Have you tried taking it anywhere that requires a transfer? Last time I saw, all transfers required going to Union Station. Doesn't matter if that is the opposite direction of where you want to go. Union Station is (or was) the only option if you were not traveling in a straight line.

All of my knowledge on Los Angeles public transit is about 15 years old. I really do hope that they have improved since then.

I am also just talking about just the Metro rail system. I never attempted any other public transit options in LA.

I get that it started 60 years ago with white flight and was exasperated 40 years ago with the consolidation of major changes, but why has their been no progress in correcting this? Why are zoning laws not being updated? Why do grocery store chains think inner cities are riskier? Why are new stores, like the referenced Whole Foods, not lasting? Why the focus on supermarkets instead of smaller neighborhood grocery stores that don't have the same logistic issues?

Those questions are not directed at you. They are more a representation my disappointment and disillusionment. Thank you for the reply.

I guess that I was hoping that there would be more current information and not just an article about how nobody cares so nothing has been done in more than half a century.

Out of curiosity, what is the topic that you are discussing?

I'm discussing TikTok making grandiose, inaccurate and unfounded statements in an attempt to manipulate their users. And I'm attempting to shed light on that attempt.

This will damage millions of businesses

I don't think that shifting conditions and fluctuations in a market place are damage, I think that it is just business.

destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country

I believe that any creators making a livelihood from social media are not doing it solely from TikTok, they are (or at least should be) diversified across multiple platforms for stability and increased earning potential.

deny artists an audience,”

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to even mean. TikTok is a platform, not an audience. The audience is still there. The artists are still there. A vast multitude of options that are not TikTok exist for connecting those 2 groups. Nothing is being denied.

Basically, as it was before TikTok, so shall it be after TikTok.

Really this is just a big handout to Meta and Google with nothing beyond that of merit

That may be, but TikTok did not argue against the consolidation of social media platforms. That would be a different discussion.

Yeah, kinda. Except that the laws already exist. So somebody ineligible could fight to be on the ballot (or somebody else could fight to have them removed), which would result in a court case. Which is what just happened.

If SCOTUS had decided to hear Trumps immunity arguments sooner rather than later than there would be a chance of him being ejudicated of insurrection before the election. Until that verdict, he remains eligible since Congress failed to impeach him when they had the chance.

Did his partnership with Netflix recently end? He's been producing content for them for years now. It would make sense to play nice while they were still writing him checks.

There are studies that show introvertion is not a "preference", but rather the result of increased blood flow to certain parts of the brain. Ref: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9989562/

There are other studies showing a "high reactive" or "low reactive" response to unfamiliar events and stimuli in infants and it's correlation to behavioral inhibitions as toddlers. While it requires some extrapolation, this suggests that introvertion may be a a condition of "nature" rather than "nurture". Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283938/

Let me know if you are interested and I can send you additional peer reviewed studies and papers on the topic. Personality and human behavior is a fascinating topic.

Yes, I did read those articles. Allow me to highlight some of the points from those articles which bolster my argument that the avoiding our limiting of social interactions of introverts is rooted in finding those interactions to be exhausting and mentally draining.

they enjoy one-on-one engagement in calm environments, which is more suited to the make-up of their nervous system. Evidence suggests that, unlike with extroverts, the brains of introverts do not react strongly to viewing novel human faces; in such situations they produce less dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward.

Introverts gain energy from reflection and lose energy in social gatherings.

Highly stimulating situations with lots of social interaction are draining for introverts, while these types of encounters tend to fuel extroverts.

Introverts usually like to be alone and recharge by spending time by themselves.

A person with introverted tendencies might still like to go to parties and socialize with others. However, they will likely need to spend time alone afterward to recharge.

Being introverted has to do with how you gather energy.

Hanging out with friends on Friday might max out your energy, leaving you craving solitude on Saturday to rest and refuel.

If you have any articles or research studies to suggest that introvertion is not associated with a psychological drain or that it is a condition of choice, I would appreciate reading them. I'm always receptive to new information that may change my mind on a topic.

Mutually exclusive or not. Nothing in the description nor the original post depicts introvert behavior.

Thanks. Fixed my comment.

I think that there is something wrong with the "not my job" approach. I believe in the saying "The only thing evil needs to thrive is for good people to do nothing."

Assuming that everyone has shared in your socioeconomic upbringing and therefore has the same access to diverse ideas is flawed.

I am personally inspired by Daryl Davis, a black musician who, through simple conversation, has convinced grown adult Ku Klux Klan members to change their ways and renounce the KKK.

I believe that people should work towards the changes they want to see manifest in the world.

I am happy to take your word for most of it, but it does not change my view. I am completely in favor of identifying and taking steps to remediate the underlining cause of all forms of crime rather than simply punishing violators. That being said, the hubris that an individual, or group of individuals supercedes the survival of an entire species is repugnant to me. I have no sympathy for anybody that actively contributes to the the extinction of another species (except mosquitos).

The one point of your argument that I do question is the "kill a rhino and get enough money to last a few years" claim. While I have not looked into the details in India, as I understand it, poachers in Africa can make roughly the equivalent of an average 1 month salary for killing 1 rhino. If, in India, they make enough money to last a few years than either poachers are almost exclusively first timers, which seems highly unlikely to me, or they are doing it for greed rather than survival, which would negate your argument of the restrictive hunting laws.

Their representatives do.

Electors, not representatives.

And guess what, their representatives don’t have to represent them. They can vote however they want.

That depends on the state. While there are no federal provisions on how an elector should vote, several states do have rules requiring them to follow the popular vote. Additionally, the popular vote is used to select which electors (a.k.a. which parties electors) are sent.