The problem is they can't really say it, because if their stance is that Musk's management deserves such rejection, then they are cutting their nose to spite their face, and if the abhorrent ones are X users in general, they show themselves to be only on one side of the aisle, removing any legitimacy to their principles.
No, it does not make the comparison unbiased, because other companies, like BYD, may sell in a month as much EV cars as Tesla sells in a quarter, but they are distributed over diverse models, so one Tesla model may indeed sell more than any other model, without this reflecting the EV market share.
E.g. for BYD the 2026 target is over 1.5 million exported EV cars, with more than that produced for the internal Chinese market. During 2025, BYD exported more than 1 million EV cars, besides the production for the Chinese market.
The whole story about Tesla until 2025 was that they had the #1 selling model across any category: BEVs, PHEVs, and ICEs included. So it’s absolutely correct to note when that model’s sales no longer exceed those of a PHEV or ICE model, and it’s always in the context of how competitors choose to segment their offerings.
The core truth is that the popularity of buying a new Tesla has slipped significantly relative to competitors.
I’m pretty excited about the edge gallery ios app with gemma 4 on it but it seems like they hobbled it, not giving access to intents and you have to write custom plugins for web search, etc. Does anyone have a favorite way to run these usefully? ChatMCP works pretty well but only supports models via api.
I believe the popular sentiment is that when they hacked the DNC they found a handful of things that would provide bad optics for the party. But the RNC? They found so much evidence of criminality that near to the entire party flipped positions on issues related to Russia. So we have 2x successful hacks, one of which yielded some bad press for the Dems, and yielded an entirely compromised party in the Repubs who now are being actively blackmailed.
Netflix:
13 Reasons Why: Following concerns from mental health professionals, Netflix edited the first-season finale in 2019 to remove a graphic scene depicting the main character’s suicide.
Back to the Future Part II: In May 2020, it was discovered that a scene involving an adult magazine cover was censored in certain regions. Netflix stated they had received an edited foreign version from the studio and later restored the original scene.
Bird Box: Following public outcry in 2018, Netflix agreed to remove footage from the 2013 Lac-Mégantic rail disaster used in the film's scenes, as it was deemed insensitive.
The Devil Next Door: In 2019, Netflix added extra text to a map in this documentary series after complaints from the Polish Prime Minister regarding the portrayal of Nazi death camps.
Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj: An episode critical of the Saudi Arabian government was removed in Saudi Arabia in 2019 after a government takedown request.
> Which films have had items censored out of them for release?
I said "I see this being used" as an idiom for "this is likely to be used soon" ("I see this happening in the near future"), not that I've seen this used already. But, like the commenter who responded to you showed, movies already get edited to censor things.
Hospitals are starting to bring midwives and doulas back. Of course, educating women and families about their options and pushing back on inducing labor and c sections would help as well.
They already tried pushing back against c-sections, turns out giving overly opinionated options to women that discourages things that are medically beneficial in a large portion of cases is not helpful and caused a lot of unnecessary suffering and some deaths, now that policy is thankfully long gone, though the opinionated attitude it generated in some continues on sadly.
my wife had a particularly large first baby, natural birth might have worked, but would have been risky, rather than being given unbiased options, she was pressured towards induction over c-section since it was “more natural” (I suspect mostly because it would have looked better in the hospitals stats to keep the c-sections down). The early induction failed after days of suffering (as early inductions usually do, turns out), and then she had a c-section anyway (which having reviewed the options was her original preference, but was pressured out by the doctor), the c-section was vastly more successful, as you’d expect from the statistics (and a lot less suffering, which doesn’t show up in the stats but is obvious once you concider the process).
Im willing to agree neither should be recommended in most cases, natural births are safer in most births, but the best thing anyone can do is give the facts as they apply to the person giving birth (and keep their opinions well out of it).
I fully admit that personal experience has biased me strongly in favour of c-sections, but only when the stats support them, which they often do.
Dr. Atul Gawande† reported 20 years ago how obstetricians standardized on c-sections because the suppposedly-better alternative, forceps, (i) was very difficult to teach and supervise, and (ii) used incorrectly, could result in horrible injuries to both baby and mother:
<QUOTE>
The question facing obstetrics was this: Is medicine a craft or an industry?
If medicine is a craft, then you focus on teaching obstetricians to acquire a set of artisanal skills—the Woods corkscrew maneuver for the baby with a shoulder stuck, the Lovset maneuver for the breech baby, the feel of a forceps for a baby whose head is too big.
You do research to find new techniques.
You accept that things will not always work out in everyone’s hands.
But if medicine is an industry, responsible for the safest possible delivery of millions of babies each year, then the focus shifts.
You seek reliability.
You begin to wonder whether forty-two thousand obstetricians in the U.S. could really master all these techniques.
You notice the steady reports of terrible forceps injuries to babies and mothers, despite the training that clinicians have received.
After Apgar, obstetricians decided that they needed a simpler, more predictable way to intervene when a laboring mother ran into trouble.
They found it in the Cesarean section. [0]
</QUOTE>
(Formatting edited.)
† Surgeon, Rhodes scholar, MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" recipient, professor at Harvard Medical School, author of The Checklist Manifesto among many other things.
If the water actually broke, inducing labor can be important to reduce the risk of infection though, since bacteria can easily get into the amniotic fluid. If the water didn’t break yet, then at least where I live they don’t induce unless you go so much over the expected birth date that there is a high risk you’ll need C-section if you wait more (in Northern Europe they generally don’t offer C-sections unless medically required).
Midwives provide most of the care for most births in hospitals in the UK AFAIK and have done so for decades (certainly where my older daughter was born).
Social mobility in the USA is actually pretty abysmal compared to Social Democratic countries. It ranks at like 25ish worldwide. Generally if you are born to poverty in the US, you stay there.
Ah yes, the social mobility in countries, where moving up does little to nothing to your income and in some cases just robs you of benefits of being poor.
Yeah if they sold 1/800th of the company for a billion dollars then they are valued at 800b even if they only have a billion dollars. It’s advantageous for investors to both buy in as cheaply as possible but also have future investors to buy in as expensive as possible to prop up a, perhaps inaccurate, valuation.
reply