So we don't know exactly how things will look after subsidies and there will have been a pull forward effect before the various deadlines.

It seems there is strong agreement from the elites that sharing the country's wealth is not something they'll accept to solve this problem.

So the temperature has been high for a while and he's on board with it.

He seems to suggest Twitter hides the people disagreeing with him most of the time, is it as simple as that?

His critique of the most popular accounts, which include billionaire-owned newspapers with an edict to champion free markets, appears to be that it's not got enough Marxists and centrists to attack Democrats from both sides?

Seems odd for something shared as a "doom-slayer".

Apparently the people pushing it attribute the progress to nearly 20 years of the stuff mentioned in the article. Yet that simply doesn't show up in the 8th grade scores.

The people pointing to one specific intervention and an uptick in 4th grade scores can possibly say that the kids fully exposed to it won't have nationally comparable NEAP scores until after this year.

But this author says they are wrong to credit that intervention. But then it's probably on them to explain the lack of benefit for anyone in 8th grade or higher for these wider reforms.

Feels a bit like they're wanting to eat their cake and have it too. Getting the credit for the early years blip but wanting it for all the non early years stuff that apparently has no measurable impact on the scores used to claim credit for the early years.

Ah, I see they have that on their TODO:

> Improve anti-bot handling for page fetches. Many targets still return 400-range errors, so investigate stronger browser mimicry (Playwright/Chromium behavior, headers, fingerprinting, and potentially user-agent/profile rotation).

Caused by

    Rise of crude oil prices in 2018[29]
    Fuel tax[30]
    Traffic enforcement cameras[31]
    Austerity measures[32]
    2017 wealth tax repeal[33]
    Opposition to neoliberalism[34][35]

    Increase of minimum wage in France[36]
    End to austerity measures[37]
    Improved standard of living[37]
    Government transparency and accountability[37]
    Improved government services for rural areas[37]
    42 demands in total[37]
    Constitutional proposal for a citizens' initiative referendum, including constitutional, legislative, abrogative, and recall initiatives[38]

Targetting minorities is a successful political strategy if you have no morals. People have built entire media careers on it.

Talking about Jewish or black or gay rapists is another classic that Jesse reprises here. It works.

Luckily he's just asking questions and isn't part of some "conspiracy".

> The US and Israel's invasion of Iran has highlighted the danger of relying on global supply chains for fuel.

> "Even if the war [in Iran] ends, that momentum [of sales] will continue," he said.

> "If we're in a world where there's no rules-based order, anything can happen."

...

> They think it’s an easy target, it’s easy politics, and they’re presenting [scrapping the policies] to people as a panacea.”

I think this is a mistaken analysis. They're not attacking net zero because it's good politics they're attacking net zero because it's liked by the public and hated by their funders.

They're part of the campaign trying to convince people to abandon things that are broadly popular.

I don't see any reason to give in to their "populist" framing of themselves. They're spending a lot of money to change people's minds.

But Trump is back to talking about badly run Greenland is so he's moved on.

> The postliberal religious right in the United States, for its part, elevates honor, piety and self-sacrifice. These may not be highly valued goods for liberals, who may even attack them as the root causes of oppression. But they are undeniable human goods, and if we fail to acknowledge their appeal to those who see the world differently, we miss the main drivers of the allure, stability and spread of illiberalism today.

> I’m not defending these regimes. My goal is to understand them.

Well you've failed.

If you invite Steve Bannon to your thought experiment dinner party to learn about "honor, piety and self-sacrifice" you are at best a useful idiot contrarian.

Apart from literal deaths, this has torched American military and diplomatic credibility across the globe. It was basically guaranteed to, with the only potential slim upside for America being a demonstration that their military might when applied ruthlessly might dramatically punish their victims as a warning to others. And it has so far failed at that.