Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

Menu

Subscriptions

Drudge Retort RSS feed RSS Feed

Links

Recent Comments

Recent comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

snip...

A few years back Cory Doctorow proposed the theory of "enshittification" to describe how Amazon had become significantly worse:
In Bezos's original plan, the company called "Amazon" was called "Relentless," due to its ambition to be "Earth's most customer-centric company." Today, Amazon is an enshittified endless scroll of paid results, where winning depends on ad budgets, not quality. . . .

Search Amazon for "cat beds" and the entire first screen is ads. One of them is an ad for a dog carrier, which Amazon itself manufactures and sells, competing with the other sellers who bought that placement.

Scroll down one screen and you get some "organic" results - that is, results that represent Amazon's best guess at the best products for your query. Scroll once more and yup, another entire screen of ads, these ones labeled "Highly rated." One more scroll, and another screenful of ads, one for a dog product.

Keep scrolling, you'll keep seeing ads, including ads you've already scrolled past. "On these first five screens, more than 50 percent of the space was dedicated to ads and Amazon touting its own products." . . .

How did we get here?

The answer, Doctorow proposed, was that Amazon had built a $31 billion ad business inside its own retail platform. The incentives for Amazon went from "give customers the most helpful results so they'll buy the most stuff" to "sell as many ads against products as customers will tolerate so that:

[ad sales profits] > [retail sales losses from abandoned searches]

via GOOGLE:

Second Amendment rights are not unlimited, and the Supreme Court has clarified that the government can prohibit "dangerous and unusual weapons" not in common use for lawful purposes. Generally, fully automatic machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and destructive devices (e.g., explosives) are heavily regulated or banned. While self-defense arms like handguns are protected, states may restrict specific types of firearms, such as assault weapons, and high-capacity magazines.Weapons Commonly Restricted or BannedMachine Guns: Specifically M-16s and similar, which are considered dangerous and unusual.Short-barreled shotguns/rifles: Regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934."Assault Weapons": Certain semi-automatic rifles with specific military-style features.Large Capacity Magazines: Magazines holding more than a certain number of rounds.Destructive Devices: Bombs, grenades, and similar explosive weapons.Other Devices: Silencers/suppressors are heavily regulated, and some jurisdictions restrict stun guns or other items.Legal Standards for Restrictions"Dangerous and Unusual": The Heller decision (2008) established that weapons failing the "common use" test (i.e., not commonly used for lawful purposes like self-defense) can be banned."Common Use": Weapons in common use for lawful purposes, such as handguns, are protected.Military Equipment: While the amendment mentions a militia, modern, purely military-grade, or highly dangerous weaponry can be restricted.Key Court Cases Limiting WeaponsDistrict of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Confirmed an individual right to bear arms but permitted bans on dangerous/unusual weapons.United States v. Miller (1939): Upheld regulations on weapons not having a reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militia.Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016): Clarified that the Second Amendment extends to bearable arms not in existence at the time of the founding, such as stun guns.

"it has nothing to do with the physical weapons."

What you can't say is what 'well regulated militia' actually mean. Or maybe you can! But even if you could, the Courts have decided it doesn't matter what well-regulated militia means.

I've never heard anyone even attempt to address the core concept of the prefatory clause"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Anyone want to tell me what that means in today's English? Does the "free state" here mean the Untied States of America, one of the Colonies, all of the above, or something else entirely?

As a practical matter, Costa Rica doesn't even have an army. They seem significantly more secure than any other Central American state, all of which have armies. Maybe an army and a well regulated mlitia are two completely different things. I bet it meant somethign a lot like an army, though, at a time when we did not have the de facto standing army that we have today, and clearly were never meant to have in the Founder's vision of our Republic.

So, that's another reason it's a myth: Nobody can actually tell you what that means.

And that should be a problem, but it isn't. Because belief in guns isn't question. It's a dogma for the believers. The karma, what happened to Charlie Kirk, most of them take Charlie Kirk's words to mean it's okay if the Democrat Plantation gangs kill each other, as long as it doesn't spill over into civilized society, where the biggest problem you have is when the pilot is black.

Guns is pretty much a proxy measure for racism these days. As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists. Which is buttressed by the valid and valuable American history lesson, which is that you can get rid of your problems by ethnically cleansing them.

We carved the faces of our Top Four Ethnic Cleansers into the side of their sacred mountain, then again what isn't sacred to those peace pipe smoking hippies, left behind a huge pile of rubble, and made it a National Park.

The huge pile of rubble still being there after all these years, like the rug burn scars a middle age woman bears today when Trump held her down as a child is the *chefs kiss* of the genocide. It makes its own Holocaust Museum.

"it has nothing to do with the physical weapons."

What you can't say is what 'well regulated militia' actually mean. Or maybe you can! But even if you could, the Courts have decided it doesn't matter what well-regulated militia means.

I've never heard anyone even attempt to address the core concept of the prefatory clause"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Anyone want to tell me what that means in today's English? Does the "free state" here mean the Untied States of America, one of the Colonies, all of the above, or something else entirely?

As a practical matter, Costa Rica doesn't even have an army. They seem significantly more secure than any other Central American state, all of which have armies. Maybe an army and a well regulated mlitia are two completely different things. I bet it meant somethign a lot like an army, though, at a time when we did not have the de facto standing army that we have today, and clearly were never meant to have in the Founder's vision of our Republic.

So, that's another reason it's a myth: Nobody can actually tell you what that means.

And that should be a problem, but it isn't. Because belief in guns isn't question. It's a dogma for the believers. The karma, what happened to Charlie Kirk, most of them take Charlie Kirk's words to mean it's okay if the Democrat Plantation gangs kill each other, as long as it doesn't spill over into civilized society, where the biggest problem you have is when the pilot is black.

Guns is pretty much a proxy measure for racism these days. As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists. Which is buttressed by the valid and valuable American history lesson, which is that you can get rid of your problems by ethnically cleansing them.

We carved the faces of our Top Four Ethnic Cleansers into the side of their sacred mountain, then again what isn't sacred to those peace pipe smoking hippies, left behind a huge pile of rubble, and made it a National Park.

The huge pile of rubble still being there after all these years, like the rug burn scars a middle age woman bears today when Trump held her down as a child is the *chefs kiss* of the genocide. It makes its own Holocaust Museum.

Mr. Obama: TWO OF THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF A DEMOCRACY AND WE CAN SURVIVE A LOT.
BAD POLICY, FUNKY ELECTIONS. THERE'S A BUNCH OF STUFF THAT WE CAN OVERCOME.

WE CAN'T OVERCOME THE POLITICIZATION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE AWESOME POWER OF THE STATE.

YOU CAN'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE STARTS USING THAT TO GO AFTER THEIR POLITICAL ENEMIES. REWARD THEIR FRIENDS.

ANOTHER POWER MAY BE I SAY, ALTHOUGH THIS IS IN THE CONSTITUTION, IT'S HARDER TO CHANGE. BUT MAYBE DON'T PARDON PEOPLE WHO HAVE GIVEN YOU A BUNCH OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. OR INVESTED IN YOUR BUSINESSES.

RESTORING SOME SENSE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BEING INDEPENDENT AND MAKING JUDGMENTS ABOUT SPECIFIC CASES AND PROSECUTIONS.

I WOULD CONSULT WITH ERIC HOLDER, MY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
ALL THE TIME, AROUND BROAD POLICY ISSUES THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHO DO YOU CHARGE, WHAT CASE DO YOU BRING?

THE SECOND THING IS THE MILITARY. DON'T POLITICIZE OUR MILITARY.
PRESIDENT, YOU ARE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECTING OUR MILITARY.

BUT THERE HAD BEEN A WHOLE SERIES OF NORMS THAT WERE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT YOU WEREN'T TRYING TO MAKE THAT MILITARY LOYAL TO YOU AS OPPOSED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND MECHANISMS TO RESTORE THAT.

A GOOD POLICY THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE FOLLOWED IS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULDN'T HAVE A BUNCH OF SIDE HUSTLES.

COMPANIES IN FOREIGN ENTITIES GET ENMESHED IN.

Stephen: HOW MUCH OF THAT IS JUST JEALOUS THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK OF SELLING SNEAKERS. YOU WOULD HAVE THANKED COIN.

Mr. Obama: I THOUGHT THIS WAS A PRETTY OBVIOUS PRINCIPLE.

Stephen: I'M LOOKING FOR A NEW GIG SOON. A LOT OF PEOPLE TELL ME I SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

Stephen: YOU HAVE THE HAIR.

Mr. Obama: FOR THE RECORD, I THINK IT'S A STUPID IDEA.

HOW DUMB DO YOU THINK IT IS FOR PEOPLE TO SAY THAT I SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT? >>

Mr. Obama: WELL. YOU KNOW. THE BAR HAS CHANGED.

Stephen: THAT IS TRUE. AT TIMES SUBTERRANEAN. I DON'T HAVE TO LIMBO SO LOW.

Mr. Obama: PUT IT THIS WAY. I THINK THAT YOU COULD...
[LAUGHS] PERFORM SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN SOME FOLKS WE'VE SEEN. [APPLAUSE] I HAVE GREAT CONFIDENCE.
Stephen: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THAT AN ENDORSEMENT?

Mr. Obama: IT WAS NOT.

Stephen: WHEN WE COME BACK, I'LL ASK PRESIDENT OBAMA ABOUT ALIEN LIFE AND IF THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy