To be honest, I don’t care about souls in train stations anymore. Want them spacious. If there’s natural light even better. And places to sit.

I mean, south station these days isn’t much better than north,,

Yeah, sure. If this is what they think is the best idea, so be it.

Boston did a successful rebuild of North Station under the Garden. MSG should pay for this, but who knows.

Right. But in-school 3-k still suffers the problem that there's no real after-school care out of school or in-school (through a third party) -- the providers that I know of begin in Kindergarten at the earliest.

So what it means is that even a "full day 3-k" program means that a parent would have to pick up their child at 2 p.m., which is difficult in a two-worker household. So they'd rather keep their kids in a daycare, where the kid can be picked up later.

I think a 3-k system is useless if it ends at 2 pm or earlier. A daycare goes to 5 or 6, when parents can pick kids up. Even UPK has extended care (paid) opportunities. I don’t know if 3-k does.

But then those rents are essentially losses. Keep the losses on paper, all good.

The subway is the only way to move millions of people. The streets would be choked, whether by cars or pedestrians.

I think what he’s trying to say is that you can’t measure ROI like you can a business. The subway is just as important to the city as the fire department or sanitation department. Or the department of transportation. Get rid of any one of those, and things turn real bad real fast.

It was the city that didn't let the Harlem project get built. I think they all should get built. Upzone everywhere. And then have a vacancy tax.

He's not wrong. There needs to be some mechanism to ensure that all housing stock is developed -- that the market actually works.

Currently, a housing unit that's built but not rented out can still accrue some tax benefits by sitting empty -- more than having it sell at a rate too low.

If you have 4-5 nights, go to a different location every night. Take your car to Flushing, which would be a great place to have Asian food (great mix of various regions of China, as well as Korean foods) or go up to Northern Blvd. for some good Argentinian steaks.

For Manhattan, you don't need a car. But if you want to explore the outer boroughs, go for it!

We're cutting more from the youth services budget, aren't we?

>On the contrary, your comment is littered with the pettiest of complaints: she made two -- two -- mistakes on Twitter?

She didn't make the second mistake on Twitter. She did erroneous research in her post. She's also not a journalist. She's an opinion writer, who is paid to give opinions. And her opinions don't seem to have any research in them as well, leading to errors.

You asked what her shortcomings were as a journalist. I gave them to you.

I'm also tired of talking about the Twitter files. Thank you for being so wrong about them and have a great day.

Is it a surprise that the U.S. would ask a U.S. based company for help spreading the country's propaganda? No. I mean, the Pentagon has been working with the NFL for years.

At the same time, I wonder if "let that sink in" Twitter would disclose any possible similar arrangements with other countries it had before the takeover (or if this is just red meat for libertarians).

Once again, though, this is Musk funneling selective information through another regular on the Tucker variety show.

>I see you conveniently skipped one.

Screw that. I'm not going to answer each case one-by-one. I don't have all the time to go through that to start talking about the dude who spent all his time on Twitter saying everyone will be fine if we walked around with masks -- which was basically called completely stupid and dangerous by a judge. Especially if the dude is now taking a lot of money by being a right-wing cause celebre. By the same token, if Twitter thinks it's a good idea to blacklist a hypothetical "Let kids play with unlocked guns!" whatever. People will complain about that too.

>The worst part about it is I fucking hate the conspiracy theorists types (Joe Rogan, for example) and this is the tiny crumb they needed to prove what they were saying the last 3 years was in fact at least partially true.

That's what conspiracy theorists do. They twist whatever they can, and the conspiracy theorists respond by pointing out that they should have the absolute right to spread misinformation -- and be rewarded for it! (It's not just that they're punished. It's that they're not rewarded for their misinformation. It's why Joe Rogan can claim that he's being canceled whenever he's criticized, despite him making a shitton of money thanks to Spotify.

"Twitter quietly introduced the feature in 2017 after US military officials asked the company to improve the visibility of 52 Arab language accounts used to “amplify certain messages”, according to the investigation, which was published on Twitter and in The Intercept."

Damn Twitter and its liberal bias.

You mean filtering the Libs of TikTok, an account that often doxxes people and encourages armed right-wing protests to threaten LGBTQ activities and teachers? The same account that was followed by the man who shot up a Colorado Springs gay bar? Because I'm pretty sure that account had numerous suspensions for violations -- fuck, I bet that Bongino and Charlie Kirk also had a ton of violations and suspensions. And instead of those "repeat offenders" being booted from the platform, there was a big sign saying they could not be removed without getting approval from the absolute heads of the company. This is their complaint.

But let's talk about the actual report. This isn't a trove of documents. It's a bunch of cherry-picked data -- including the possibility that whoever is supplying this information to Weiss is able to read users' direct messages? Holy shit, that's huge news!

Weiss is a free-speech crusader, except for the time she tried to get Palestinian professors fired for "anti-Semitism." That got her a plum job, straight out of college, at the WSJ's opinion section, which is incredibly right-wing.

While at the New York Times, she failed at basic things. She called an American-born Olympic skater an immigrant in a tweet. In another article, she cited a parody Twitter account.

Internally at the Times, she became a shit-stirrer, riling up the newsroom by alleging that there was some sort of "civil war" going on. In general she confuses general editorial meetings and debates -- and edits -- with some sort of mind-control stuff that's going on. Once again, the woman who tried to get professors fired, and who screams anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat, complains when her ideology isn't boosted. She's not a journalist -- she has never had a reporting job, only a "commentary" or "opinion writer" job, which has allowed her to fuck up so gloriously so many times, and still be protected by bosses who liked her. It seems weird that Weiss announced her resignation just after James Bennet, the editorial page editor, was fired for absolutely terrible editorial decisions and pieces that ran with absolutely no scrutiny, which was against the Times' practices. Quite simply, she was afraid that she'd be held to scrutiny, and so she decided to flee the paper in the most grandiose way possible while trying to keep her income stream up. In short, she's a grifter -- one whose Substack funds are boosted by some sort of "anti-woke" seminar that she absurdly calls a university.

As far as the "Twitter Files" goes, the entire point was to project the company as some sort of liberal bastion -- a company that will protect Democrats or something. First of all, a number of studies have shown that Twitter doesn't have a liberal bias. Actually, it promotes conservatives (and so does Facebook!). But what the reporting of Weiss and Taibbi show is that the company was faced with choices when dealing with problematic things. For example, there's material that could be stolen, could be pornographic, and could be fraudulent. What should be done with that? Should it be slowed, or should it be allowed to thrive? Media law is kinda funny in this -- the genocide in Rwanda was fueled by radio stations that fueled racism and misinformation. What were these two big "Twitter files" about? Well, they were a bunch of Elon's conservative grievances -- wah wah -- that continue to live on. The "free speech absolutist" has been quick to ban accounts of people who have reported on him, and the threshold is now much lower than it was.

Finally, for Twitter, it was a company. It wasn't the Democrats making decisions. It was a then-public company that had stakeholders to answer to. Let's go to the first discussion -- Hunter Biden's laptop. At the time, very little of it could be verified. Even the New York Post, which first reported on it, went with a "staff" byline because the writers, who were ordered to write it, didn't trust the information fully. The assignment came down from a superior close to Rupert Murdoch who was basically a pro-Trump hatchet man. (That he was sued for sexual harassment is a different story.) It was an obvious attempt to facilitate a scandal -- the Hillary's Emails of 2020. And even if there was truth to it, Twitter took steps to stop the widespread dissemination of dick pics -- that was Taibbi's main complaint. That dick pics weren't shared (and they should not have been).

Twitter's team, realizing the ploy, shut that shit down. The second Files was about what to fucking do when one man basically tried to start a fucking coup. There were debates over what to do about this, and what to do about stolen pictures of Hunter's dick being shown everywhere (which is what Republicans really care about. Honestly, look at what Don Jr. is tweeting about).

Now let's talk about Libs of TikTok -- an account that exists only to target LGBTQ people and events. It's no coincidence that LoTT picks up one of these events, and right-wingers show up with weapons. Or they put out photos of gay people (especially teachers!) -- and what follows are death threats and abuse. It's a real relationship between cause and effect, and Twitter was right to cut down on it. But once again, it's conservative complaints that they didn't get to do whatever they want.

Twitter is currently in hot water in the European Union, where there are a bunch of things that are prohibited -- like spreading hate speech -- and the lack of any sort of moderation, or even attempts to moderate (while banning people tweeting out their Mastodon profiles), can have the company in hot water.

Ah yes, more "Twitter files," a completely honest and not-at-all suspect creation from Musk, featuring such paragons of journalism as Matt Taibi, Bari Weiss, and *checks notes* that liberal guy who keeps getting invited on Tucker Carlson's show.

But there's a lot of money for basic services if you know where you can safely cut. Also, just note that when he gets more unpopular, he'll scapegoat immigrants even more, despite the fact that immigrants (legal and illegal alike) are literally making the city run.

Remember that the NYPD gets paid first. Always. Think about that before you worry about who's getting what, and how much more the NYPD needs for this.

Doesn't seem like the one on the right makes its own bagels.

Maybe the one on the left does? But I'm not sure unless I can see inside photos.

To be fair, having signs that said "whites only" was some pretty political view shoved down everyone's throat, right?

Woodhaven is an over-congested street that's filled with commuters going everywhere. It needs a subway line, and it needs one branch going to Queens Blvd line and the other branch going north to LGA via Northern Blvd.

So a very serious question: There is a lot of waste and chemical burn and pollutants that are shot up into the atmosphere for a launch. What is up there that is so much better than what exists on Earth? How would anything be financially worth it? And if there are regular launches (weekly?) to bring stuff back and forth, what kind of damage will that do long-term to our existing planet?

I can understand few launches to study what's outside the Earth, but I think that should be the limit.

Or, since the Governor has 4 seats to fill the MTA's board, he can absolutely fill it with people who want to destroy it.