From our other interactions, I'm going to suggest:

Cracking the Cryptic ... it can be oddly satisfying to watch them solve a puzzle.

Anton Petrov for space news.

If you're not familiar with Sabine Hossenfelder, I'd be very surprised, but she's great for wider physics.

Robert Reich is doing some great things these days. The Saturday Coffee Klatsch is a must-watch for me, even if it gets a little predictable.

Beau of the Fifth Column, whom I'm aware from an earlier post is not highly regarded burned out, and his wife has continued the channel. Rarely more then 5 minutes, and there's never footage, just the news and quality analysis.

I'm getting somewhat tired of Bryan Tyler Cohen's clickbait bullshit, but his panelists can be helpful in unpacking news.

Hope these are somewhat helpful!

Shouldn't they be busy screwing other things? Don't need doors flying off.

It's Texas. You get used to this shit after a while. Doesn't mean I'm not eager to get the fuck out, but it really is unbelievable that voters here think state leaders should be elected for life. Even BPP aside, Abbott should have been term limited quite some time back. And Paxton is going to have a fun time when the feds come for him.

But hey, freedom or something.

GIMP suffers the same problem. If you're used to CS, anything else is going to be a horrific experience.

I've not tried Inkscape. Is it a bit more friendly?

As you're dealing with digital print output, Scribus may be a good option. That's layout (something of a mix of Illustrator and InDesign), not image editing, but cropping photos is easily done in a variety of FOSS without having to be subjected to the learning curve of GIMP (so long as your RIP can translate RGB into CMYK, which was a solved problem in the aughts). I've admittedly only played around with Scribus a bit, but from what I can tell from your use cases, you're not looking for the bells and whistles like trapping one needs for offset.

1:42 into this, and "above the fold" -- while defined correctly within the scope of newspaper layout -- somehow ignores the ear ads that have been showing up for decades. Hell, I was involved in redesigns where the big question was "OK, but how do we fit more ads in there?"

This is in fact how one gets from a good design decision to offending readers with an unfulfilled promise, and this ain't coding.

In the early aughts, there was a fad for taking up newshole just inside the paper to ... tell readers what was in the paper. No one is buying something off the rack to open it to A2 to figure out what the refers are, but some metros were doing it, and midsize dailies tended to be lemmings 20 years ago.

I went several rounds with editors, folks from advertising and even higher-ups at The Washington Post (for unusual reasons) crafting what Page 2 would consist of. Upper half of the page was pretty much set in stone, with 4-col art that somehow needed to be demoted to A2 because we rarely went bigger than 3 cols out front (you try fitting nine stories plus at least three pieces of art, refers, index, blacklines [obit names], weather and anything else out front on a 44" web down from full broadsheet).

The bottom half was another story. Early on, it was decided that we'd have most of the bottom half of the page be a story we called (I shit you not) "A Closer Look" (I did it first, Seth). The idea was we had about 30" to play with and could run a wire story that was interesting but not A1 worthy ... not exactly a feature, just news that wasn't paper-of-record news. This concept would reappear out front downpage at a later paper, where it was called "Editor's Choice."

Once ads was done with that voodoo they do so well in terms of selling positions, we had on a good day 10" for A Closer Look, leading to it being internally referred to as A Cursory Glance. To the point that within two weeks, even the managing ed would ask in the budget meeting what we had for A Cursory Glance that evening as the guy who insisted on keeping the overline as "A Closer Look," as that's what he sold the publisher on.

I'm morbidly curious to continue watching and will from here, but Google didn't invent shitty ad placement that insulted their audience anymoreso than Apple invented flat, rounded rectangles; print was there around 9/11 (and before, if one considers the precursor to "native advertising," "sponsored content" -- that editorial-looking stuff in the wrong typeface saying that, for example, you could only buy these exclusive silver coins during a half-hour window based on ZIP Code).

This is the logical continuation of unregulated late-stage capitalism. Pretending it's about tech is certainly a framing choice, but it isn't the right one.

Are those small oranges currently in season?

First off, I feel for the reporters who had to endure a score of these. This being !politics, I could easily go in a very anti-Trump direction from here.

But I'm not going to because it's not really relevant.

This is what happens near the end of the line in a subculture. Political, social, what have you ... this is what happens. Now, I want to hastily make clear that this does not mean the end of the movement is nigh, just this particular, beautiful bridge, tears running down its face, to nowhere.

While I'm also not going to claim we're out of the woods, there is clear exhaustion with the "flood the zone with shit" approach. We're nine years into this morass, and that there are still people on the fence, let alone people who believe Trump cares about them, is an issue for historians to work out. Might I suggest Riefenstahl for a brief primer?

"Racist asshole who's getting more unhinged is racist asshole who's getting more unhinged" is not a story. It'll get clicks, but it's about as groundbreaking as the oscillation of a caesium atom.

Now that I've seen it, completely agree. The out-of-date epithets (to me, at least) didn't even hit as hard because they were in character. Speaking of wild, that the narrative structure turns out to be a tale as old as time is itself a statement.

I don't know that it's influential so much as formulaic. It's been working for them for decades. And without it, we'd never have gotten Schweddy Balls, and that's a worse timeline.

For real fun, submit your resume (that shit's already all over online; Google can have it) and listen to NPR hosts take 7 minutes to describe your career arc.

The increase they won is higher than any wage I've earned. Happy as fuck for them, as that's a life-changing bump.

You point out the nuance quite well. Regardless of whether I think having kids is good, forbidding people from doing so is at best eugenics and at worst genocide (not that there's a lot of air between the two).

As a topic, this has always amused me. It's not like climate change will affect a few mountains and leave the rest of us unscathed.

This is actually the first thing that improves my opinion of Will Ferrell.

Only a true visionary could have foreseen YouTube in 1982!

Thanks for the explanation and apology. No harm done ... using the second person when talking about contentious issues can be pretty fraught, so I just wanted to let you know how I received it.

To your last point, you're dead wrong. I'm not whipped into anything, but thanks for the personal attack (not just on me, but on the gestures broadly "y'all") with zero basis. That's not Beehaw etiquette.

I'm far to the left of the current U.S. Overton window, so being cast as aligned with neoliberalism is laughable. As far as I can tell, your argument is that everyone for whom Gaza isn't their only deciding factor in a U.S. election supports genocide. That's certainly an opinion.

If you don't care about any dead child above 17,000, you've made a fine argument. But now you're saying more deaths is fine (and better than current policy) because you've reached some tipping point where more suffering and death is actually preferable to ... what? A Democrat in the White House? Your logic doesn't work within your own argument.

This is very common among single-issue voters. As another example: abortion. Plenty of people who think Trump is heinous vote for him based on that issue alone (something the GOP has been using to great effect for the past 30 years), and accept whatever else his cronies get him to enact because they perceive him as "wanting to get rid of abortion."

If your think the suffering of Palestinians is the greatest domestic issue facing the U.S., dwarfing all others combined, by all means let it guide your choice. But don't complain about the internment camps that start getting built if Trump wins when you found everything else in this election irrelevant.

Six hundred Nader votes in Florida going to Gore instead 24 years ago would have put this country on a very different trajectory, so it is not hyperbole that staying home or voting for the other guy can result in an even worse outcome.

And that's as clear as she got the whole time. As least she was answering the question asked in that case.

(As to single-issue Gaza voters, I get it in the "had a close friend who was Palestinian in my 20s" sense, but Trump doesn't give a shit about the Palestinians. Somehow suggesting she's the worse choice in this race on that issue alone isn't even true, regardless of the larger picture. That's not politics or conjecture.)

You have to admit, making them self-replicating would be pretty cool ... for a time.