Pagliacci

Good riddance, though a plane crash seems like a relatively easy way to “kill” someone while they go into hiding.

Sure, as long as we also have a competency test for retirees as well.

I wonder who scores better?

Genuine belief in fraud, ignoring that it’s obviously bs for a moment, does not give you a right to usurp power through illegal means.

What procedural step is being abused here to allow one Senator to have this much influence? Or is this another case of one Senator being the face while backed by the rest of their party?

Why would this be treated any differently than googling things? I just googled the same prompt about hiding food that’s mentioned in the article and it gave me pretty much the same advice. One of the top links was an ED support forum where they were advising each other on how to hide their eating disorder.

These articles are just outrage bait at this point. There are some legitimate concerns about AI, but bashing your hand with a hammer and blaming the hammer shouldn’t be one of them.

Of course, it’s just his “get out of jail free” card to save face publicly when he starts rejecting requests.

He qualified it by specifying it’s if you were “unfairly” facing repercussions, which of course means he can deny or accept anyone he wants for any reason that he wants and still claim he’s upholding his pledge.

I don’t think so, his “X” idea has been around for a long time, he really thinks it’s his next big idea. I’m sure people have raised all of these concerns with him, but I doubt he’s listening. Tesla, SpaceX, etc. are ideas that he bought, this one is his baby. I don’t think he’s open to ideas or criticisms on it.

He bought the company to bootstrap his idea of his “X” app which he envisions becoming something like WeChat for the world outside of China.

I think it’s a terrible idea that’s a solution in search of s problem. WeChat works in China because the government literally enforces it’s usage. The rest of the world isn’t interested in a one-stop-shop for anything and everything.

It’s the problem of trying to be everything for everyone. You end up with mediocre or bad solutions for many problems instead of great solutions for a couple of problems. It works when there’s no competition, see WeChat, but when there is competition that competition is going to beat you at their game because you’re too busy playing a dozen others.

Haven’t used my desktop in ages, has been completely replaced by my personal and work laptops.

It’s so incredibly frustrating. One of the main reasons Trump rose to popularity was his campaigning against D.C. ineptitude and corruption. Drain the swamp and all of that. And now we have the perfect encapsulation of why those issues exist. He is the ineptitude and corruption. But the people who are supposedly railing against that are embracing him without wavering. Now they’re about to nominate someone who had a laundry list of indictments.

If you can’t hold yourselves accountable how could you ever expect to hold others accountable? It doesn’t work like that. The GOP is broken, but perhaps more concerning are the supposed independents who for one reason or another just don’t seem to care.

I’ve had Pixels since the first one, this is news to me.

He’d probably have to put all of his eggs in the reincarnation basket and start doing some good deeds.

Or bad deeds, depending on your opinion of actors.

This line from Schindler’s List always stuck with me:

“Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”

The context is that at the end of the movie Schindler is distraught thinking of how many more he could have saved if he just did certain things differently, like selling a ring and using that money to hire another Jewish worker. One of the people he saved tells him the above line.

It’s stuck with me for two reasons, I think.

First, it’s an interesting perspective on individuality. Each person has their own unique perspective of the world. When that person dies, that perspective is gone forever. An entire universe dies with them, never to be seen again. I think that’s a powerful way to view the individual.

Second, it’s a reminder that we do what we can, and while it may be imperfect, it’s enough. You can’t save everyone, just live well and help those you can in the capacity that you can. If you save one of those people, you’ve saved the world.

The Exorcist got me pretty good

In this case the article states Meta did not comply with the requests and responded to the FBI with concerns about the accounts being flagged. It also states that Meta was not pressured to comply with the requests.

I think this is a tricky situation. It’s in the interest of social media companies to limit the spread of misinformation on their platforms. When that misinformation is coming from state actors (e.g. Russia) it’s not uncommon for the US Government to have the best knowledge of those efforts. It follows that the social media company would want to consult with the US Government to improve their efforts. But the US Government obviously also has its own interests and biases that can very easily corrupt those efforts.

There has been cases (as pointed out in the last court case) where I think the government did cross the line from advisory to directive. I think that’s a problem that absolutely needs to be addressed.

IMO the answer to this is a bit of a one-way communication and transparency. The US Government should keep a publicly accessible database of what it believes to be misinformation efforts including posts, accounts, etc. Third parties can audit that DB and conduct their own reviews. It would then be up to them whether or not to use that information to aid their own efforts. The public can also review that information and they (and the media) can point out the flaws and mistakes they believe are being made.

Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can’t I eat a person?!

He endorsed Elon for saving Twitter too, so maybe he’s not the best judge of character?

The major question doctrine acts as a “get-out-of-text-free card” that conservative justices make “magically appear” whenever they see an executive branch policy that goes against their ideological “goals,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent in the 2022 case of West Virginia v. EPA.

Apparently legislating from the bench is fine for Conservatives as long as you make up your own judicial doctrine as justification.

I don’t know how we fix the problems we face. The court is seated by politicians, Congress is seated by grifters and ideologues, and the people are too defeated/controlled to make meaningful changes.

Do we know why they dissented? In another article it referenced that they didn’t think a ruling was appropriate because the NC courts overturning the ruling in question rendered the case moot. Neither article I’ve read gave more of an explanation than that.

Or did they flat out endorse the independent legislature theory?