Here mostly to find neat things. No affiliation with the House of Hohenzollern
28 followers 125 following 297 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Honestly, I think we as a society need to have a discussion about 1A freedoms and what it actually means to apply that frame to LLM output. The 1A itself assumes that speech will still be subject to social sanctions even if it is 1A protected. LLM's break that assumption, they cannot be shunned.
Primary every Democrat that supports this shit
RIP Yamada-san youtu.be/Bu533OKYHyc
Bork disqualified himself by his own actions.
'National unity' in practice means letting Republicans do crimes with impunity. So no, we can't have national unity. These people need to go to prison for their crimes
I enjoyed it but it was overall kind of out there. I think aliens are a step too far for Gundam The movie within a movie part was pretty great though
It's irrational. But for me the issue is: What's the better alternative?
Under his definition, both liberalism and socialism still have outgroups: immigrants, prisioners, underclass, etc. That effectively have lesser protections and more restrictions on freedoms. Thus they are essentially 'conservative' under his definition. That's probably an issue with the definition
of accepting Postdam until late on August 9th.
the elements of the military that refuse to accept defeat. I think the best that can be said for Japan's government here is that some wanted the war to end at any cost, some wanted the war to end but were unwilling to surrender, and some wanted to keep fighting. But there was no consensus in favor
of a discussion to end the war. At the end of the meeting, the ministers are tied 3-3 11. The full cabinet meets later that day multiple times, and there is no consensus 12. The Emperor decides to agree to Potsdam and the cabinet and war ministers accept this. But there is fear of a coup from
8. August 9th, PM Suzuki decides the war must end immediately and speaks to the Emperor at 8:00 AM. The Emperor agrees to accept Surrender on the basis of Potsdam. 9. August 9th 9:44AM. Nagasaki is bombed 10. Word of Nagasaki reaches the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War in the middle
a rejection. 5. August 6th, Hiroshima is bombed. 6. Members of the Cabinet wishing to end the war attempt to argue the Hiroshima bombing is a sufficient justification to accept surrender. The Army remains opposed 7. August 9th. 4AM. Japan learns USSR has declared war
3. July 26th, Postdam Declaration was issued. Factions in the Japanese government officials were divided about how to respond. 4 of 6 members of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War were opposed to accepting it 4. July 28th, PM Suzuki issues the mokusatsu statement, which US read as
I think in order to have a moral discussion of any value, it needs to be based on facts. So let's go through it. 1. Dontiz issued a German surrender on the 8th of May, 1945. This ended the War in Europe 2. Trinity test happened on July 16th. There was no operational bomb before this point
I have not even approached the moral argument here. I'm just asserting actual historical fact. I have no issue with the museums statement. It's just factual. The facts are that Japan was asked to surrender and refused. First bomb was dropped, surrender was still refused
Gonna take what the Japanese cabinet said at the time over what Americans said later. Japan had the opportunity to surrender and chose not to. That's just a fact.
They were absolutely not ready to surrender by August. The cabinet did not want to surrender even after the first bomb was dropped. They debated it and the decision was to keep fighting You can make whatever moral argument you want, but please don't make up facts
Every time I read a statement from Jassey, I wonder how he can possibly function, given that he has zero sense about how what he says sounds to people with a functioning brain. He must be completely surrounded by sycophants at all times
I can't fathom caring about whether someone comes in 1500th overall rather than 1490th because there are 10 trans girls playing on team sports in a state. If it's something like running and not a team sport, it makes even less sense to me
This response really threw me for a loop, because my understanding of the objection to trans kids participating in sports is rooted in this elite tier. That's certainly where the vast majority of the discourse seems focused.
But all this stuff underlies the entire fairness discussion. Competitive athletics at the high school level is already dominated by specialization and advanced training. Parents are spending hours a day and many thousands of dollars while kids are below high school level, all in preparation.
we have done with kids sports. I think the kids competitive athletics space is socially unhealthy and we should discourage this behavior, not enable it
I was listening to Marketplace on NPR last night, where Kai was interviewing a guy about how private equity was moving into the kid sports arena to 'professionalize' it. I was struck with how similar it sounded to how education and test prep are handled in East Asia. I can't believe this is what
I think Covid under a Clinton presidency would have been much better materially. But then I think of how the right would have reacted and the media coverage. I think the campaign would be a nightmare
Yes. Please
In the real world, results are never guaranteed. But it would be great if people tried and didn't just preemptively give up. What's your actual opinion? That he is super stable and steadfastly immune to pressure?
I think if international leaders were disciplined and constantly said straight up that Trump is a miserable failure and that his weakness was what allowed ISR to commit genocide in Gaza, and that he was Bibi's stooge, and reporters kept asking Trump about that....there would be a reaction yes
It's effective in the short term but enables the sickness long term. This tendency underlies the rise of the authoritarian right. I would hope the EU would understand this, but sadly they don't. Or they do not care
Good. I keep hoping that our allies will start loudly blasting him, over a sustained period of time. Long enough that this ridiculous lie that he is respected by them becomes untenable
A good example from this week is the UK governments response to the Online Safety Act. They haven't given up on it, but it sure looks like they feel the need to loudly defend it. So I would say they feel pressure over it, even though it's not the outcome I desire.
Generally, when people talk about political pressure, it's not given that it will have a particular outcome. It could be that the target walks something back, or it could be that they double down, or do something else. We tend to think they feel the pressure if they decide they need to respond
I mean, tariffs got delayed? He keeps making up lies about what he is doing because he fears blowback? I think that shows pressure can work. I think he can be pushed around but that does not mean he can always be defeated. He could be defeated more, or even permanently, if elites were more effective
Not at all my experience in the early aughts. We did evals but I can't say anyone took them very seriously. I don't recall any profs being actively hostile either
In some cases it has worked; he does get pushed around. TACO was basically all about that tendency. But because the elites in this country are mostly stupid spineless losers, they capitulate rather than fight back.
Trump is the easiest person on the planet to pressure. Just keep saying mean things about him constantly
He should just be arrested and jailed.
The analogy is not to a porn store or store selling alcohol. It's like requiring an entire shopping center to check the id of everyone who comes in, and maintain all records for audit purposes. It's a huge burden, and a massive data privacy risk for the public
Many, many sites with little to no objectionable content, have had onerous requirements thrust upon them. If any user generated content is allowed at all a site now needs to have an administrative framework in place to deal with this law this is devastating for hobbyist websites.
2020 would have been a nightmare though. I can't imagine it at all but I am certain it would have been really terrible
Along with Alito and Thomas. Arrest them along with Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow.
I find that loathsome. And therefore, I say your moral judgement is founded on sand. All that it does is provide you cover to be self-righteous. It has zero consideration for all the lives ruined. Lives you say it was right to allow to be ruined. For you only the past matters, not the future.
So I conclude 'genocide enabler' attack is a cover that you are employing to hide the immorality of your position, which is not merely that not acting at the time was acceptable, but that it was still the correct decision in retrospect, even given what has happened in the last 7 months.
5. Every time I make this argument, you avoided any attempt at refuting it. A simple 'genocide enabler' attack was all you could respond with. You also tried to change the subject. I think that is because with the situation in Gaza becoming much worse, you are damned by your own measure.
more people will starve to death in Africa than will in the Gaza. You refuse to acknowledge all of this too. 4. Given all this was knowable in November, my position is those who had power to keep this from getting worse were obligated to act to do so. It's a simple harm reduction argument.
devastating to your position. 3. Trump being worse for Gaza was predictable. Also predictable was that many other people would additionally suffer and die if Trump became president. Far more than would suffer under a Harris presidency. Facts have also born this out. USAID cuts alone ensure that
2. My response was, given the facts on the ground in November and the easily predictable consequences on the ground, if Trump became President, things would get worse, not better for Gaza. Events have born this out. you have not acknowledged this at all. That's likely because the facts are
Sorry, I assumed that you had the capacity to read and infer based on context. Clearly you lack that ability, so here is the full argument: 1. Throughout this entire conversation, you have repeated the same basic attack: 'Genocide Enabler' with no further context
There's the safety blanket yet again. It's not covering anything. I think it's well established at this point that your moral judgement is founded on sand.
Because it has nothing to do with anything real. What is real are all the people hurt by Trump. You don't seem to care about them at all. Including Gaza. In this entire conversation you have not acknowledged them at all. The only thing you have talked about are your own feelings. Interesting that.
I didn't vote for Harris in a primary. Nor would I ever vote for Harris in a primary. I said elsewhere I hated Harris. But I live in the real world, not a fantasy world, and I have to make choices based on real facts on the ground.
I think Netayahu and his cabinet should be hanged. Sadly, I don't have the power to make that happen. All I can do is vote. And all I can vote on are the options available at the time. And it every case, I approach that choice with the objective of making the world better, or at least not worse
only choice on offer at the time. That was the power that people had. And it was extremely, crystal clear what the consequences of that choice would be. Not choosing is also a choice, and the consequences for that were also clear. You cannot disclaim responsibility for power that you hold
You are responsible for the power you hold. Not for the power someone else holds. On election day, regardless of what came before, eligible voters are given a choice. Many of them are don't like the choice but the make it anyway. In November 2024 the choice was between Harris and Trump. That was the
The thing is, you seem not to care about it at all. All you seem to care about is that no one sees you as responsible for it, despite the fact that you bear some responsibility for it
You had power, and chose not to use it, and as a result, the world got worse. You bear the responsibility of the power you have.
We have much more mass suffering and death under Trump than we would have had under Harris. USAID cuts alone will kill more children than ISR will in Gaza. RFK Jr. is a loathsome eugenicist. ICE is a modern Gestapo. All of this was foreseeable. Not acting to stop it was evil
You had the power to help prevent mass suffering and death, and refused to use it. This is about your choices and actions, not anyone elses. You chose to make the world worse
It took like 1000 emails + calls to make Visa and Mastercard do this. If we do 10x that, it will have an effect
Welcome to the weekend! You made it sailor. Which censorious payment processor would you like to call first? Thanks to my moot @dieselbrain.bsky.social for the Stripe number, can confirm it works stop-paypros.neocities.org
The fault lies with the people who had power to prevent or improve the situation, and chose not to that or chose to make it worse instead. This does not seem hard to grasp. You chose to let it get worse, so yes, you bear the blame for it Odd that you call me a cultist when you deny obvious reality
Yeah, sorry. I reject all of this. None of this carries any weight in the context of November 2024
All of this is very roundabout to ignore your position of 'I had the power to make things better but chose to let them get worse instead' And then you ask to be praised for your moral stance!
Then the 20% would be the ones making decisions and governing.
In a vacuum, that might carry some weight. In the instant circumstances, it's laughable. Trump has been terrible on lots of things, but among the worst things is corruption. Like his corruption and corrupt effect breathtaking
If you want the luxury of actually opting out, I invite you to renounce your citizenship
You should have voted for Harris because the world is much worse under Trump than it would have been had Harris won. Even Gaza is worse off. This is dead simple argument to make. It is you who is inventing this philosophical "I opted out" doge to ignore that simple reality.
If you are eligible to vote, your are always participating, whether you vote or not. Not voting is still participating. Not voting is still exercising the power that you have. You cannot disclaim this, any more that a do-nothing aristocrat can disclaim being part of the aristocracy.
I'm so sorry. So sorry this country has come to this point.
Adult citizens have the right to vote in this country. The Constitution grants them political power to determine how they will be governed. This is a fact. Not exercising that power is a choice of how to use it. And you are morally culpable for the consequences of that choice.
And now that everything is much worse, and ISR and Bibi have a free hand to starve a million kids, you disclaim responsibility for bringing this situation about. Even though you very actively participated in bringing it about. This was entirely predictable. And still you insist on your virtue
No politician is every 'worthy' of your vote, because governance always requires hideous moral compromises. But we must make A choice, and some choices are better than others
Because the outcome of her not winning was immense horror. As was known at the time and as we see now. There was no room for my personal feelings about her character. To have power and do nothing with it is the very error you accuse Biden of doing. And you do the same, and for the same reasons
Voting is using political power to effect an outcome. It has parties and politicians and how you feel about them are not relevant. Only the predictable outcomes matter. Because this is about political power, not about self actualization. I hated Harris for her tenure as Cali AG, but I voted for her
This framing is stupid. Every person eligible to vote is granted a modicum of power. Using the power or choosing not to use it effects the outcome. So the question becomes: how did you use the power you were granted? It has nothing to do with anyone earning votes.
The law is dead though
Arrested and prosecuted for bribery is what I want to happen
I love that story
How is it a good thing in any sense? Why should payment processors be allowed to censor legal content?
It sounds like a privacy and censorship nightmare. The problems with private companies are legion, but giving all your data to the government right at the outset is almost the entire ball game. Then you will have the content controversies, like the worst public library meeting ever, forever
And in this sense, we are already in a revolution
I actually do think you could get 70% on a bare 'the current system is broken and needs to be replaced' proposal. What the actual replacement is would be another matter. Again though, the GOP is not bound by the constitution. The rest of us should not pretend like we are either
Say a national referendum on a new constitution passes narrowly, 53 -47 with 60% turnout. What effect so you suppose that would have? I think at minimum it would force a new political settlement with some rule changes
But you just said above that congress and the courts wont save us. So what is your practical plan to deal with a SCOTUS that will allow a GOP president to be a dictator but won't allow a dem president to govern? Because that is where we are, and 'we have to wait decades to fix it' is defeatist
And that there is some mystical force that will prevent a national referendum from having any effect. And that's simply not the case. At any rate we no longer have a working constitution at all. SCOTUS and the GOP have nullified it. We now exist in a free floating state of pure power politics
Countries create new constitutions and pass them semi-regularly. These things can and do happen without wars beforehand. I refuse to just accept being locked into a broken system where no change is possible. This could be done if people campaign for it. But you seem to think the system is magic
What matters is not legal formalism but democratic legitimacy and broad buy in. If you had a new constitution that passed in a national referendum buy like 70%, and elected officials comport with the new rules, that would be that
I don't think I have ever head the transition from the Articles to the Constitution characterized as a revolution. The constitution simply ignored the existing system and imposed a new one via a (convoluted) voting system. It was expressly not authorized by the Articles. We could do the same thing.
We can replace the old constitution the same way the old constitution replaced the articles of confederation. The old constitution is dead and we should honestly acknowledge and deal with that fact
I think we need a national popular referendum on a new Constitution.
I accidentally made an unsweetend one of those when I first started living on my own. That was a decade ago and I still remember my disappointment
Not enough people will pay for it, so not viable.
Keep in mind this entire scandal was given the OK by SCOTUS. Why? Because they profit from it. It's the oldest sort of corruption there is: Any insider network that buys friends in high places
Favorable disposition. More generally, if you are running a corruption ring, you have to make sure that the corruption keeps flowing to the people in the ring to maintain it. Crow is funding such a ring, and has been for a long time. Leonard Leo has been facilitating it for decades.
The answer is simply that if you are in a position of power you should not be allowed to accept gifts, with very limited exceptions. I have to take ethics training on this topic every year and I am not in a position of any sort of power. If I did as Thomas did, I would be fired / prosecuted
Between the immunity ruling, the deportation rulings, the rulings from 2 weeks ago, and the one yesterday allowing the firings to proceed, I think the majority is fully on board. As to confrontation between the branches, the court has sided with the Executive over Congress every time. They want this
At this point I don't distinguish between procedural rulings and 'merits'. It's blindingly obvious that the procedural rulings are meant to give cover to lawless activity.
I'm inclined to agree with you on this, but the deportations to El Salvador and South Sudan weigh heavily on me. I do feel like we have crossed a line. And SCOTUS has made legal resistance mostly meaningless
Yep sometimes a FK row needs to be separated from the parent row. And I don't want to hard delete it. That can be really problematic if there are enforced integrity constraints. And lots of FKs directly reference parent PKs. signed int keys really help here
All we are accomplishing with flipping the sign is unlinking an existing refence. That can be useful in a deployed app depending on the situation, like in production support scenarios. I would not design an app this way, but that does not mean it is not useful in existing apps