…was something it sourced to MRC, a conservative source and what does negative mean anyway. It said I was also right to “push back” on that. I also asked it if Kash Patel was a drunk. Short answer: no definitive proof.

I wish I had saved the log. Because I challenged it on the term “character assassination” and it said I was “right to push back,” it just meant since every day is another scandal with Trump it’s hard not to write about his character. Then I mentioned that it’s “90 percent negative” thing (cont.)

See, that’s what I’m talking about. You’ve probably incurred at least $150 in ass-eating surcharges alone.

And it floated some weird theory about how outlets like the Times did so much on Clinton’s emails because of “coastal bias” about expecting Democrats to adhere to norms, which also explains it leans toward “character assassinations” with Trump. The idea being that it doesn’t expect much of Trump.

I want to emphasize I was doing this as an experiment, just to see how it “thinks” about these things.

I have been having similar exchanges with Perplexity about media bias around Trump. It used the talking point, pushed by conservative media commentators, that Trump coverage is 90 percent negative.

Anarchism as a belief system isn’t a “both sides” thing.

Ok I’ll take the desperate ad hominem lashing out to mean that yes, I could probably find $150 in charges over a two-year period you could’ve avoided. Also lol “bro.”

The point is that people who miss flights aren’t throwing off the scheduled departure. They aren’t affecting you at all. And yet you hate the last person to board.

Yeah, that’s a good question.

A lot of this is performative outrage. I mean, this all started with OP saying he missed four flights in his life—two of which were outside his control.

I can almost guarantee that over a timeline of several years, you’ve accrued $600 worth of expenses you could’ve avoided—or, as you put it, “pissed away.”

How are you saving $600 every time?

Do you understand how commercial flights work? They don’t say “ok, everybody’s here, let’s go.” Boarding ends at a specific time. Sometimes they’ll hold the flight if they know a connecting passenger’s flight was late.

What’s the difference between “not life-changing” and “oh whoopsie”? (By the way, is that an actual phrase you use in life?)

Not just that. I’m sure these people have incurred $50 per year in avoidable costs. I’m not even sure what their gripe is.

Off-topic, but I’m curious what you think the colloquial definition of literally is.

If I looked at your finances over a two-year period, I wouldn’t be able to come up with $150 worth of avoidable expenses?

Who’s “you” in this hypothetical?

So if I did an audit of your expenses over, say, two years, I wouldn’t be able to come up with $150 in avoidable and unnecessary costs?

Tone deaf? This started with OP mentioning he’s lost $600 on four missed flights in his lifetime. Responses from people like you have been variations of “Wow, must be nice!” As though he’s lighting his cigars with $100 bills.

Well, it “literally” does matter. But anyway, you’re saying “I lost $600 in 20 years” has the same connotation as “I lost $600 in one year”?

Where is he arguing that it's "good, actually"?

Ok, so then it happened to him twice over an extended period of time.

Ok, but would you have to lose $150 to know what it feels like to lose $150? "Wow, what a horrible feeling it is to lose $150. I shall redouble my efforts to get to the airport 15 minutes earlier from now on."

Wait, so losing the first $150 should’ve hardened his resolve to never lose $150 again? Like “oh so this is what it feels like to pay a fee of $150.”

He's not talking about losing it all at once.

It sounds like he's talking about over a long period of time, though.

Well, mostly…

That does seem like a cool little detail.