect themselves, and are effectively at odds with each other unless there is almost universal agreement on something.
However that has completely fallen apart with a toothless Congress, and a executive branch that can stack the 3rd branch with similar minded idealogues.
I thought it's been known for decades that schizophrenia involved both a genetic predisposition and a stressor that caused it to manifest. Has that understanding changed?
Even before epigenetics (in the modern sense) or environmentally induced gene expression was talked about that's what my school textbooks said.
All you can measure is correlation. The rest are theories, and always have been.
"Heritability" is a misnomer, since research into genetics relies on twin studies, so it is impossible to delineate what is 'inherited' from influences during prenatal development. Since technology to "look into the womb" has vastly improved in the past decades, there is more and more research into prenatal effects, which shifts the potential narrative (working theory!) from "it's in the genes" to "it is prenatal trauma due to adverse environmental circumstances".
We don't really know if there ever was or is a "genetic predisposition". Remember, in contrast to "diagnoses" in medicine, psychological classifications such as "schizophrenia" do not describe etiology or biology, they merely describe observable symptoms, with a lot of overlap and redefinitions in between the different categories. More and more voices in the psychotherapeutic community argue that these classifications do more harm than good and should be replaced by a multidimensional system. At least in Europe, my understanding is that they serve mostly health insurance billing purposes, not patient-oriented treatment purposes.
The danger in the "genetic predisposition" line of arguments is that it may sound like something that cannot be "healed", only managed, which we know now thanks to epigenetic research and [brain] plasticity is not the case. Modern therapies can achieve more than merely manage symptoms, and what was previously believed to be "untreatable" is now known to be fixable. Which, as an aside, is one of the reasons why "narcisstic personality disorder" has been dropped, so "it doesn't exist any more".
This "literally" is not true for most people. I typically go many years between traumatic events, and most of those are better designated as standard major life events than severe trauma.
If you've genuinely been that miserable everyday of your life you might want to consider getting some sort of help.
Those ads are optional. You can just pay for it. Its actually pretty good value for the money.
Edit: I forgot to mention Family Link. Once you have a family membership (maybe even before?) You can also use Googles family link to enable a restricted mode that hides adult content for specific accounts.
You actually get a pretty great experience for the whole family for about $20/month.
Ads are only half the problem. The real problem with kids using YouTube is it's too easy for them to access any of the content on the platform.
If I could pay YouTube for the privilege of using an app where I choose exactly which videos are available, and no other video will ever appear on or can be accessed from that app, then I might pay for it.
IMO the only way YouTube can be kid-friendly is if there is an app where the primary utility is the ability to whitelist on a per video basis. There could be convenience methods like whitelisting an entire channel's videos with one action, but the whitelist needs to be built around a per video model.
Last I checked, they had nothing remotely like this as an option.
He literally publicly offered oil executives whatever they wanted for a billion dollars, and though he didn't make that much (that we can prove) has been delivering on that promise since. [0]
While being "honest" in the sense of "staying bought" and delivering the promised graft is somewhat commendable, it's not exactly evidence that he holds some sort of moral high ground.
[0] https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4961820-oil-bi...
reply