The tests never explicitly directly measured race nor required the voters name. They can design the tests to discriminate all sorts of ways based on the content.

It might have been true once, I don’t know, but for as long as I’ve been paying attention they have been fiscally irresponsible and have the track record to show for it.

Oh his term will end in not too many years one way or another. Dude is a pretty unhealthy 79 year old.

There may have been an imbalance, but seems the nature of the relationship was pretty mutual, not coerced.

I think I’m this specific scenario, the guy has been flamed pretty hard

FYI, they were both married people with their respective marriages.

Ironically cash strapped startups might not care like a big multinational would.

Travel expenses in a bearaucracy can get weird and people who don’t care about the business case are in charge of travel expenses, and they only get recognition by cutting costs, often in stupid ways.

I worked at a company like that and to give an example of the results of such a bearaucracy, they had this 20 thousand dollar product that shipped maybe 500 units a year. For some reason they became fixated on if they could delete a 25 cent part to reduce cost. The team sized the regulatory work needed to evaluator and presented the 60 thousand dollar estimate and figured that would be the end of it, no way you would spend 60k to maybe cut total company cost by 125 dollars per year. To their surprise the project was approved, they did the work, and confirmed the 25 cent part was still needed to be in compliance with some government regulations…

Fun part is that if the fee is refundable, but requires a process, then some company travel policies might stick such a fee with the employee if they fail to correctly do the process to get the refund. In such a company it might be one more thing for an employee to think about declining travel because they might personally get stuck with the bill.

A lot of company travel policies are strangely stingy on cost.

But even before this, business travel has been diminished. I’ve been a part of planning for a particular conference in the fall. It usually has a lot of European presenters and lots of meetings among international companies. There’s been a bit of a scramble because most of the people that were expected to speak are not going to travel to the US. Our company is spending a bit more to send people over to key clients in Europe near that time to replace the typical meet up at the conference. People were already nervous about Trump’s ICE enough to declare the US to not be approved for business travel.

International tourism is just being screwed all over the place.

To be fair, I don’t know how much crazier they can go with Trump jokes than they were already…

It seems a plausible concern with Colbert, but doesn’t explain Conan or Corden.

So I think there’s some ambiguity here and some potential to look silly declaring this with absolute certainty and then Colbert ends up explaining he wanted to retire or move on to other projects while handing the show off to some other host, but the network decided not to bother with that show after the current host goes.

Meanwhile more unambiguously Trump has been restricting access to news media he doesn’t like and we can keep talking about that and other unambiguous things and even saying there’s a solid chance that appeasing Trump is to some extent causing this event, but certainty needs more information from authotive sources.

they could have renewed year by year.

Not if Colbert and probably a number of other people would have demanded a multi-year commitment if they were going to continue. For all we know Colbert was ready to hand things over to another host since he is in his 60s now, but the network didn’t want to bother. The replacement strategy was a hypothetical, they might instead invest in yet another drama or maybe a sitcom or something and not even try to fill the role that variety style shows historically filled and cede that to other media and independent streamers.

If they were so financially motivated that of course they should have wanted to keep the show running, they probably would have announced transitioning to a new host, perhaps behind the scenes insisting that they lay off the Trump coverage. Trump would have loved the narrative of personally getting Colbert out of the late night show that he himself used to be a part of a fair amount back in the 80s being interviewed by Letterman. Telling Trump they are “getting the woke out of the show” would probably make him even happier than just canning the entire show.

Trump might have been a factor in closing it out sooner, though if Colbert was of a mind to hand things over to a new host instead of going for another few years then that certainly would have been a plausible decision point too. It’s just hard to really know and it’s worth the caveat that any theory, Trump or otherwise, is speculative and might have a different level of accuracy than we can guess right now until the key people say more than has been said.

Real estate gains don’t really matter much so long as the real estate is tied up in actually doing something. Yes they can recoup years of costs if they sold it, but in the meantime owning means a number of expenses.

I am also inclined to think that Trump may be a factor, but then I also saw his point that Colbert had a 3 year contract that is up next year, and that means the network is now having to make the call whether they want to be doing this in 2029, and if they aren’t sure that’s the right way to address the market moving forward for three years, that might explain reluctance. If they might want to invest in a clip-centric format perhaps with a younger host, then this would be the point to make that call.

Recap and redundant content, oh look a musical guest… but I can hear any of those and way more on demand. An interview with a celebrity, who if I cared I could watch a ton of elsewhere. Of course some interview better than others, and seeing a Jon Stewart interview is worthwhile, but not sure if I’m in the mood to watch a monologue at the same time I’m in the mood to watch an interview. Which is really the big thing about these shows is that it’s a long set of not really connected content that used to make sense with broadcast television but makes less and less sense with on-demand video dominating.

Owning and maintaining that much downtown real estate is pretty huge and opportunity cost can’t be ignored. The late night studio as a big NYC thing is a matter of expensive prestige for a medium that might not evoke the same responses it used too.

I do think it’s conspicuous that the biggest show would be the next to fall and do not doubt appeasing Trump was a likely factor in doing it now, but I would not be surprised to see the medium die out in the age of clip sized videos on YouTube.

I wonder how many people are shifting to watching that content in clips instead of the whole show. The monologue, little bits, individual interviews. People may prefer to just watch the sort of clip and skip the rest, which is easier to do in YouTube instead of loading the episode up and seeking around.

If that were significant, it would suggest a different production approach, since there’s not much point in producing it in a continuous bit. Also the best person for a monologue may not be the best person to conduct an interview.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lemon-stealing-whores

Well if you are having to watch on mute anyway, not like you even know the plot…

Of course you miss out on the narrative masterpiece of things like lemon stealing whores …

I don’t know if I want to try to find out if that is satire or actual things…

What I dread is a game lengthening dialog using AI. Some folks mistake quantity for quality, and make their games unbeatingly tedious. Just like games that lean heavily on procedurally generated content.

But that’s just it, the loophole would be that he is eligible to be president, but just that he can’t be elected as such. It’s pretty dumb but the phrasing of the 22nd does use the word “elected”, clearly we all know the intent but the words may have undermined the spirit.

Either way, both the VP and the president have the same stated basic requirements, but the 22nd amendment makes no statement of the VP. While common sense suggests it’s dumb to have a person that hit the term limit as VP, it is not expressly codified.

So no matter the interpretation of the 22nd amendment, it seems like he could be VP. If you have a sane interpretation of the 22nd amendment as a hard term limit, then the succession would skip such a VP, just like it would skip a foreign born person.

Yeah, I think if this is truly the only video they have considered vaguely close to “having a video”, it was a fair description to say “we don’t have video”.