People are not listening to rigidly-programmed, radio broadcasts and instead opting to listen to a podcast on something they are interested in anytime/anywhere they might be?
I can't understand the attraction? LOL!
If podcasts replace talk radio, will we see a mandate to include a 5G radio and Spotify subscription with each new car?
It's hard to find a new car without cellular voice/data built-in, and streaming apps are very, very common in new cars - you don't need a government mandate to include something that's popular/desired by the auto-buying public.
Getting rid of AM reception wasn't a cost saving measure, it was the result of poorly shielded electronics in an EV swamping out the receiver.
No, it was a cost-saving measure - shielding and the engineering behind it to make it work costs money, money that could be saved if car radios didn't have to cover the AM broadcast bands.
Wow, so much to tear into here:
By right wing extremists and has been for at least 15 or 20 years. The only exception has been NPR and that's getting slashed by the current administration.
The Left wing tried to compete, but Air America imploded, dramatically, and in front of a documentary film crew - see "Left of the Dial"
So if you're not somebody who craves more Rush Limbaugh then yeah talk radio is pretty freaking worthless to you.
You know Rush Limbaugh is dead, right?
A lot of times I hear people on the right wing complain about late night TV ignoring the fact that you guys have Sinclair media and literally every single radio station in the country.
Uh, you mean "literally every NON-SPORTS TALK radio station, right, which is actually a small subset of all the stations in a given market. There are many, many music stations, ethnic stations, NPR, college stations, etc. news talk radio is a minority of the stations, but they can be among the most profitable.
Honestly I think it's why FM radios weren't taken out of cars.
Pretty sure you mean AM radios there, sport.
Should read:
"...dropping countless missiles on Iranian military and political targets..."
And a couple "tgat" that should be "that"
Since Iran's brutal crackdown earlier this year, the regime has made progress to allow only a subset of people with security clearance to access the international web, experts said.
In other words, 90 million Iranians tgat lacked internet connectivity before the attack STILL don't have internet connectivity after the attack? That's your point? That dropping countless middles on Iranian military and political targets had no impact on the 90 million Iranians tgat lack internet connectivity?
Wow.
the liberal and left wing sides of the political spectrum might be almost always correct about everything.
Looks back at the left's response to COVID (we should lock up the unvaccinated in camps to protect the vaccinated (from the virus the vaccine doesn't protect the vaccinated from?)), or the pull-out of Afghanistan, where we left $85BN in weapons and supplies behind and air lifted 125K unvetted Afghan nationals out of the country, or the literal opening of the southern border to any and all that we're capable of saying something that sounded like "asylum", to the point we have a decade-long backlog of asylum cases, while the asylum seekers reside in our country.
"almost always correct about everything"?
That's a bit of a stretch, honestly.
And though Iran has a population of 93 million, the attacks suddenly plunged Iran into "a near-total internet blackout with national connectivity at 4% of ordinary levels," according to internet monitoring experts at NetBlocks.
Thank goodness you cut through all the noise and confusion and are focusing on the most important aspect of this attack - the Iranian Internet is down.
Iran has/had a dictator, and dictatorial regimes have been known to 'shut off' Internet connectivity when the people take up arms against the government (which some expect to happen).
Maybe there's a bigger issue you could focus on? Just a thought...
And yet you commented here, you did not skip the article with Sam Altman's name being the first two words in the title - by your own admission, you should have stopped reading before you got to the third word in the title...
Liar. Or, if you prefer, Poser.
"Peace thru strength" is a thing.
There are many countries that might want to attack the U.S. for various reasons, but the mere existence of the U.S. military and its awe-inspiring armaments inventory prevents any attacks.
To quote a famous radio personality, "the purpose of the military is kill peopke and break things" - that they are CAPABLE and ABLE to do so at a moments notice has real deference power.
Masked, armed men kidnapping people off the streets?
It's called an arrest for violating immigration law.
I looked up the definition of "kidnapping" and it doesn't really apply here - the gov't isn't offering to return those they "kidnap" (to use your term) in exchange for money - a key element of any kidnapping.
And this "Nazi" thing, really? Can't you find another name to call them? Holocaust victims, survivors, and their descendants deserve better, you trivialize and mock their experience by comparing it to law enforcement efforts you don't like.
Where was your outrage when prior administration (Obama/Biden) ran an illegal protection racket that charged children that were brought to this country as a child by their parents (so-called 'Dreamers') a protection fee to delay, not prevent their deportation? "That's a nice life you've made for yourself here in America, it'd be shame if you were to be deported... Pay this fee and we will "defer action" on your case. $429 please, and you can stay a few more years..."
You've certainly stretched the definition of summary with The Fine Summary for this article...
To paraphrase a line from the Simpson's movie, "I come here to comment, not to read!"
So much for the right-wing fantasy that school vouchers are the solution to bad public schools. They haven't ever worked, but hey, let's keep trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
In Baltimore recently there were 13 public high schools where not one student was performing at grade level in reading. Not one. Those schools had valedictorians that couldn't read at the 12th grade level. Think about that. Now, imagine you're a low-income parent living in a neighborhood 'served' by one of those 13 public high schools... What do you do? Do you send your child to the (arguably) failing public high school or do you pray you might get a voucher to put your child in a private school or maybe a charter school?
It's easy to sit back and argue vouchers don't work when you look at sweeping statistics removed from personal experiences, but to those parents it's a real benefit.
I once heard a critic argue that on average, charter schools are about average to slightly above average compared to the public schools they 'compete' with. Thst sounds like there's no need for charter schools, right? Now take that very same argument and try to convince a parent of a student at one of the below-average schools and suddenly the argument that charter schools are only "average" becomes a ringing endorsement and something the parent desperately wants instead of their below-average school.
I earned a BA degree at a state college that lets students earn degrees based on life experience and class work collected from various institutions - personally I used college credits from three schools to earn my degree (most universities require two years enrollment to earn a degree) - but my graduation was contingent on having a 30 minute (recorded) discussion with a professor on a topic related to my degree program. I thought it was a great 'sanity check', preventing someone from skating by, school-hopping, and getting a degree without actually learning anything.
It's labor-intensive and opens the door for a lot of subjective issues (the professor doesn't like me, she's racist, etc), but it my situation it worked out well.
Learning anything is really not the primary reason reason for education anymore. It's to get the magic piece of paper that tells employers you're not an idiot.
Because, presumably, you learned something in the process of getting "the magic piece of paper."
The premise in this article seems to be that the reason teachers assign the same homework to all 30 students in the math class is because she really needs to know the answers to the 25 random multiplication problems in the homework, and she figures that with 30 kids doing the same problem she can be sure of the answer... The teacher assigns homework to reinforce student learning, not to solve math problems.
This is nothing like the horse example in The Fine Summary - we don't breed children to put them in public schools to solve math problems for the teacher's benefit, we did breed horses to pull carts until the automobile came along.
Brain off-line, please wait.
