HopeOfTheGunblade

Yes, it can’t impact the trial, that he didn’t testify. Doesn’t mean we can’t infer, out here away from the court, that he put up a big front in public and slunk away with his tail between his legs in court, because he knew he was guilty and would only have made things worse if he testified, along with earning some counts of perjury.

Apparently it has a significant chance of “aggressive ass cancer”.

I would love to see research data pointing either way re #1, although it would be incredibly difficult to do so ethically, verging on impossible. For #2, people have extracted originals or near-originals of inputs to the algorithms. AI generated stuff - plagiarism machine generated stuff, runs the risk of effectively revictimizing people who were already abused to get said inputs.

It’s an ugly situation all around, and unfortunately I don’t know that much can be done about it beyond not demonizing people who have such drives, who have not offended, so that seeking therapy for the condition doesn’t screw them over. Ensuring that people are damned if they do and damned if they don’t seems to pretty reliably produce worse outcomes.

And neveryoumind if society as we know it is a mighty pile of suck for people not at the top. Shoulda been born rich white christian cishet males.

You’re missing 1.5: Make it impossible for people who every professional medical association of good repute says said medication help, get the medication by prescription.

The problem in his view, as best I can tell, is that there is a natural hierarchy, that he belongs on top of telling everyone else what to do, and any upset of this natural hierarchy is oppressing him. He may not have thought this out in so many words, but it’s a hypothesis that seems to make accurate predictions about what people in his reference class will do and say.

Sorry, am I confused about what you are saying? Because it seems like you are being snarky about the idea that the Republican party will not do what it has been doing and loudly announcing it will continue to do since 2020. Really, trump started in 2016, but he did actually win that one electorally.

Am I misunderstanding you?

“Don’t kill queer people,” is outsiders imposing their opinion. A constitution that applies to everyone doesn’t necessarily follow what locals are going to want to do.

Crook County

Nominative determinism strikes again.

All of these come down to, “we want the right to keep fucking everyone else with externalities while enjoying the benefits of outsourcing those costs,” which, no sympathy. Grow up, people.

What happens to queer people who happen to be born in rural areas, in your model?

That was one of the conditions of these debates.

Ugh, god damn it.

Thanks for the correction…

He quashed the strike in the moment, and got them most of their demands as a follow-up, as I hear it. But only the first part ever made the news, for some reason.

I wear a respirator every time I leave the house. If COVID taught us anything, it is that people are more disgusting and less considerate than we had imagined. Meanwhile, COVID is still a thing, long COVID is still a thing, and it’s progressive - every time you catch COVID the rates and the damage are worse.

It would be super weird if we couldn’t take Trump at his word, if it failed to be his bond, huh?

I wonder how different things would be now if Roger Stone (still politically involved Roger Stone who was a major player in the last Trump administration and who has a back tattoo of Nixon) hadn’t caused the Brooks Brothers Riot and fucked up the counting of votes in Florida allowing the supreme Court (whoch at the time had multiple clerks that Trump put on the court) to declare Bush the winner.

Yeah, it’s been all the same people, fucking stuff up, all along.

Hands up if you thought this was about Shane Vaughn for a minute.

You don’t think nearly 1/6th is statistically significant? What’s the lower bound on significance as you see things?

To be clear, it’s obviously dumb for their generative system to be overrepresenting turbans like this, although it’s likely to be a bias in the inputs rather than something the system came up with itself, I just think that 5% is generally enough to be considered significant and calling three times that not significant confuses me.

What’s worse is that it’s not evenly distributed across the set of young talent. The most capable, most impressive, most outstanding talent, is going to have the most options, and thus are most likely to go. It isn’t just a halving of the upcoming workforce, it’s a lessening of the average quality of that reduced force.

Not my content; the article has a vexing system of gatekeeping, so I reposted it here.