Who’s winning, and losing, in the Elon Twitter era

“when Musk changed his mind about buying Twitter, many believed he would somehow get out of it, even if his legal justification seemed flimsy. But this time, Musk didn’t get out of it. That’s because, in large part, of the Delaware Court of Chancery, the business court overseeing Twitter’s lawsuit against Musk.
If he kept fighting the case, Musk would risk having to disclose more potentially embarrassing texts from his friends that could damage his image. And he was facing a judge with a no-nonsense reputation who might rule against him in the end. Even with a nearly endless supply of money to fund the best legal team, Musk ultimately backed down and closed the deal with Twitter on the original terms he’d agreed to in April.

This was a win for the rule of law, showing that even if you’re the richest man in the world, sometimes you do have to follow through on your obligations.”

January 6 isn’t a priority for voters — even where you’d most expect it

“In conversations with voters at an early-voting location in Virginia Beach, the economy weighed far more heavily than the attack on the Capitol. While jets from a nearby Naval Air Station roared overhead, those coming and going from casting their ballots didn’t view January 6 as a factor. Mike Malbon told Vox that he had voted for Kiggans. Although he had never voted for Luria, he described himself as a swing voter who had voted for Trump, Obama, and George W. Bush. Malbon said his vote was based on the fact that he was “just not really happy with what the Democrats were doing.” When asked if he’d thought about January 6 while voting, Malbon said, “I’ve thought about it for sure. I probably would never vote for Trump again, I would have otherwise.”
Melinda Salmons, who said she was voting for Kiggans because she thought Luria was in Nancy Pelosi’s pocket, echoed this. When asked about Trump, she told Vox, “Donald Trump doesn’t affect me one way or another. The man is not running. I’m like a lot of people, I like what my pocketbook says. I do not like what he says.””

The Lazy Stoner Trope Is a Myth, Say Marijuana Researchers

“They looked at the effects of cannabis use in both adults and teenagers, using study participants who said they used marijuana at least once per week over the previous three months. Average use among study participants was four days per week, with some participants saying they used marijuana every day. Participants in the control group were matched for age and gender.
The major takeaway: Cannabis users were no more likely than non-users to be apathetic or anhedonic (that is, to experience a loss of interest or pleasure). Nor were more frequent cannabis users likely to be more apathetic or anhedonic than their counterparts who partook less frequently.

The researchers came to this conclusion by first having participants answer questions about their emotions and interests (for instance, rating statements such as “I would enjoy being with family or close friends” or how interested they are in learning new things). Cannabis users scored similarly to non-users on measures of apathy and motivation, and scored lower than non-users on measures of anhedonia.

Around half of participants were also asked to complete some simple tasks, with a promise of small rewards (chocolates and other sweets) for completing these tasks. Participants could accept or reject the offers, and would get points toward rewards if the task was completed. Participants were also asked to rate who much they wanted several rewards—a £1 coin, a piece of candy, or listening to part of one of their favorite songs—and asked after receiving the reward how pleasurable they found it.

“We were surprised to see that there was really very little difference between cannabis users and non-users when it came to lack of motivation or lack of enjoyment, even among those who used cannabis every day,” said Skumlien. “This is contrary to the stereotypical portrayal we see on TV and in movies.””

Where Did Puerto Rico’s Disaster Relief Go?

“Billions of dollars were allocated by the federal government to rebuild Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria and recovery efforts are projected to cost U.S. taxpayers another $50 billion, according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimates. But corruption by FEMA officials in Puerto Rico has slowed down progress dramatically. Back in 2019, FEMA’s deputy regional administrator in charge of Maria recovery was indicted as part of a $1.8 billion bribery scheme involving an Oklahoma-based electric company. Officials on the island were also indicted for allegedly steering $15 million in federal rebuilding contracts to preferred contractors. And the Jones Act shares some of the blame since its restrictions on shipping to U.S. territories like Puerto Rico drive up costs for imported products significantly and delay the arrival of necessary supplies during emergency situations.
Congress has begun to ask questions about how exactly that money has been spent over the last five years.”

The Government Can’t Fix Social Media Moderation and Should Not Try

“Despite their increasingly bitter differences, Democrats and Republicans generally agree that content moderation by social media companies is haphazard at best. But while Democrats tend to think the main problem is too much speech of the wrong sort, Republicans complain that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are biased against them.
The government cannot resolve this dispute and should not try. Siding with the critics who complain about online “misinformation” poses an obvious threat to free inquiry and open debate. And while attempting to mandate evenhandedness might seem more consistent with those values, it undermines the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment in a more subtle but equally troubling way.”