ReallyActuallyFrankenstein @ ReallyActuallyFrankenstein @lemmynsfw.com

Posts

6

Comments

1,946

Joined

2 yr. ago

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.

This can only mean one thing: Elon is preparing to individually sue each of us into buying a Cybertruck.

Elon Music doing that startup on a J1 student visa after dropping out and definitely not disclosing it on his citizenship application, heeeeeeyyyyyyyy there.

Note that the article's embedded tweet by a right-wing rag that it's a "federal" court is wrong. That implies it would go to the Supreme Court, which of course is in Trump's corner.

No, this is the 1st Appellate Division in NY state court, which is the first appellate level above the Supreme Court (in NY, the "Supreme Court" is the lowest general court level).

Per James, it's getting appealed to the highest New York state court, the NY Court of Appeals. Trump could still challenge in federal court due to the 8th Amendment argument, but this is not over by any means and may very well be reversed again at the Court of Appeals.

In a statement released after the ruling, James stated her office’s intention to appeal it.

“The First Department today affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud,” James said.

“The court upheld the injunctive relief we won, limiting Donald Trump and the Trump Organization officers’ ability to do business in New York. It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit.

“We will seek appeal to the Court of Appeals and continue to protect the rights and interests of New Yorkers.”

This is pretty much a Black Mirror episode or Ted Chiang short story.

I could imagine a plausible dystopian future in which "AI agents" are commonplace and so dating apps are basically one person's AI talking to another person's AI and that is the "getting to know you" phase.

And once the AIs respectively decide they are right for each other, then the people just follow along, because the AI agents are making all the decisions otherwise for them as well.

This was meant to be a snarky comment that some people prefer seeing the sausage. But actually, that's a reasonable benefit as well for romancing your local LLM, since many people would like the, er, benefits of a non-corporate-restricted model.

Yes, to be clear: I agree. I'm not going to vote against my interests in 2028 (including a non-vote, which was always against real workers' interests despite the spurious "left protest" commenter spam in 2024), assuming we get there. I do really hope that the democratic leaders get out of the way or at least start supporting candidates who live in 2025, and not 2012.

I have no love for Newsom and he's clearly going to be the Hillary Clinton of 2028 or die trying. But it's true that the only thing that works against fascists, short of physical resistance, is relentless, biting derision and mockery. So his social media manager is doing society a service here.

I'm worried, we're all worried, and that worry makes Trump stronger. Because worry + inaction = normalization, and normalization + time = radicalization . Mockery does something subtle to break this cycle: it's not just cathartic, it normalizes a contrary reality, namely that Trump and his lackey are clowns, and in doing so implicitly reassures us that our reality and expectations remain valid. That in turn slows down normalization. The other response - hopelessness (which I've reacted with plenty of, I admit) - speeds it up. Trump, an instinctive savant at exploiting people, knows it lessens his power and that's why it infuriates him.

So if we're not pouring into the streets, then mockery is one of the only ways to resist normalization and break that cycle.

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.

You may think the kid is a pupil and it's a contradiction he wasn't replaced by AI, but he's actually the school superintendent.

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.

Or more specifically, we are ashamed when we can't afford things we need. We are saturated by right-wing propaganda that says if you don't succeed, it's your fault. So, like abuse victims, we internalize the shame of what is done to us.

It's a message tailored so we don't question the rich, and as an added benefit to them, trains the poor to not seek government systemic solutions to the inequality that creates their poverty.

I've seen this sentiment expressed multiple times, but you explained it beautifully. Our parents got to be people. We're just resources.

Sorry, you need to tape the poop to a wall for it to be art.

A decade ago I would have thought this would turn off the "independents," those news-allergic rascals who make decisions on the future of our country and everyone in it based on how they feel election day after polling their Facebook feed. But I agree with you, knowing what I know now about fellow Americans.

God, every time I hear Steven Cheung open his mouth, I think of Baghdad Bob or a North Korean news broadcast. I know that's the point - he's just poisoning the well - but I don't get how anyone can listen to that response and think "Ok, that's a legitimate response from an adult."

Getting a little tired of the world being ruled by people whose psychological age never reached double digits.