silverbax

In my personal (and therefore, limited) experience, engagement is much harder to get in the fediverse. I hope it improves, but it's not easy to find people you don't know in order to follow them, and vice versa.

In my lifetime we've gone from 'there's no water on Mars' to 'there's tons of water all over the equator, evaporating into the atmosphere daily then freezing on the surface at night'. Which is pretty cool.

The article mentions fighting hidden fees,which is good, but they really need to address TicketMaster's monopoly in the process.

If someone is reading the National Enquirer and thinks it's actual news, they are already an idiot and nothing revealed in this trial is going to smarten them up.
In the 80s, the National Enquirer had a 'seance' to ask the ghost of Marilyn Monroe if someone had murdered her and who the murderer was. They then reported this as if it wad an actual source and named Bobby Kennedy the killer. It's not like this is a real news source in any way, and it never has been.

"What should we include when we build our humanoid robot?"

"It should stand up in the most unnerving way possible."

Now let's compare the numbers to Donald Trump's...oh thats right, he said he would release his nine years ago and never did.

It was to be revealed 'in two weeks'...9 years ago.

'Vaulting'... expected 3.4%, got 3.5%. These editorialized headlines are eroding any semblance of journalism.

I can only go by the actual numbers I've seen, and it seems like most articles are cherry picking, at least so far. Saying 'popularity is soaring' isn't the same as hard numbers.

For example, the NBA could claim their popularity is soaring during the NBA Finals, but their actual numbers are dwarfed the the Super Bowl. A lot of this is spin. But if the WNBA numbers actually do increase, then sure, more money would be coming.

It may go down in the WNBA. Caitlin Clark isn't the first player who was expected to make the WNBA popular (Maya Moore, Brittany Griner, etc). It's far too early to tell if she will have any impact on WNBA viewership.

The issue is that NIL money is also a way for boosters to pay players to stay instead of the shadowy back door deals that used to happen. Now NIL just allows boosters to pay players through a legitimate channel.

The article says the women's college tournament 'dwarfed the men's tournament', but the ratings numbers I've seen show the men's tournament has had 5x the viewership. So someone's not doing their research. Plus, this is college, not the pros. If the WNBA viewership increases, then,yes, more revenue should come with the next media contract. But that remains to be seen.

So are these Republicans going to go after vasectomies? Haven't heard a peep about them, even though they are rising.

What could be the difference? What could it possibly be?