Endorsing a candidate or a party places an additional seal of approval on the actions and beliefs of that candidate/party. There’s a difference between saying “between ham or fish, I pick fish” and “I believe fish is the right choice for everyone, fish has qualities that I myself would like to emulate and believe in”.
She’s a pop singer who seemingly upset a lot of internet people (but not many real people) for saying “yeah, I’m voting for Kamala, but I won’t endorse her because the democratic party hasn’t done enough for the LGBTQ or minority groups and I’m not keen on the Israel support thing”
https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=8R0GyAAypv_ZfJ7A
What now, smart guy?
There must be people with great ideals, someone who will choose the high road as often as possible. Just as there must be people who know that the system cannot change from within, that it must be torn apart and began anew.
I like the concept, minus the real life examples of Magneto-minded dictators and violent revolutionaries. I think having that balance gives the average person, the reader, the opportunity to see the places where an idealist fails and where an extremist goes too far and how to walk a path closer to the middle.
FUCK that got dark. Christ, I gotta go find religion after that one
Lol you had me for a moment and then you got to the end. Good trolling
I just started diving into the space from a localized point yesterday. And I can say that there are definitely problems with garbage spewing, but some of these models are getting really really good at really specific things.
A biomedical model I saw seemed lauded for it’s consistency in pulling relevant data from medical notes for the sake of patient care instructions, important risk factors, fall risk level etc.
So although I agree they’re still giving well phrased garbage for big general cases (and GPT4 seems to be much more ‘savvy’), the specific use cases are getting much better and I’m stoked to see how that continues.
Yeah I agree with you, that wasn’t a legitimate question on my part. It’s either they want to say some heinous shit, or, catering to “anti cancel culture” gets them a secured and easily riled up audience.
Thats the thing, comedy hasn’t stopped. Regular people aren’t offended if you make a funny joke about a sensitive topic.
Rob McElhenney from It’s always sunny was just talking about this the other day. They make racist jokes, gay jokes, jokes about abortion, mocking the homeless. There’s a WHOLE episode done a la The Whiz where the gang wakes up in black people’s bodies. You just have to be sure that the joke is told in a way that doesn’t lift it’s message above being just a joke, and that means the person telling it has to be relatively clear on the side of the joke’s subject. You can’t punch down, that’s never been funny.
South Park and it’s always sunny and family guy and those kinds of shows haven’t neutered their jokes, so why do people keep saying that you can’t make fun of anything anymore? The only people I see that say that are parroting comedians like Seinfeld and Chapelle and THEY’RE STILL SELLING TICKETS, so they’re not ‘canceled’ and their livelihoods aren’t affected, so why are they saying they can’t make the jokes they continue to sell tickets for?
Nah chief, it’s pretty groundbreaking. I mean we don’t know how to specifically target existing connections to strengthen the sheathe between existing brain cells, but connecting two brain cells at all, manually, is such a feat
“With an apple silicon architecture, 8gb is like 16gb” -some stupid apple flunkey
Supreme Court of The United States appointment. Presidents appoint a candidate they like, congress greenlights their ascent to the position.
Oh highly questionable, it’s caused a lot of people to rethink the safety of lifetime appointments. But there are avenues to try, someone doesn’t have to retire or die, the number of SCOTUS judges can be raised and then you can appoint new judges, but then so can the next party and so on so forth, or at least they tell us that the threat of ‘the other side’ packing the courts is too much of a danger for their own party to pack the courts
It is done on both sides, except both sides haven’t had an equal chance to make appointments due to life span of existing judges and the then Senate Majority Leader (senator who is appointed the head of that ruling body when their party takes a majority in that body) in 2008 blocked all Supreme Court appointments that came up for all 8 years of the Obama administration. That was Mitch McConnell, and he, and his party, blocked appointment of new judges by just never allowing the motion to be voted on, as the Republicans held the senate 2 years into Obama presidency (when some seats opened) and as such their majority leader gets to decide the docket of what will be voted on in the senate and he chose to never once allowed SCOTUS appointee motions to reach the floor.
This would funnel people away from anti-abortion practitioners and locations. They don’t want that, they WANT you to come in and be talked down to by a ‘Family Planner’. They want people to come into the church run clinics.
Only Denuvo has reported that it’s better for sales, the rest of us don’t have data on that and I’m not trusting the wolf with Hen House design