 |
|
|
|||||
The image in the tweet may have been blurry, but its message was unmistakable. On Sunday afternoon, the official X account for the Democrats responded to news that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly had a second Signal group chat about missile strikes in Yemen by demanding that Hegseth be removed from his role. Hegseth, who has not admitted wrongdoing, replied to the tweet with a pugilistic dispatch attacking the Dems agenda. So far, so 2025thats when things took a turn. Instead of disputing the specifics of Hegseths reply, whoever controls the Dems social media escalated to DEFCON 3-level shitposting. The account tweeted a bleary, double-vision image of an iPhone home screen, with the caption: Petes POV. It was clearly a nod to the many allegations of alcohol abuse that Hegseth faced on his rocky path to confirmation back in January. Pete's POV: pic.twitter.com/xJo81xCcaP— Democrats (@TheDemocrats) April 21, 2025 It was also way spicier than the party of they-go-low-we-go-high tends to get. But this is just the latest sign that the Dems are ready to fight back against the GOPboth on and off social media. Its about time. Since Donald Trump resumed his presidency earlier this year, the official White House social media account has been markedly aggressive and joyfully cruel. Rather than merely echo Trumps enthusiasm for deporting undocumented immigrants, for example, the WH account on X has made a series of joking tweets about it. The account recently posted a mock-ASMR video about deporting immigrants, deportation-themed Valentines Day cards, and even a Studio Ghibli-style AI rendering of a woman sobbing after her capture by ICE. In many ways, this account has mirrored the IDGAF antagonism of this administrations constant chaosall the DOGE firings and budget cuts, tariff recklessness, executive orders, academic shakeups, and anti-DEI initiatives that have proved so destabilizing. The White Houses X account also adds its own special dimension to that onslaught, though, by giving Dems yet another thing they must officially comment on. While Democrats struggle to get their arms around the flurry of MAGA activity on any given day, the WH account might tweet, say, an AI image of Trump as a literal king. High-profile Democrats like Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and New York Governor Kathy Hochul then have to take time and attention away from whatever messaging they had in mind that day and respond to Trumpthereby ceding the day’s agenda to him. This game of attention and power unfolds online 24/7, with the deck stacked in Trumps favor. For too long this year, Dems didnt seem to know how to score an advantage. The message is the medium Although VP candidate Tim Walzs pugnacious Theyre just weird messaging about GOP politicians last August energized young voters, the results of the 2024 presidential election seemed to scare Democrats into playing it safe. Even as a February 2025 Harvard CAPS/Harris poll revealed that 64% of registered Dems believe their party should “oppose everything” Trump does, many Dem leaders complied instead. Perhaps convinced that the JD Vance couch memes cost them some swing voters, prominent Democrats like Governor Gavin Newsom of California kicked off the second Trump era with misguided appeals toward bipartisanship. The tendency toward acquiescence hit a nadir in mid-March, when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer agreed to help Trump avert a government shutdown of his own making, without getting any real concessions in return. At that point, Dems didnt need the White House to mock Schumer onlinetheir own base did plenty of that on their own. Fight or flight Something has changed since then, however. Somewhere between the tens of thousands of people showing up to individual stops on Bernie Sanders and AOCs Fight Oligarchy tour and the hundreds of thousands who came out for the recent Hands Off protests, more and more elected Democrats seem to have internalized that their people want to see them fight back. Starting with Senator Cory Bookers bladder-bruising 25-hour filibuster speech on April 1, Dems have commanded attention with bold action. The next day, Senator Richard Blumenthal held a shadow hearing to highlight Trumps slashing cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Senators Jamie Raskin and Adam Schiff then joined forces a week later for a similar event, this one about Trumps alleged abuses of the law. Newsom has since sued Trump over his spate of tariffs, while Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador last week to meet with a constituent who was wrongly deported to a terrorist prison. That wrongly deported man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, has lately become a flashpoint in Trumps presidencyespecially since first federal courts and then the Supreme Court ruled that he should be returned to the U.S. Trumps team was likely counting on Dems to back off from the topic, to avoid being tarred as defending the rights of an alleged terrorist, no matter how flimsy the allegations. They almost certainly did not expect Garcia to become synonymous with the need for due process, inspiring no less than Joe Rogan to defend him. Trolling with the punches All the attention that Dems are now putting on Garcia has placed Trumps team on the backfoot. When the White Houses X account sent out a trolling tweet about Garcia the other day, it was addressed directly to Van Hollen. Much like what the White House has done with its social media activity all year, Van Hollen forced the other side to respond. He successfully seized control of the conversation. Now, as the Dems continue fighting back, their social media presence seems ready to take off its gloves in lockstep. Hours after the tweet nodding toward Hegseths reputation for alcohol abuse, the account trolled a White House post about Easter with a headline about egg shortages, and started a cheeky countdown for Hegseths seemingly imminent firing. Not all negative messaging at this moment may be a net positive for Dems. House Rep Jasmine Crockett, whose inventive insults are often internet gold, was nearly censured in March for referring to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who uses a wheelchair, as Governor Hot Wheels. Although that insult was not well received on either side of the aisle, it shows Crocketts willingness to push the envelope and test how much tolerance go-high Democrats have for go-low tactics. The Democrats reply to Hegseth on X suggests that the party is finally loosening its strict adherence to norms, in an era when their opponents are veering ever further from normalcy. Its a sign that Democrats in 2025 may just be ready to fight fire with firerather than pointing at the flames and declaring them too hot.
Category:
E-Commerce
From the first time I saw Blade Runner and heard Rutger Hauers Roy Batty describe C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate, Ive wondered what it would be like to see beyond the limits of human vision. What would it feel like to have eyes that could see what we can’t normally see? I envied animals who can see light frequencies in the infrared and superheroes with X-ray vision that let them see like a NASA telescope. And today, I envy five regular human beings who, after having their eye cones temporarily rewired with a laser, were able to perceive a new color outside the typical range of the human eye. They called this color oloa name derived from the binary code 010, representing the cones in the eye that are activated during its perception thanks to that rewiring. It defies any comparison to anything humans have seen because, well, nobody has seen it except these five lucky individuals. As described in new research published in the scientific journal Science Advances, the subjects of this wild experiment agreed to describe it as a blue-green of unprecedented saturation. How our eyes work Most humans see the world through three types of light-sensitive cells in the retina, called cones. These detect red, green, and blue light, allowing us to distinguish roughly one million to 10 million colors. Thats enough to spot the difference between a ripe strawberry and a bruised one, or to admire a sunsets gradient. But a rare fewalmost always womenare born with a fourth cone type. These tetrachromats can see up to 100 million colors, spotting nuances invisible to the rest of us. For example, where a trichromat sees a single shade of green grass, a tetrachromat might perceive dozens of subtle variations. Yet even among those with the genetic mutation, true tetrachromacy is rare. The brain must adapt to process this extra input, and most screens cant display these additional hues. The people in the experiment didnt gain the ability to see millions of new colors. Instead, they glimpsed one artificial hue, like a single note added to a familiar song. The effect lasted only as long as the lasers fired, requiring subjects to stare unblinkingly at a fixed point. A twitch or glance away shattered the illusion. Researchers were able to bypass biology limitations using a system called Oza nod to the emerald goggles in The Wizard of Oz. First, they mapped individual cones in participants retinas using high-resolution scans, labeling each as red, green, or blue. Then, they fired precise laser pulses100,000 times per secondat specific green-sensitive cones, while tracking minuscule eye movements 960 times per second to keep the aim steady. Normally, activating green cones also triggers neighboring red or blue ones, muddling the signal. But Ozs precision isolated the green cones, sending the brain a code it had never decoded before. The result was olo. What Olo means for humans The implications stretch far beyond novelty. By selectively activating or disabling cones, researchers could simulate eye diseases, such as macular degeneration, and test therapies in real time. For color-blind individuals, Oz might trick the brain into perceiving missing colors by rerouting signals from surviving cones. James Fong, a UC Berkeley researcher who was one of the first coauthors in the study, told LiveScience that it could even probe whether humans can learn to interpret entirely synthetic colors: It may be possible for someone to adapt to a new dimension of color. Right now, however, Oz remains a lab curiosity. The system relies on million-dollar lasers, supercomputers, and participants willing to sit motionless for hours. The experiments targeted only peripheral visiona speck the size of a fingernail at arms lengthbecause the retinas central zone, where vision is sharpest, has cones too tightly packed for current lasers to hit accurately. Scaling this to full sight would require mapping millions of cells and tracking eye movements with zero lag, which is a target quite far from what our current technology can achieve. Our method depends on specialized lasers and optics that arent coming to smartphones anytime soon, Fong told LiveScience. For now, olo exists only in flashesa fleeting crack in the door to a stranger universe.
Category:
E-Commerce
The fate of Googles vast empire is now in the hands of a federal judge in Washington, D.C., as hearings begin to determine whether the tech giant should be broken up for maintaining an illegal monopoly in search. If the court rules against Google, the outcome could send shockwaves through the tech industry. The company might be forced to divest major assetspotentially including its Chrome browser or even the Android operating system. While the government has taken similar antitrust actions in the past, it’s been more than 25 years since a household name faced a breakup of this scale. So, what happened to the companies that were split upor nearly split upunder government pressure? Lets take a look back. Microsoft In 2000, Microsoft came dangerously close to being forced to separate its Windows operating system from its Office suite after a court found it had illegally stifled competition in the personal computer market. However, the breakup order was overturned by an appeals court the following year. Still, the monopoly ruling left a lasting mark on Microsoft. The company could no longer block PC makers from distributing software from competitors, paving the way for Google and others to grow. As web browsers became increasingly central to the computing experience, that shift proved critical. AT&T The government made multiple attempts to break up AT&T, starting in 1913, but didnt succeed until 1984. The result was the dissolution of Ma Bell into several smaller regional companiesknown as the Baby Bellsincluding US West, Ameritech, Nynex, and BellSouth, which handled local calling. AT&T retained control of its long-distance network but soon faced competition, driving prices down. To put it in perspective: A three-minute coast-to-coast call in 1987 cost $3.08 (about $8.45 today). Now, long-distance calls are typically unlimited and included in your monthly plan. Those Baby Bells grew up and became a strong competitor for AT&T, too: Nynex, GTE, and Bell Atlantic merged to become Verizon, whose market cap is now roughly equal to that of AT&T. Standard Oil The John Rockefeller energy company was broken up in 1911, one of the first dissolutions of a giant monopoly. It was split into 34 different companies, including Exxon Mobile, Chevron, and BP. That breakup changed the oil industry, sparking competition that has continued through today. It also changed the landscape for antitrust, introducing the “rule of reason,” which says businesses are anticompetitive only if they work against the public interest. That’s the rule judges are considering today as they weigh whether to break up Big Tech companies. IBM IBM could have been an early cautionary tale for todays Big Tech giants. In 1969, facing a looming antitrust suit, the company chose to preemptively unbundle its hardware and software businesseseffectively treating them as separate entities. At the time, IBM commanded 70% of the computer market. This voluntary separation helped the company avoid an antitrust judgment, though it still spent years in court and tens of millions of dollars in legal battles. Missteps with subsequent product launches further eroded its market share and leadership. But the rise in competition ultimately lowered costs and helped spark the personal computer revolution. As legal scholar Tim Wu noted in 2018, Apple as we know it might never have existed without the governments prosecution of IBM. “If IBM had been completely unwatched by regulators, by enforcement, doing whatever they wanted, I think IBM would have held on and maybe wed still be using mainframes, or somethinga very different situation,” he said in an interview with Vox. American Tobacco Before Big Tobacco became a catchphrase, there was American Tobaccoa company deemed so dominant that in 1911 it was found in violation of antitrust laws. Unlike other breakups, however, the dissolution of American Tobacco had little real impact on market dynamics. The newly formed companiessuch as R.J. Reynolds and Liggett & Myerscontinued to dominate, forming an oligopoly. With just a few players controlling the industry, prices remained largely unaffected by competition. Instead, increased marketing budgets drove a rise in consumer use.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||