Regardless of Peterson’s position, that guy wasn’t engaging in good faith, respectful debate, and P was right to bow out.

I would have loved to have heard this discussion framed as a debate with someone with an opposing position. As it stood, the rather broad assumptions on which much of the argument was based went unchallenged.

It is baffling that Apple marketed the iPhone 16 with features that won't be available until the iPhone 17. There's "coming soon" and there's "we have to say something so let's make something up and hope for the best".

The message to our allies is chilling: U.S. support comes with a loyalty test, administered publicly and punitively.

America First inexorably drifts towards America Alone. We saw this last night, as world leaders rallied behind Zelenskyy, with figures like the U.K.s Ed Davey labeling it “thuggery.”

Regardless of the efficiency or value of USAID, the manner in which DOGE have knee-capped it is not only inhumane to those who work for it, but also for those who currently benefit from it.

I really liked the closing point that the book banners are trying to protect their kids from theoretical (and unproven) harm by censoring the experience of someone’s *actual* harm

It is extra interesting as it really pokes at what we want to be true. Some ideas we find innately offensive… “my parenting doesn’t matter” is a tough pill to swallow, but the job of a critical thinker is to identify and overcome our own biases.

They do all seem to be playing the same 'game of acquiesience'. From companies like Apple & co, ok fair enough their purpose is shareholder value yada yada, but journalism should be held to a higher standard. Independent blogs etc seem to be where it's at now.