That's not really the point, is it? Why not make it *more* accessible? You do you, but know that you're likely to turn off some would-be readers.
That's not really the point, is it? Why not make it *more* accessible? You do you, but know that you're likely to turn off some would-be readers.
Sortition? Can't have a discussion when you use words that 99% of people don't understand.
Some rural hospitals are more important simply because other options are far away. It's not a cost/benefit thing.
This is a refusal to accept the reality of ego, the power of money and name recognition, the inevitability of decline and a longing for what was.
Isn't this just more AI build out?
What is the reason to blocking instead of mute?
Is the excitement because he's into Star Wars stuff? Or is it more than that?
Aren't the emergencies justifying all these tariffs BS? If so, shouldn't we expect those tasked with enforcement to not follow an illegal order?
The game Monopoly gets really bad when it's clear that one person was lucky enough to land on the good properties.
State of nature? Such legal bullshit. Should you have to get a judge to say you can sleep in your own bed because someone says you can't? We have been wrecked by the law.
I think @ltremmick.bsky.social is right. People vote for the candidates they like. If they don't like someone they stay home or vote for the other person. People make this way too complicated. HRC wasn't well liked by many for various reasons.
Is it really the right message when you've surrounded yourself with armed people? After a shooting?
The question was "what would you propose". Who knows if anything can get done by dysfunctional governments, so supporting hospitals may be an idea as moot as raising taxes.
Like I said, raise taxes on those that have wealth.
There are plenty of rich people who can be taxed in all states to help with budget difficulties. They've been getting away with contributing too little for years.
This is pretty heartless. Some rural hospitals aren't that important, but some are. Not everyone who lives in such areas voted for Trump. ->
Cool.
That said, we should have many more independent organizations making up government. There are better ways to organize things that could improve outcomes and prevent dictatorial tendencies.
"One of the most important decision-making bodies in the world" is quite a statement. This is part of what the group who makes the nominations want people to think, no? Do we really have great evidence that the world would be so much different if the interest rate were set 1% higher or 1% lower?
Is she required to extend this out so far? Could she order him to be released?
Sorry irony doesn't work well online.
Vote blue no matter who.
Imagine relying on semantics to analyze academic consensus.
"True" conservatives I know have pretty dismissive attitudes about the rest of us.
Isn't this the bill that subsidized Teslas and rooftop solar for rich people?
As long as the National Guard does what he says, he'll keep pushing it. People have to refuse.
Much of Trump's power is about control of money. If rich, or semi-rich people were willing to put their money where their mouth was WRT supporting those who resist, we'd be much better off. If the rich can't put up, they aren't serious about opposing Trump.
Maybe "relatable"? "Understandable"? Policy wonks only appeal to a relative few.
I don't think "candor" is the right word. People want a candidate who is understandable and relatable. This is the appeal of Mamdani. And Sanders, for that matter. People don't want to be confused with policy details (Warren/Clinton).
If the guys with the guns are with you, the courts don't much matter.
National Review. Hahaha.
A top-down government isn't good. The US and most other countries need to re-organize to create governments with limited power invested in individuals.
This happened before when people lost jobs and couldn't find decent new ones -- disability becomes and option. It would be interesting to know what happens if you disaggregate by state.
If you have guys with guns, the law really isn't all that. This is one reason why we should get rid of guys with guns.
How would this increase the cost of living?
Agree. You said it more clearly.
It's great to debate policy, but this often devolves into overly complex argument and, when it happens, implementation. The academic/pundit class needs to realize that they can often do more by simplifying existing law/government than by heaping on more. Universalism is good.
I agree that policy positions don't matter much. But I think strong universal programs matter a lot. It has been so long since we have had any policy implementation that seemed genuinely positive for regular people -- that people could recognize as the government helping them.
This seems like a take unearthed from years ago.
What are "kitchen table" issues? Are we having some national problem with legs falling off while people are eating dinner?
They got cash from the government, so whether there was dilution or not depends on valuation.
Who cares about fairness for crazy rich people? Just tax them. Didn't make it complicated.
We shouldn't normalize deploying the military at all.
We need to stop valorizing the military. We need to shrink our military and supporting organizations. We need to eliminate the national guard. It all leads to corruption, violence and death. Our nation is crumbling and we need to look forward, leaving our often sordid past behind.
Are we done with AI yet?
Too much power at the top. Kept legislature. Need to do something different.
Also, I believe the value of imports does not include tariffs.
It's a great system.
Doubt we have it in us. Hope to be proven wrong.
Overheard a guy in the airport defending Trump to someone on the phone: "He's always negotiating. The chaos is strength in negotiations." This guy didn't even look like a rube.
They serve monied interests first. Always.
Dems are Charlie Brown trying to kick a football.
He's gonna do what he's gonna do. Hard to say how law suits will stop him as people seem to accede to obvious nonsense like "national emergencies."
They may be accurate, but there's no reason to use them without a paper trail that gets counted simultaneously.
There are some difficult farm jobs that remain, but lots of "farmers" spend much time driving machines around.
Why not just tax rich people?
I bet people in cities are more fearful of getting harmed than ever before courtesy of government.
Bubblicious.
Hmm. I didn't see much other than confusing talk rationalizing the complications of the system -- a system that mostly exists to maintain the status quo. For example, the notion that the Fed traded dollars for bonds isn't magic, it's just a purchase to support _the market_, not people.
Defunct in what way?
Maybe the entire concept is garbage?
Build power?
Also, Trump seems to generally adhere to court rulings and he keeps losing. Wonder how long that will last, especially if he loses Congress. Has Congress ever been so worthless? (real question)
This would seem to depend on public compliance and participation. I wonder how long that can last.
What is services inflation for capital goods investment? Can you share a representative example?
Haven't the leading increases from service providers been in _financial_ services and _healthcare_? If so, how would tariffs impact these sectors?
Where is the money for purchases going to come from? Sure, the rich will buy, but inflation should be self-correcting in the absence of other strong influence, no?
But Mad Libs.
What is the other side?
Having to depend on such statistics to take care of people is a failure. Personally, I think we put way too much faith in interest rate changes to right the ship. We need stronger, consistent policies that individuals can rely on and limit excesses.
Because the inflation isn't demand driven? How are higher rates going to reverse tariffs? How would higher rates help average people in the country?
I don't think I disagree, but I'm curious what you think the bad impacts would be.
People have been grasping at reasons to justify buying stocks for a while now
But rule of law!
It will even tell you that if you ask. It's captivating because it seems human, but if you ask some reasonable questions, the veil falls away. There's no denial of this on the part of the model.
Just encourages China to work harder to make their own. Don't think for a second they can't do it.
Aggregates aren't that helpful when there's bifurcation or similar.
Being humble is a quality not often enough admired.
Yes, but I'd prefer someone whose judgement is admired by OTHERS than one who thinks that of themselves.
The fraction of people who get into politics (or want to climb the corporate ladder) who aren't largely motivated by self-interest, is, I would guess, small.
Well, saying that we don't understand human thought isn't crazy.
People who want to hold office are almost always unfit to do so.
All the useful cases I hear about are essentially "summarization", which is great, but also meh.
What are these productive use cases?
Starving to death is a pretty low bar for "bad". You seem satisfied with a government that barely works for regular people. Or maybe I'm just not understanding because you're not being clear.
Sounds like it would be great at p-hacking.
I never knew AI could make me laugh so hard. It's good for something after all.
I can't imagine it, but I'm glad it worked for you.
Mostly this says to me that we're really bad about indexing academic papers. Letting the LLM do it is cool, but it's hard to know what, if anything, is missed. Anecdotes make great stories, but this application seems of limited utility (to me).
I have written code for decades and don't see the value, but I admit I can be a curmudgeon.
I was hoping for something showing that vibe coding was something other than BS.
What does "synthesizing impossibly large amounts of data" mean?
Examples please.
How in the world does one measure such things?
With or without the "increased range", I would think the economic value of your work would be the same -- no change in GDP, right? But people need to document details and, generally speaking, they're lacking. Until there are details, I'm going to remain very skeptical.
Obviously disagree, but I think those that claim great utility have to provide real cases where it's likely to make a difference. Software, for example, comes up a lot and it's something I know a lot about and I find the claim almost laughable.
What is the ECONOMIC value?
Irony can be hard to discern online.
So, it's going to replace the New York Review of Books? Such economic impact.
"Round candy may get stuck in your throat." Is that less scary?