scoofy
I was talking more about general decarbonization.
Literally the leftist dense cities have been the ones pushing back hardest against high rises, sustainable transportation alternatives, and in large part, electrification through overly restrictive environmental laws designed in the 70s.
That’s over now. Climate change is here, and you still can’t convert a house to a duplex in LA without jumping through a thousand hoops.
That I think it's an idiotic position is beside the point. Things and prosperity generally are not the problem, and can grow pretty much indefinitely for the foreseeable future if it's done in a reasonable and sustainable way.
The large portion of the environmentalist left are degrowthers who literally want people to just live with less, which means "less energy" is actually good. It will never be a politically viable position, but again, we're talking about a party that until recently has never come close to wielding power.
You can't say this with a straight face. Before the civil rights act we literally had white's only sections of businesses. Separate-but-unequal was the apartheid of the South. That just doesn't exist anymore in any kind of open and accepted way, thank god.
>You essentially argue that policymakers should enjoy the right to quietly undermine minority voting power up until the point where they explicitly say "and I'm doing this because I'm a racist targeting minorities".
Again, I'm not saying that at all, the Supreme Court isn't saying that either. You are again conflating minorities as a singular voting bloc with a singular voting interest. The entire point here is that there is plenty of evidence that this is about politics, not about race.
I think gerrymandering is atrocious. I think we should move to a proportional voting system where gerrymandering is no longer achievable. The idea that 25% of a population can dictate government control to the other 75% of the population by drawing arbitrary lines is atrocious. I just think it's quite clear that this isn't happening to suppress the vote along racial lines.
The idea here is that I think it's quite plausible that black republicans are being used along gerrymandering line to help elect republicans. If it were about race... then black republicans would also need to be disenfranchised.
Jim Crow was very obviously terrible... it was also very overt and obvious. I grew up in Texas, and the idea that the right is a secret cabal of racists trying to create some kind of white government is insane. The idea that the general socioeconomic concerns of the black community put most black voters on the political left makes vastly more sense, and it also explains the significantly larger numbers of Hispanic representatives on the Texas right.
It's not one data point. There is plenty of evidence that this is about politics... not about race.
Again, you are conflating racism with passing policies that harm groups that correlate with race. Those are not the same thing.
The point of the Civil Rights Act was that many southern states were trying to stop black people from achieving office because they were black. They weren't trying to infringe the voting rights of white liberals. There is a world of difference between trying to end Medicare and trying to end Medicare... only for minorities.
The distinction between cultural differences and something like strict colorism make this a difficult issue to adjudicate. Correlation does not imply causation, and looking at nontrivial counter-examples should be helpful.
It's really difficult to argue the party's goal in gerrymandering is trying to prevent black people from gaining significant positions in government when the same party is electing and appointing black folks to significant positions in government.
I say this as a lefty.
We are two decades past illegal no-poaching schemes. We've live with very obviously maliciously compliant H1-B abuse. We're getting to the point where programmers expecting high compensation to be asked to be professional prompt engineers, when they know the output is likely unsafe for production.
Yet nobody unionizes. Yea, unions have problems, but they don't have to. You don't have to vote for assholes that use protectionist tactics. You can just ask for a 40 hour work week to mean 40 hours, and vacation to mean vacation.
What's the point of having all that money and power if you can't actually do the things you want?
At the time, I didn't know whether or not they would become the biggest, most important company in the world. They did in the end, but if you live your life betting on every company whose valuation depends on them becoming the biggest, most important company in the world, you're gonna have a bad time.
I'm old enough to remember when IPO's existed to generate equity financing for growing companies. Now they exist to facilitate exit liquidity for mature companies, but a two decades of near-zero interest rates and enough inflation and wealth consolidation to make the "qualified investor" requirements trivial will do that. We're living in the days of the pink sheets again, where you really have to invest in small companies with very little reporting on them, but you already have to be wealthy to have access to those investments.
I didn't buy Amazon in the early '00s for this reason, and I won't buy Anthropic for this reason. Maybe I lose out, but I like to invest in stocks that look like good investments.
The problem with this argument isn't that natural language programming leads to vague/ambiguous code that would lead to errors. The problem is that the machine does not inform you of the ambiguity. Rational humans do just fine when they interact because they can identify these problems. Programming would work just find if context were identify and clarified while the code was being written.
If I were to tell a program to "buy political ads in Portland," yea, the point is that the program would need to know which Portland I mean. Otherwise it might accidentally think I mean Portland, OR, instead of Portland, ME:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/25-000-mistake-...
Humans can do the same thing if they're not being careful. The point is, the vast, vast, vast majority of time, someone would just say "wait, you mean Portland, Maine, right?" and you'd say "yes" and that would be that.
People who pretend that nonviolent crimes are some kind of special thing always confuse and annoy me. Coups can be nonviolent, should we avoid flashbangs against a group trying to undermine a democracy? The seriousness of the crime is what should matter, not whether a threat of bodily harm was involved. Are you destroying someone’s life is what matters.
We are talking about an organization ruining people’s livelihoods. Dozens and dozens of lives wrecked. Millions stolen.
Yes, less-lethal force is very obviously justified.
This type of behavior is why gatekeeping institutions exist. We all pay a non-trivial cost because someone thinks that other people taking their lies seriously is somehow remarkable. It's not.
Research is hard work. Publishing fake research is just intentionally throwing wrenching into the machine of academia. All you've done is reinforce the need for gatekeepers (which never went away), show that some no-name journal isn't rigorous (they often aren't), and you've wasted a bunch of people's time demonstrating why institutions exist, when we know why they exist.
Genuinely terrible behavior.
Whether and how we pollute is a political choice. That we want to is a problem unrelated to defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priv...
undocumented and here temporarily (most people oppose this),
undocumented and here permanently (the left is split on this, the right is mostly against it),
documented and here temporarily (most people are fine with this, especially tourists),
documented and here temporarily with an option to become permanently (many oppose this because it's impacting employment, especially with H-1B abuse),
documented and here permanently with no intention of becoming citizens (many people on the right don't like this for assimilation reasons),
documented and here permanently an a path to citizenship (most people support this except the extreme right),
former immigrants who are now citizens (nearly everyone supports these people).
The problem is that all of this is put under a single umbrella called "immigration," but it includes so many sub-issue like rule of law and assimilation preferences that you can't have a serious debate on it.
My point is it doesn't matter. All art ultimately boils down to is doing something cool, and then pointing at it. The vast, vast, vast majority of "art" is not paid and never was. Even the art that is called "art" has little-to-nothing to do with effort. Duchamp's "readymades" are basically less effort that typing a prompt into AI.
That said, nobody has to like Duchamp's readymades. Nobody has to like anyone's art. The point of art is that you can like it or not. It's not objective, but the vast majority of people are going to pretend that it is, but that's fine because it's actually not.
I don't live like that, you don't live like that, but most people do, and they have ever right to. Humans aren't analytical engines. Evolutionary biology has pushed us strongly towards caring deeply about meaning, identity, and respect. This is normal and has to be unlearned. Good luck with that. Other people don't have to like and respect art for you to.
Austin has been begrudgingly growing up, not without a raft of complaints from locals, because the property taxes are high enough to make selling to a developer tempting. In return, Austin has remained relatively affordable in comparison to other tech hubs.
Like, yea, property taxes suck... but the point is you're wealthy even if you want to pretend you're not. Passing the tax burden onto others, just because you can, is exactly how we end up in a world where wealthy landowners live like literally nobility while the people renting their land pay the taxes for their infrastructure.
I voted for Dean Phillips in the primary. He was blackballed. Local party officials even tried to keep him of ballots.
It even got to the point where Ezra Klein was loudly complaining about what was happening, and even he was criticized.
If you want to understand why the Dems keep losing, you have to understand the party machine. Looking at how the Phillips campaign was treated, and the Sanders campaign before that, show exactly how someone can run on exactly the issues people care about but be shut down before it ever comes to a vote, because it harms the political interests of the higher ups in the party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Phillips#2024_presidentia...
The Democratic Party's electorate aren't really paying attention.
Does he like my articles or does he have a spam agent emailing everyone writing about golf? I can’t know.
The other was like, a guy in the comments who was asking bizarre leading questions, basically trying to get me to explain how my product works, where if he’d actually read the series, I literally wrote an article about it. His account on the forum was just bizarre.
Maybe someone interested? Maybe an engagement bot. I literally can’t tell.
I agree shouting into the void isn’t particularly helpful, but if it’s happening now, we need to prepare for a future where nobody wants to communicate online anymore. I sure don’t want to.
I'm not even and LLM hater. I just really think that the interconnectedness of the internet has caused the death of etiquette, simply because there is no culture when every culture in the world is all participating all the time. Etiquette is useful, even when it's effectively arbitrary.