You’re correct. The article makes it very clear there are multiple exceptions. I guarantee not a single republican out there is only using incandescent bulbs in their homes. Obviously they’re virtue signaling for their base. Companies for a while have been making to switch to LED and they’re much cheaper than they used to be. This is where the free market really has prevailed. Most people don’t mind paying extra if it means they don’t have to change out a light bulb as often.

I don’t disagree. What happens in Tx also has ramifications elsewhere. It’s just apparent loads of people in both states vote against their own interests and as a result vote against the interests of people out of their state. Until we get more people to vote in all elections the few will decide for the majority.

Looking at the last stats for Texas during the midterm elections in 2022 sat at 45% of over 17 million registered voters. In a state with over 30 million people, that means 8 million people decided those elections. Statewide and local elections voter turnout are abysmal. Last I checked for where I’m living it hovers between 11-13%. So if Texans vote against their best interests, I feel it’s the choice few making horrible decisions that impact the majority. A quick google search for Kentucky shows similar numbers. 41% voter turnout for midterms and it was lower than normal. The older bloc vote and the youth always stay in when looking at the numbers. Why would any older person vote for someone younger and less “wise to the world” in their eyes. If we want younger elected officials then we have to get the younger voters to engage and vote as well. At least that’s my opinion. McConnell keeps getting elected because younger voters don’t vote if they don’t feel represented by who is running. They opt to sit out, which is the worst thing to do. That’s what I’ve heard my peers say when I ask if they voted. If they don’t like what they see politically they just disengage.

Sounds like Kentuckians like to suffer. I say this as a Texan and my fellow Texans love to suffer and constantly vote against their own best interests.

What if instead of taking over Twitter handle X, he had taken over Twitter handle of say NY Times. Not blocked it or suspended but straight up takeover. They’re part of that company’s brand. X May have not been important monetarily to that person but doing something like this without offering some sort of compensation signals to all other companies who use Twitter that their handle isn’t safe. This may be a unique instance because he wants the X Twitter handle for their rebranding, but it is an asshole move and undoubtedly others will be watching closely.

I agree. They are within their rights to do whatever with their database, their service. But if their decisions impact someone else’s business then they shouldn’t be surprised if someone takes legal action.