I get it, but maybe they won’t. They definitely will ignore my question if I never ask!

…just under 2,000 voters said “yes.”

And those people probably work in some area related to LLMs.

It’s practically a meme at this point:

Nobody:

Chip makers: People want us to add AI to our chips!

That’s not what I asked them to do. I disagree with free markets, but that doesn’t mean I’m resistant to learning from other people’s perspectives.

Since you brought it up, why are you a free market person?

“Look, man. We just suck all around, okay?”

Good ideas! I’ll keep some of those in mind. He’s not stupid, just incredibly naive, and it doesn’t help that he lives in the big shadow of his special forces older brother and thinks (maybe subconsciously) he has to prove himself equal.

Because of his naivete, he listens to what the right wing news orgs say as gospel, possibly because he has a weak epistemic foundation. If I can manage to push through some of that bullshit, it might give him some space to form his own opinions.

I don’t really want to change him, per se, but it worries me that he’s so thoughtless; if I can help him learn how to put a little more thought into his choices and actions and see that life doesn’t exist in black and white terms, I’ll call that a success.

Good advice. Thanks! I will try reframing some of my questions a little better.

Honestly, it will be tough with him. He’s incredibly naive and not terribly introspective, but if I can find those points of agreement, perhaps he’ll be a little less defensive on the outset. Doesn’t help that my sister and the rest of the family are all liberal and leftward, so he’s an island.

Hi, I have a BiL in the Army (≈10yrs) who is an extremely confused libertarian who loves Trump and would rather crazy people be allowed to freely have guns than ensure his 5yo survives elementary school.

This is a genuine question, but do you have any tips for communicating with him? Maybe help him at least give some real thought to some of his positions?

Also, there’s that whole “states get to determine the manner and means by which they hold an election.” If Conservatives want states like Texas and Florida to have the power to decide to “legally” only have one voting location in the entire state, they can’t (yet) also go, “Except Michigan doesn’t get that power.”

She made a ruling that upended decades of precedent concerning the constitutionality of special council appointments.

She may work for Conservatives, but she ain’t SCOTUS, and she doesn’t have the same ability to rewrite the law based on specious reasoning. Plus, she’s already been reprimanded and reversed by the 11th Circuit twice for questionable rulings.

She doesn’t need to communicate bias, she just needs to make it clear that she’s unfit to adjudicate this case, which is pretty obvious at this point. If Jack Smith can prove any bias, it will just be icing on the cake.

I doubt this will run its course before November, but if it can be a drain on his sanity and coffers, I’d say it’s still in the public interest to keep it going. As someone who listens to Knowledge Fight often, this kind of stuff gets under their skin and derails their ability to be effective at messaging.

Ultimately, it’s in the public interest to keep going, if only because it’s still a crime that deserves to be tried on the real possibility that he loses in November.

Doesn’t even need a reason. He just has to “gesture vaguely,” to borrow your turn of phrase, at Official Acts™. He’s already got a hitlist, so he just needs the levers of power to cross off names with impunity.

This. Jack Smith hasn’t been able to nail her on any of her antics thus far, as they’ve been plausibly deniable, but her specious reasoning for the dismissal is a prime target for reversal by the 11th Circuit. She’s so bad at her job, she can’t even stall properly.

If Smith doesn’t go to the 11th Circuit, then he was a terrible choice to begin with, and he was never going to win anything.

It’s July. The public has an extremely short attention span. You can’t say that with any amount of certainty two whole days after it happened and with 3.5 months to go.

It is fearmongering, albeit unintended, but I don’t think it completely applies to the Fediverse as it stands. We should always remain vigilant and never complacent, and I’m sure the devs and moderators are keeping spam control in their minds. This isn’t the 1980s, and we’re not trying to retrofit a protocol that came before spam was ever a thing.

Ultimately defederating bad actors and defederating “good” actors who fail to moderate their own users is necessary.

Agreed, and this is what makes the Fediverse so good. It would be annoying to lose your instance, true, but you just move to another or roll your own. Additionally, let’s say they start spamming Mastodon from mastodon.social; their messages would go to the Global channel, but if I only ever read Local or Subscriptions, I’ll never see their spam.

The Fediverse and ActivityPub will continue to evolve, but unlike SMTP, they were created after the internet became adversarial. This author isn’t the first to try to fearmonger over the future of AP, and they won’t be the last.

“That means if you’re a man on Friday night, and all the sudden on Saturday, you feel like a woman, and you want to go in the women’s bathroom in the mall, you will be arrested — or whatever we got to do to you.”

Time to trot out this rotting strawman, again? The fact that he can bring this up after this stupid idea has been thoroughly debunked means he’s either ignorant or just hoping nobody notices. It’s a loser issue, dude.

What’s chilling is the “or whatever we got to do to you.” Like what? Public beatings? Lynching? The same shit that was allowed to be done to your ancestors during the time when segregation was legal?

I hope you lose your job and a lot of money, asshole.

Also, there’s a non-zero chance we’ll get dragged into a war with Russia if Putin attacks a NATO country after Ukraine. Senators know that if we don’t fund Ukraine now, it will be much worse for everyone later, and potentially having Trump at the helm during that time would be an unmitigated disaster.

He killed four. Three were accidental, one was a literal terrorist helping to plan attacks on American targets. None were on American soil.

I’m undecided if the terrorist one deserves the rights awarded by the fifth amendment, but as for the other three, it’s not like he went out of his way to target them.

Trump’s lawyers, on the other hand, are essentially arguing that the president can do what he wants to whomever he wants, even on American soil. It’s like it’s straight from Putin’s mouth.

They are also praying to their god that the Appellate Court has no knowledge of the “color of office” argument. Assassinations of US citizens is most definitely beyond the scope of presidential duties, and to accept otherwise is to accept that the president is a king.