conclusion from just giving a talk is that some people are extremely resistant to the idea that one party is currently the problem in american politics
You don’t need to debate phrenologists, flat earthers, race scientists, 9/11 truthers, climate change deniers, or January 6 insurrectionists. Their ideas have been examined and been found lacking. They lost the debate. Pointing that out, and then ignoring them, is not censorship.
the thing about “hardening school defenses” is that jd vance’s kids will never in their lives attend the prison schools he wants to build
I'm hearing and reading so many stories about how the dock workers strike could wreak havoc on our supply chain and all I can think is, well then you better pay them what they're asking. Seems like an easy solution. 🤷🏻♀️
This is the fundamental paradox of AI: if it's actually helping you, there is no way to know when it is no longer helping you. Put another way: if you can supervise it effectively enough to catch its mistakes, you probably didn't need it in the first place.
A high end phone is like $1,000 Which would pay rent for a single digit number of days in a lot of US housing markets
This is really interesting, because these religious conflicts are right before everything goes sideways. It might be easier to argue that *lack of tolerance for (religious) diversity* was the downfall of Rome Which is, you know, exactly the opposite of the retvrn chuds point
(Cross-post from The Bad Place) I suppose we're doing this again. This is incorrect: the Roman army relied heavily on non-citizens throughout nearly the whole of Roman history, including periods of its greatest success in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, when Rome came to dominate the Mediterranean.1/
you could probably get a solid black mirror episode out of a stratospherically wealthy character surrounded by such levels of sycophancy that their day-to-day experience resembles insanity