Some crazy conspiracy nut who lives in an RV in the wilderness somewhere with the walls covered in tin foil: “I knew it! I fucking KNEW IT!!!”

I’m gonna be the cynic here and predict they’ll still accept a settlement at some point and they’re mostly sending ‘fight’ signals now for strategic reasons.

“Architects of well-known type of crypto scam accused of running crypto scam.”

Would be funny if they played that South Park clip instead.

Report by the US State Department

So safe to ignore, got it.

Might as well stop the whole operation then. A museum’s most precious good is its credibility. If visitors can’t trust that the information you present is factual, why should they visit?

Even if part of your funding is at risk, is this worth it? Cut costs, do a fundraiser, forego pay of leadership personnel, if you need to, but without credibility, you’re no longer running a museum but a theme park.

Purple hearts for the shitter patrol when?

Gotta wonder what part of “thou shalt not kill” is so difficult to understand for these people.

Also, open a fund that people can donate to. With a damage like $1700, they can probably get back multiple times that in a week.

Thank you for the explanation. Just one follow-up to check if I understood: The minority government would then just include the Liberals but with support from the Bloc Québécois (i.e., the Bloc has the power to veto, but the legislation will still come from the Liberals)?

That seems plausible, although I still wonder why a coalition with the Bloc is then not also on the table (there’s probably a reason, I just don’t know about Canadian politics).

Question for the Canadians: Do you have two or multiple parties in parliament? I’m asking because the article states that a minority government was the goal, and I was wondering whether a coalition government wouldn’t be more advantageous.

Considering that Harris won the groups both 18-29 and 30-44 years of age (the two that include millennials), I’m not sure what your point is. Seems to me like they didn’t, in fact, vote for this.

Trump’s tariff policy is like the Windows file copy dialogue.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/estimation.png

Get 'em while they’re hot!

Republican state governments. Trump and Musk hold up the chainsaw, and Republicans walk into it with a smile on their face.

Gonna make a cool 800€ in only 5 minutes.

It was really the whiskey’s fault when you think about it.

Very important point, just one technical remark, because I see this a lot: You don’t necessarily want or need random samples in surveys. What you want is a probability sample, which means that you know the probability with which a person enters the sample. A random sample is a special type of probability sample, where each person has the same probability to enter the sample.

The large sample used for this “survey” in the OP is a convenience sample, which is a non-probability sample, where the persons’ probabilities to enter the sample are simply unknown. And this is often not a useful basis for a survey, because it’s affected by all sorts of response biases that are difficult to adjust for in non-probability samples.

Because many people in the US (and elsewhere, sadly) are not media-literate enough to understand the difference between the veracity of an article and their opinion about it.