Factor that a lot of people miss is that Chinese companies have been building cheap EVs at scale before Tesla was even an idea.

Sure, they were two-wheeled, not climate controlled, lacked creature comforts, and whatever… but those are simple problems when you have a big battery to run things off of.

Electric bikes and mopeds built up expertise in China that carried over naturally to electric cars.

Technically the US (the country) gets +2 bronzes (Puerto Rico) and China (the country) gets +2 golds and +2 bronzes (Hong Kong)… but this whole comparison is stupid.

Why, exactly, do you think THC and cocaine are illegal for recreational consumption in most of the world? Someone decided one day that they really didn’t like the way it looks?

Not unless you want to die

THC is illegal in most of the world still. It’s like how testing positive for cocaine probably isn’t good for your odds.

Sprinter Erriyon Knighton tested positive for a banned substance that an arbitration panel determined came from contaminated meat, a decision that keeps the 200-meter specialist eligible to run at the upcoming U.S. Olympic trials.

Food contamination is a real issue. It helps that everyone tested positive for the exact same substance in basically the exact same concentration, because usually it’s better to design your doping protocols tailored to each athlete’s body and training. Just intuitively, it’s not exactly standard practice to have your entire Olympic-level team shoot up on steroids at the same exact time.

Nevertheless, the pool isn’t slow: the US set the 1500m free and 4x100 medley women’s records. Meanwhile, WADA has been testing Chinese athletes far more than everyone else.

Edit: just to be clear, I don’t think his spread is even unreasonable in context. Phelps swam a 22.93 50m and a 47.51 100m (1.65s pace difference). Pan swam a 21.92 50m and a 46.40 100m (2.56s pace difference). For reference, Dressel did 50m in 21.04 and 100m in 46.96… but while Dressel is basically specialized at training for short stints, Pan also trains for 400m events so his back half is expected to not fall off as hard anyway (not to the level of Michael “my lactic acid doesn’t build up” Phelps, though).

Because the mods on this community would rather choose a source that they agree with than a source that’s reliable.

This is a really well-reasoned response… Which probably means the mods will ignore it

There’s a reason lemmy.ml mocks MBFC daily lmao

When your community is built from Redditors it’s sort of bound to happen

Well, it’s more that the mods know that people don’t have an alternative

Because it’s free money for MBFC

The mods on this community have always had a rather unhealthy relationship with MBFC

Let’s see if this sticks… nothing else has really been able to stall recent Russian advances.

The only winners in this war have been the Chinese drone part makers on Alibaba and the intermediaries in the Middle East/Central Asia buying those parts and reselling them to Ukraine/Russia.

I’ll allow this, but IMO once you get to 200k+ subscribers you should really consider launching an actual website. Ex-The Intercept and ex-HuffPost journalists should know better.

Newsweek has such shit journalism, man:

Yemen’s Houthi rebels continued their attacks in the Red Sea by targeting two tankers in 24 hours, including a vessel carrying Russian oil likely heading to Asia, where China is the region’s largest buyer.

That’s the only justification given… Even though, y’know, India has been the largest buyer of seaborne Russian oil since the sanctions and is also, shockingly, in Asia. Meanwhile, it’s summer and the Northern Sea Route is viable, cutting the transport distance almost in half.

I do think we don’t have a clear policy on opinion pieces and that’s absolutely something we should work towards. Right now it’s more of a case-by-case basis.

If you could point to some specific examples that would be great!

Now would be a good time to describe what specific issues you have with Greenwald’s reporting on past issues and where he’s been inconsistent with facts revealed after the fact.

His stint at The Guardian where he broke the Snowden leaks?

His work at The Intercept that revealed the corrupt dealings that led to Brazil’s Lula losing the election and being imprisoned?

Or is it his appearances on US media, where he’s on record for questioning the efficacy of Russian interference in the 2016 election (which IIRC is backed by a study in Nature Communications) and criticizing Israeli influence in US politics?

I’m not disagreeing with you, but you’re not exactly providing much in the way of evidence outside of your own opinion.

This article is based on an investigation by Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/

If you are going to discredit a source, please try to discredit the claims made rather than the author.