LOGIC💣

On the other hand, the GOP, along with some Democrats, just approved a huge military budget, $900 billion IIRC, and what have they been doing with that? Blowing up fishing boats, hijacking oil tankers, and basically gearing up for some sort of larger military action in South America, perhaps. More suffering and death.

The GOP knows that causing suffering and death is in their best interests. They need “others”. They need victims. And they need hate. If people were able to calm down and rationally vote in their own best interests, instead of billionaires’ best interests, the GOP would be gone within a few years. And after that, the Democratic party would have to change quite a bit if they wanted to stick around, as well.

This being a poll, the most important information is the exact question they were asked. If you ask the same question in a different way, you can get wildly different results. I clicked through to the Reuter’s link from this article, but I’m not sure it says the exact question.

From the graphic on that page, it says:

“The federal government is hiding information about Epstein’s alleged clients”

From Republicans, the “Yes” is 61% (I’m assuming this is a rounding issue with their software), and “No” is 17%.

So, strangely, the headline of this post and of the article that OP linked seem to be accurate, but if you read the content of that article, it’s quite a bit less accurate. It’s the opposite of what you normally expect from clickbait news articles.

Next year, they’re using a scientifically accurate star.

Is nothing enough? What does he want me to give up next, my giant golden ballroom? But then, where will I hold my debutante balls? Not in the garden that I just paved over. That’s where I have my fetes.

Actually, hearing about this, I’m now surprised that our military didn’t stop the fishing boats first to siphon all of the gasoline out of their tanks before blowing them up and murdering their crew.

It was carrying drugs?

This type of drug has several street names, among them, black gold and Texas tea.

“ONLY SOMEWHAT SUCCESSFUL”??? How many people’s lives did he ruin for his own shitty failure of an experiment? How much critical expertise was ripped away from the government, never to return?

I remember the last time I felt any respect for Elon Musk was when he spoke out about climate change. Here’s a quote:

We’re running the most dangerous experiment in history right now, which is to see how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere… can handle before there is an environmental catastrophe. – Elon Musk

The government is like the Earth’s climate. You don’t make drastic experimental changes and hope for the best. People have been studying governments for literally millennia, and the climate for decades.

Trying a huge change to the government without knowing ahead of time that it has a large chance of success (based on actual research), has got to be the stupidest type of experiment you can do with the government.

I guess the big difference between DOGE cutting jobs and ruining not only people’s lives, but the government itself… The difference between DOGE doing that and humanity pumping as much carbon into the atmosphere as we can, is that one of them has the ability to actually affect Elon personally in the future. What a piece of irredeemable garbage he is.

Katherine Culbert is her name.

It sounds to me like she was sexually harassing him.

I am not bi, but I wonder if bisexual people didn’t get the worst name for their sexuality. Because I suspect that most of them simply don’t care about the other person’s gender. I think they’re attracted to the person themselves, regardless of gender. And now that people accept that there are more than two genders, the “bi” in “bisexual”, meaning “two” seems overly specific.

But anyways, back to the example at hand, assuming that his type of “bi” means that he cares about other stuff more than gender, it’s hard to imagine a worse way to come onto him than to do what that lady did. “I have a terrible personality, now let’s see that hard dick.”

Those fishing boats aren’t going to blow themselves up.

I even think the headline is a little offensive, acting as if ceding land is even an option. They ceded land to Russia a decade ago and they’re still getting attacked. WW2 should have taught us that you can’t appease guys like Putin and Hitler.

So you thought Kevin McCarthy was better than Nancy Pelosi?

I don’t think it’s consistent with your example, because nobody in or near the boats was an insurgent. I’m not saying that it’s not similar, just that it’s a clear divergence. They don’t have any pretense that anybody on or near the boat was planning to attack them.

Speaker of the House is not a political party position. The House Republicans don’t work for Johnson any more than the House Democrats do. They are supposed to be working for their constituents.

And while there is the need for wheeling and dealing in Washington without announcing everything, really, essentially, the House members should be bringing all of their concerns to the public. That is their fucking job, and Mike Johnson is unamerican for suggesting that they do otherwise.

I reread the article and it doesn’t mention “narco-terrorists.” It’s about calling them combatants. Although I misremembered when I said “enemy combatants.” It’s “unlawful combatants.”

So the article is about that, as well as about what you’re even allowed to do or say about people who are clinging to flotsam and jetsam after a shipwreck.

I think calling them “narco-terrorists” wouldn’t give the military enough legal reason to murder those people as they had been illegally ordered to do.

The US isn’t supposed to execute people for smuggling cocaine.

You shouldn’t just be able to call them enemy combatants if they’re not even combatants. Words are supposed to have meanings.

By the logic that you can just call things whatever you want and then you’re magically allowed to treat them as that thing, then why not just call them “fish” and say that the American military was just “fishing”? That makes just as much sense to me as what they did.

For me, the important thing is that this is a vibrant community.

That means that from the mods’ perspectives, they don’t get too loaded down with moderation work, or need to defend themselves and create friction with the community.

It also means that when people want to contribute to the community, they’re not afraid of what the mods will say. If they post without reading the rules, like probably most people do, it’s really the poster’s fault. But if they are afraid to post even after reading the rules, then I think that has a freezing effect on the community.

As for people who are looking for loopholes, I think they’re trying to make the mods’ lives harder, and so I don’t really think they’re worth worrying too much about. They’ll probably get banned sooner or later because that is the attitude of a troll.

Just my opinion. I’ve never been a mod, and I don’t think I could handle that responsibility. I just try to be empathetic with everybody involved.

You’re right. One problem is, even though mods already have the power, specifically saying in the rules that the criteria is subjective sounds like something that a mod would make when they are tired of having to explain their moderation choices.

They can just say that it was low-effort, and problem solved. They don’t need to explain themselves, right?

But when the rules are vague, I think they’ll end up with more complaints from people who have different criteria of low-effort from the mods. This sort of interaction leads to accusations of mods power-tripping.

If the mods can nail down exactly what is low-effort, like, “X will always get removed. Z will never get removed unless it violates other rules. Y may be at risk of the moderator’s mood. You have been warned.” If they nail things down a bit more, then they will probably make things easier for themselves in the long-run than just keeping things vague.

Plus, if the rules are not vague, then people can discuss them safely when the rules are changed. When rules are vague, people will simply be upset that moderation was sprung on them, and everything will be discussed while people are upset. My belief is that people best discuss things while calm, and not while experiencing one person having power over another.

When I took my AI coursework in college, that was basically the definition of AI.

I can see that there are two very different definitions, depending upon how “artificial” is interpreted.

One definition of artificial simply describes the product of human effort. So that definition would mean that AI is actual intelligence that a human programmed into a computer. Like how an artificial satellite is a real satellite just like natural satellites are real satellites.

Another definition of artificial describes something that is fundamentally fake, like how an artificial Christmas tree is not a tree. It only looks like a tree. This is the usage I was taught in college that describes AI. Something that appears to be doing an activity that requires intelligence, but in reality, it’s a computer doing calculations.

I think the second definition must be the most common. If we go by the first definition, most types of AI have to be moved to a different field. Things like decision trees simply wouldn’t qualify.

He’s a Nazi who is building AI Hitler.