ignirtoq

My original comment? I just answered your question as to what that other commenter meant by “amendment 2.” I didn’t say anything else? Did you not want someone else to answer your question and only want that commenter to?

Yep, I definitely think the whole phrasing of that comment is unusual. I understand the basic facts they are stating, but not the point of stating them.

The right to bear arms.

Men’s rights to what, exactly? There are plenty of rights that affect men that vary state to state. Off the top of my head I can think of firearm rights that vary dramatically state to state. Or are we talking about rights exclusive to men because of different biology between men and women? I feel like other than a vasectomy, I’m not sure what other male-biology-related rights I have. Honestly there’s less technology related to reproduction on the male side.

I get the point of the message, that there are rights women should be universally guaranteed that aren’t, and I totally agree with that message. But the phrasing seems ambiguous at best.

I don’t know. People keep talking about what to do when we “make it out of this” like the whole situation was thrust upon us by nature, and we just have to wait and tough it out until it passes, like a storm. People made this happen. The people with wealth and power in our society chose this reality for the rest of us. They aren’t just going to stop one day. And they aren’t acting like this is a storm that will pass. They are acting like this is the next step in a transition they want and intend. We have to figure out how to instigate a change from this path, and I don’t know how to do that.

We’re about to face a crisis nobody’s talking about. In 10 years, who’s going to mentor the next generation? The developers who’ve been using AI since day one won’t have the architectural understanding to teach. The product managers who’ve always relied on AI for decisions won’t have the judgment to pass on. The leaders who’ve abdicated to algorithms won’t have the wisdom to share.

Except we are talking about that, and the tech bro response is “in 10 years we’ll have AGI and it will do all these things all the time permanently.” In their roadmap, there won’t be a next generation of software developers, product managers, or mid-level leaders, because AGI will do all those things faster and better than humans. There will just be CEOs, the capital they control, and AI.

What’s most absurd is that, if that were all true, that would lead to a crisis much larger than just a generational knowledge problem in a specific industry. It would cut regular workers entirely out of the economy, and regular workers form the foundation of the economy, so the entire economy would collapse.

“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”

Eh, average is an ambiguous term. While in statistics it often means “mean,” it can also mean “median” or “mode,” and I would argue the layperson saying “average” intends it to mean “typical,” which is closer to median (or even mode). And in that case, those 85 percent would not be smarter than average.

Are we there yet? Is the bubble popping? Do we need the Ron Paul gif (or am I showing my age)?

My hypothesis on that is people responding to others’ body language to get the same snap-out-of-dissociation effect. The people closest to Batman would see him and then look around at others more to gauge their responses. Others further away wouldn’t see Batman, but would notice the more-attentive-than-usual other passengers and be similarly more attentive to try to find out what’s going on. They then would notice seemingly unrelated things, like the pregnant woman, and respond more than usual. The paper also says Batman entered from a different door, so a ripple effect of attentiveness could explain this effect without needing responders to directly see Batman.

Well the snake oil salesmen have taken over the health department. It was only a matter of time.

Republicans drew the state’s new map to give the GOP five additional seats, and Missouri and North Carolina followed with new maps adding an additional Republican seat each. To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats there.

The redrawn maps are facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

How much you want to bet SCOTUS blocks California’s redistricting but greenlights Missouri and North Carolina maps, each through tortured logic?

TL;DR: While governments are putting out assurances AI won’t make the final decision to launch nuclear weapons, they are tight-lipped about whether they are putting AI in the information gathering and processing components that advise world leaders making the decision to launch nuclear weapons. In risk assessment, there’s little difference between wrong AI making the launch decision and a human informed by wrong AI making the launch decision.

One catch is that they are only forced to release “unclassified” files. Guess who decides what files are classified?

And they’re being redeployed to Charlotte, NC, and New Orleans, LA. They’re continuing the tactic of blitzing whatever they want to do somewhere, and when the courts start to catch up, they pull out and start to do something else somewhere else. They can do whatever they want, legality be damned, if they accomplish their goals before the courts wake up. This is guerrilla warfare applied to the legal checks and balances between the branches of government.

If this Supreme Court were considering the issue for the very first time today, it would almost certainly hold that the Constitution does not protect same-sex marriage by a 6–3 vote. But now that Obergefell is entrenched as precedent, and widely supported by Americans, they’ve shown no appetite for spending down their political capital to issue an unpopular ruling that could only hurt the Republican Party.

This seems like a really naive thing to say about this court. They have shown no qualms about striking down much older cases with a stronger history of precedent than Obergefell on the most specious of reasoning. They struck down Chevron Deference last year, which was in place since 1984 and had come to form the backbone of judicial handling about highly technical aspects of government regulation of virtually every industry.

And they have no hesitation about making unpopular rulings. Several justices have a habit of lecturing the public in a way that’s essentially talking down to the people they are supposed to serve and say they simply know what’s better for the people than… the people. Their egos couldn’t care less about their public image; Chief Justice John Roberts has spoken out multiple times that people need to basically shut up and respect the court’s decisions no matter if they like them or not.

It’s a higher level of infuriating that the court is so obviously corrupt, and then the most corrupt among them present themselves as fundamentally more deserving of respect and deference than the common rabble.

The problem is that some small but non-zero fraction of these bugs may be exploitable security flaws with the software, and these bug reports are on the open internet. So if they just ignore them all, they risk overlooking a genuine vulnerability that a bad actor can then more easily find and use. Then the FOSS project gets the blame, because the bug report was there, they should have fixed it!

If the court rules against the president, it will nullify a major tool in Mr. Trump’s trade agenda. He has used the law under question, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose tariffs on an estimated 29 percent of all U.S. imports, the Times analysis found. So far this year, these emergency tariffs have hit more than $300 billion in imported goods.

Not that I expect it to happen, but if they rule against him, what happens to the money the government has collected from illegal tariffs so far? Do they just keep it? Do they have to go through the books and return it to the importers? The costs were often absorbed by vendors at the start, but there’s no question a large fraction have already been passed on to consumers.

I didn’t say benefits were not cut off. I’m challenging the assertion that the mere fact that the government is shutdown is the cause of funding being cut off, like the phrase I quoted implicitly assets. The shutdown alone is not the reason funds for SNAP were cut off, and my proof of my assertion is the fact that funding has never been cut off in previous shutdowns.

This means someone must have chosen to execute this shutdown differently on purpose. Republicans are in charge of all branches of government, so they are the most likely culprit.

federal food benefits were cut off due to the government shutdown.

No, they were not cut off due to the shutdown. Payments had not been stopped in any prior shutdown and didn’t have to be stopped in this one. Trump and Republicans specifically chose for this to happen to put more pressure on Democrats. They don’t care if Americans starve to death, while Democrats do. They are starving Americans because Democrats are trying to stop Americans from losing healthcare.

It’s much worse than that. He’s a proponent of the “prosperity gospel,” which says God directly rewards a person’s faithfulness and adherence to scripture with worldly success. So if you need help, that means you have not been a good enough Christian, so it would be against God’s will for his church to help.