I’m surprised it got the first bullet point wrong, considering how spot in the second one is

Pit bulls are not considered a large breed

Or because they aren’t inherently dangerous. Also, pit bulls are notoriously confused for other similarly shaped terriers, and laws that ban them are unusually over zealously enforced to ban dogs with flat faces, regardless of aggression.

My memory was that we knew this at the time?

I was just stirring the pot, and I love this response

Fewer*

Agreed that I’m having a hard time deciding where I am on this one. They could use the test to do that kind of thing, but not making it a requirement for graduation takes away the teeth, and I’m not sure how its going to be enforced going forward. The prop just kind of implies that the particulars would be decided after the vote, but I would feel better about it if the question of “How do we prevent harm to under privileged students who have been historically neglected” wasn’t an afterthought. It feels a bit… Well… Neglectful.

You can try to look for Myrtle, but you’re gonna get 80 Sea Bass first

I am very curious how MA is going to deal with the disparity between school districts if this passes.

I know No Child Left Behind and Every Student Succeeds get a lot of flack for requiring teachers to teach the test, which hamstrings good teachers, and that’s a problem. But the problem they were trying to solve was that schools that are ill equipped to deal with ELL, disabled, or impoverished students have a history of giving those students a diploma with no education.

The tests were to give insight into when and where that was happening, and to hold anyone accountable (infamously, no child left behind would remove funding from underfunded districts for failing their students, which… Yeah, but ESSA fixed a lot of that). This prop looks like it glosses over what it’s going to do about those protections, and that makes me uncomfortable with this.

Who are you calling an amateur, buddy? I can argue you under the table!

It’d feel good

I guess 2000 was long enough ago to forget

If the dems ever sweep the house and senate, I hope they pass legislation

I mean, it’s pulling from MBFC and ground news, which are not both owned by Dave Van Zandt, and he doesn’t work alone. Also, when compared to other fact checking organizations, MBFC performs well, from what I’ve read. Well enough that if you find their output uncomfortable, you should be second guessing yourself.

It’s not really a bot’s opinion though? It’s reporting on salon in general, and letting you know that the reporting has a bias, which means generally, it might promote parts of the story that show Vance in a bad light compared to other reporting, and the. The Ground News link shows that reporting on this topic across several sources tends to be pretty non biased and factual. That’s all good information to have, and saying otherwise means you want to let yourself be misled.

And everything other than joining the topic and the source is written by humans who are trying to keep people informed.

But following media reports, it has also admitted that China-based employees had access to US users’ data, although the company insisted it was under strict and highly limited circumstances.

Employees of ByteDance might be Chinese, but they don’t work for the government. They work for ByteDance. I haven’t found anyone claiming to have proof that data in US citizens has left the company. Just fears that it could.

If you’re down voting a fact checker, you might want to do some self reflection on why you’re upset that Salon doesn’t have a perfect rating

There is concern that ByteDance may be giving the Chinese government access to data on US citizens. It’s worth noting that no proof of this actually happening has surfaced.

Mostly because of this. TikTok is the app collecting massive amounts of data on its users with dubious intent and questionable security that is currently being scapegoated, and discord is on the long list of popular apps that collect massive amounts of data their users with dubious intent and questionable security that we are not scapegoating.

That’s what the article is about: how that change has pushed politicians to be open about their flaws and having much more public lives, like celebrities. Meaning that voters vote for politicians who act like celebrities. The sentiment in other comments of “No. No we don’t.” ignores the reality of who has been winning elections for the last 30 years.