Ngl, the fact that a 9/11’s worth of people were dying every fucking day, just in the US, during the peak of Covid, and one entire fucking half of our country was just shitposting and TRYING to spread it more entirely reframed 9/11 for me.

I’m glad to see this, I feel like all Americans should have to come to some personal terms about the 9/11 worth of daily COVID deaths that half the country were just casually ok with. I prefer existentialism to nihilism as a response to the absurdity of the world, since nihilism is just going to trap us in a cycle of resigned apathy, but a little self-reflection is preferred either way.

And related to the 9/11 comparison: amazing how there was no reckoning about how hundreds of thousands of those cumulative deaths were attributable to Trump’s mishandling. From that standpoint, we elected Osama bin Laden times a thousand to be president, after he took down the twin towers.

Trump: FEED ME THE SACRIFICIAL MARTYR.

Fox News will just switch rat poison brands to feed into the IVs.

So, you’re saying we need to put more money into AI?

(/s)

I know, I know. People don’t understand how they’ve already conceded the war with language.

Me: Like…Yeah, I’m just going to “jailbreak” the small computer I bought to… run a program.

The public unironically: Oh man, I hope you don’t get arrested.

How long ago? Because it looks the MBAs are in charge now.

This is a super helpful reminder to remove my a Google Photos and fully switch over to my shadow Immich server to stop them being used for training data. Thanks, Google.

Yeah…It doesn’t even make sense. “Cutting red tape” doesn’t equal “abundance.” The very idea that there would be abundance if not for “red tape” - i.e. regulations - is a fundamental conservative myth, so the survey is nonsense.

Billionaire oligarchs do flex their muscle, but when that happens, we usually hear about it because (a) reporters do predominantly have a “journalistic code” that they try to live by, and (b) there’re too many people involved for it not to leak when suppression actively happens.

I think instead, reporters are chilled by pressure in general and become overcautious while rationalizing it as their code. E.g., Trump is a litigious psychopath, an aspiring and now active authoritarian, and reporters probably generally know that. And they wouldn’t “cowe” to threats of retribution. But the anxiety of those threats makes them hyper-aware when they write an article, and then overcompensate by removing “bias” when it is merely bias towards reality. Consciously, they are still independent. But effectively, they are pulling punches.

That’s how manipulative sociopaths use threats of retribution - it isn’t just “I’ll make your life hell if you oppose me” and a direct obedience. No, the victim rebels, feels anger, resentment, plans revenge. But over time, they also change their behavior, even if they feel it’s tactical and temporary (“pick your battles”).

I say this not to be pedantic. I think it’s really important to understand what’s happening here. “Oligarchs control media” is true in some cases, and I agree it’s an enormous problem - that itself is part of the chilling anxiety reporters feel to “triple check” their material, and centralized power is always its own problem - but we have to identify the disease properly if we want to find a cure.

To be honest, the poster is “SPU,” so this is probably 90% to promote the site. (Not that I really care that much in this case, I like South Park and think episodes that have Muhammad in them should still be available despite religious extremists being upset.)

The US media doesn’t know how to reconcile legitimate institutions being used for objectively illegitimate ends.

Rightly, the media should report solely on the facts, but there is no mandate that reporters cannot use basic powers of reasoning and cannot draw inherent conclusions from undeniable premises. They can and should note the foundational point that these actions are incompatible with the DOJ mandate to seek public redress for criminal action based on factual investigation and evidence, and therefore are not legitimate. These moves are political choices first and legal justification backfill second.

Instead, when we have a nihilistic force wielding the DOJ for corrupt ends, reporters feels they can only describe what is happening, like a passive camera lens, unless relegated to “opinion” articles. And that is where this is all falling apart.

Well, I just nouned your verb right back to the way it was, checkmate.

I know Walz/Harris was impossible given the Biden lead-up and Harris running the show after, but if Walz was the ticket leader I think Trump would have lost.

Trump is a dark triad personality wearing a working-man’s death mask, and his base sees it and marvels at how “real” he is. But Walz knows how to actually be real, actually communicate like a regular guy, and is just good in the way middle America likes to imagine itself.

His Harris campaign bounce following “weird” would likely have held the swing state firewall, until Harris decided she wanted to bring in Liz Cheney and put a muzzle on Walz to not offend (or inspire) anyone. Given our poor Democrat name recognition options (Harris, Newsom…Jefferies?), maybe Walz is our best hope, if we somehow make it to a fair election in 2028.

A convicted felon’s personal attorney interviewed another convicted felon, and they all agreed that neither convicted felon did anything wrong.

News at 11.

Also, the opposite of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is “uniformity, inequity, and exclusion.” Is that what they expect the melting pot of the USA to embrace?

Is it what they expect?

Well, I’m pretty sure not only expect, but reading “uniformity, inequity, and exclusion” is a configuration of syllables that can make every right-wing tradwife pregnant, and feels to their alpha male husbands like watching from the closet in their Batman mask.

You’ve just justified another $100 million in salary to David Zaslov.

All the people talking wonders about the “warmth”, “tone”, and other supposedly desirable qualities are very mistaken. What they are fawning over is noise, feedback, muddiness, lack of range, lack of definition, and so on. Vinyl records are shit. They make sound by literally scratching something.

I moved to all-digital music-making and -listening in the 90s, and agree that a lot of the “analog” benefits are imagined or the result of misunderstandings how technology works.

But I think you’re missing the point. Don’t forget that noise, feedback, muddiness, lack of range, lack of definition are all legitimate effects often intentionally applied to make music sound a certain way.

A cassette is objectively lower quality by sampling rate, reproducibility, etc, but you agree that it affects the sound. At that point, I think you have to admit that a contrary personal preference for cassette or vinyl is valid. It’s not objectively “worse” because many people actually and validly find those “bugs” to be “features.”

It’s fine to like the digital revolution, but I’m just identifying you’re making a value judgement, and others can rightly value differently.

Considering that the DHS is regularly fabricating charges post hoc when their kidnapping squad needs it, there must have been no credible evidence of this claim. But apparently that’s still not enough to stop them from lying about it to the press.

Maybe I’m missing something, seems like an easy “paradox” to solve:

The legal regime recognizes the person as the same person, proven by the very premise of the question, that the older nobleman retains ownership over the funds. The wife should honor the promise because she made the promise with a person continuous with the younger nobleman in the relevant aspect (it is legal document). The fact that the older nobleman has different beliefs is irrelevant because the question already concedes primacy to the law, implicit in the law protecting the older gentleman’s right to dictate disposition of the funds. Someone enlighten me if I’m missing the point?

Now… if the younger nobleman disclaimed his old self and all prior inheritance (or had amnesia and lost all connection to his prior self), and built a new fortune somehow covered by the earlier promise, that would be a more interesting question. Then the person may not be continuous for ethical/duty purposes yet still continuous for legal purposes.

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Trump signalled that he and Putin had discussed land transfers and security guarantees for Ukraine, and had “largely agreed”.

“I think we’re pretty close to a deal,” he said, adding: “Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they’ll say ‘no’.”

Asked what he would advise Zelenskiy to do, Trump said: “Gotta make a deal.”

“Look, Russia is a very big power, and they’re not,” he added.

Yeah, Russia, the very big power, who takes three years and over a million casualties and still hasn’t completed a “special military operation” that totally isn’t even an invasion.

Trump’s brain is trapped in 1970, so for now I guess so are we.