I award you no votes, and may God have mercy on your soul.

That means someone at meta thinks the evidence that will come in trial will cost them more than $1.4b

If there were a “no genocide” candidate that could win, making that a single issue would matter. Biden supports Israel despite their actions in Gaza… which he has publicly stated he doesn’t agree with and has taken concrete, if underwhelming, steps to try and stop. Trump has shown us during his previous administration and told us recently that he will support Israel harder and will likely take steps to decrease the resistance to the Palestinian genocide if not outright accelerate it. He’ll also accelerate Russian aggression in Ukraine and likely would ignore our Article 5 responsibilities when Putin advances farther into Europe. I’ll assume you’re familiar with the policy differences on climate and how climate change impacts poor regions (like Gaza) more than it impacts affluent ones like the US (and even we’re getting our asses kicked by climate change this year). You can vote to take a moral stand, or you can vote for desired outcomes. The people trying to convince you not to vote 3rd party are trying to convince you to vote for a desired outcome. There is presently no likely outcome that gives us a non-Biden, non-Trump administration for the next 4 years. Based on that fact, we want to maximize the likelihood of the best availa le outcome. That’s what we’re asking…to think about what the world looks like for the people you care about under Biden and compare those outcomes to what it will look like under Trump and vote based on those outcomes. The time to find the ideal candidate is at the beginning of a presidential term, not the end of one.

You can bet your ass most of us are including the ongoing genocide in our voting decision, we’ve just thought about it enough to know our options aren’t between “stopping genocide” and “continuing genocide”, the choice is between “resisting” (aka, the status quo) or “accelerating”.

Not for several decades, no.

Guns don’t protect children. They’re the leading cause of death in children.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with protecting food…hunting? Not how most people get their food. Most people get food from a grocery store…where they’re increasingly likely to get shot.

If the freedom line was in reference to the military, there’s hardly a vet alive who’s done that… they’re all dead from old age. The only wars we’ve been fighting were for revenge or resources. I say that as a vet.

If you’re talking about protecting us from our government…as far as I know, nobody has even won an armed confrontation with the police or feds over freedoms. Guns made Waco worse. Guns made Ruby Ridge worse. I guess the Bundy’s protected their “right” to steal from taxpayers by grazing their cattle on public land without paying for it like they should have. That feels like a less important right than “life” to me personally.

Captain Insano shows no mercy

They fired 12 employees of a workforce numbering over 216,000. Looks like they fired 1000x more employees (literally…12000) last year just because “that’s business.” What a nothingburger.

I’m almost certain they’ve all decided Jesus was a loser and decided to root for Barabbas instead.

Mmm garlic milk ಠ_ಠ

AI isn’t giving the right misinformation

Same here. It’s good for writing your basic unit tests, and the explain feature is useful getting for getting your head wrapped around complex syntax, especially as bad as searching for useful documentation has gotten on Google and ddg.

What would be better is polluting the software with invalid but still plausible constraints, so the chips would seem OK and might work for days or weeks but would fail in the field… especially if these chips are used in weapon systems or critical infrastructure.

It’s a pretty big presumption that Elon Musk is providing transparent and accurate information to consumers about a technology he’s hoping to sell. While I’d agree with the premise normally, he’s kind of a known bad actor at this point. I’m a pretty firm believer in informed consent for this kinda stuff, I just don’t see much reason to trust Musk is willing to fully inform someone of the limitations, constraints or risks involved in anything he has a personal stake in. If you aren’t informed, you can’t provide consent.

It’s easier than accepting nuance, and it’s usually from the same people who demonstrate that same lack of nuance in everything else they post.

Nothing. It’s a pretty fantasy. Best I think we can hope for is a few monopolies busted up so some little guys can break into the market. That’ll buy us about 20 years until those little guys have become the new Googles and Microsofts and Apples, and then we start over. We need to entirely rewrite how we do antitrust assessments to account for both vertical and horizontal monopolistic behaviors (a vertical monopoly is a company that controls the entire supply chain where a horizontal one controls the market and customer base. Historically, the US has been more concerned with horizontal monopolies.) It’d be great if we could come up with a better measure of consumer choice that we currently use. If you have the choice between 2 ISPs but they both charge the same amount for the same service, you don’t really have a choice there…at least not a meaningful one.

You really don’t need anything near as complex as AI…a simple script could be configured to automatically close the issue as solved with a link to a randomly-selected unrelated issue.

Did you read the whole article? Newsweek misrepresented the results by leaving out other answers that clearly demonstrate the vast majority think Hamas is a terrorist organization and the Oct 7th attacks were terroristic and genocidal in intent. The sample size was far too small. You’ll notice they didn’t even tell you what the actual question asked was. There’s a big difference between “do you support Hamas” and “do you support the Palestinian government” or “do you support Palestinian efforts to defend against Israeli attacks?” Surveys in general, and especially ones on politically decisive ideas, are notoriously easy to skew based on subtle differences in how you word questions. I’d recommend you be very suspicious of any report on a survey that doesn’t tell you what was actually asked.

From a shit survey misquoted by a failed Republican sycophant. Echo chamber.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2023/11/04/politifact-is-it-true-that-50-of-gen-zers-support-hamas/71436111007/

If you think that’s what’s happening, you’ve been in an echo chamber yourself.

Slotin knew he fucked up as soon as it happened too. Apparently, he would always use a screwdriver to hold the thing open and was warned multiple times he was gonna kill himself. He did use himself as a human shield, though (not sure if it was deliberate or just happenstance), and ended up being the only fatality in that incident, iirc.