Alue42

Of course, this all depends on her definition of “inappropriate”. Because I can guarantee her definition does not match mine.

For real, the answer is already obvious

You pulled out the main point here - the idea of him, particularly the early idea of him. Back before he started speaking publicly, and I’m not even taking about the past 5-10 years when he’s been vocal on Twitter, being political, or spreading his personal beliefs (pro-natalism, anti-trans, etc)

I mean the early early days post-paypal but when he just got involved with SpaceX and Tesla and he hadn’t been paraded around the interview circuit yet. No one really knew anything about him, but because he had used his money and bullied his way into being named founder of companies, when people heard of him through these and looked him up, they assumed he was this brilliant man who must have founded these groundbreaking companies and invented incredible things. He was just going around doing his thing and these companies kept doing things that seemed great and people could create any story in their head. They were fanboy-ing about an idea they had created for themselves, about an image that has been curated and created. Investments came in, his stock went up, all he had to do was keep quiet and it would have stayed the same.

But he didn’t - he started doing interviews, during which he couldn’t answer simple questions that somebody how claimed to design the rocket should be able to answer. He got on Twitter and started lashing out at people. He started claiming he had amazing ideas for designs for projects that would save all sorts of things and became furious when the flaws were pointed out (eg, the soccer team stuck in the cave and the mini submarine). Then he went all in and letting the world see all of him.

A lot of us that liked the idea of Tesla (an EV for a relatively lower cost so everyone could get it, but still look super sleek, and then have tons of upgrades for the ones that could afford it) actually looked into it when we could finally see it and realized it was just junk-it was made with the cheapest parts in the cheapest way possible with an unbelievable number of flaws, there was no way someone brilliant oversaw the production of these. With SpaceX we were already horrified at the idea of putting something as important as a service to our country and people into the hands of a single CEO that could decide to simply change his mind and decide to cancel the launch of a resupply mission. Sure, even in the 60s there were contractors working for NASA, but it was contractors that NASA hired to work on a NASA led project, this is not a project we should be outsourcing.

I think too many people stuck with him beyond that though and were in a sunk-cost fallacy thinking that they’ve put so much time into being a fan and singing his praises that they better stick with it. I feel like they have to claim it was his charisma because what else could it have been? When really it was just their idea of him.

I am not a doctor, let alone a NICU doctor or OB, but I’ve been wondering this whole time, how much fetal development is based on the mother’s movement throughout the day and gravity’s impact on the fetus? Especially that early in development. This whole situation has been so awful to hear about.

Before you get too excited, this was an interview with OAN, and that she thinks people should be paying more attention to OAN

If you already exist in the venn diagram that enjoys this post, I’m pretty sure this is what the Internet is for

It’s not that they “do better”. As the article is saying, the AI are parrots that are combining information in different ways, and using “threatening” language in the prompt leads it to combine information in a different way than if using a non-threatening prompt. Just because you receive a different response doesn’t make it better. If 10 people were asked to retrieve information from an AI by coming up with prompt, and 9 of them obtained basically the same information because they had a neutral prompt but 1 person threatened the AI and got something different, that doesn’t make his info necessarily better. Sergey’s definition is that he’s getting the unique response, but if it’s inaccurate or incorrect, is it better?

You are incorrect on each of those. Vietnam was approved by Congress with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964). Iraq was approved with the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (2002). Afghanistan was approved by the Congress Joint Resolution (2001).

Congressional approval is required for acts of war. I know the Republicans have Congress, but are they willing to go that far??

The wealthy overlords require a multitude of cheap labor to retain their wealth. That’s why they are so concerned about falling birth rates - listen to any of them talk about it, it has nothing to do with concern for the planet like any of the rest of us (less demand on resources that we are already depleting, etc), they are concerned about maintaining the current rates of production and labor if the next generations are smaller and smaller. Sure, Vance is talking about it from a “family values” perspective, because that’s a cloak he thinks his base will listen to, but listen to Musk talk about it, or any of the “pro-natalist” movement.

I’m making an educated guess that the 40,000 number is a complete exaggeration. That number is coming from Trump and Musk, not an actual spreadsheet or database. Look at by how much he exaggerated the square footage of his penthouse in Trump Tower, or the size of his crowd at his inauguration.

But it can dictate how federal agencies refer to geographic regions.

A private company or private citizen can do as it sees fits.

This year in particular, conservatives are not just a boomer thing. There was a surprising amount of young male voters for Trump this year, mostly led in by the podcasters/commentators favored by that demographic (Joe Rogan, Andrew Tate, ya know, assholes). So it’s no surprise Trump changed his tune on the tiktok ban because he now wants to make sure these people (and people taking about these people) can still share their ridiculous thoughts and therefore become a hivemind and then all support him. Initially Trump wanted to ban tiktok, and it had nothing to do with user security or Chinese data mining, though that’s what the people around him made it into - it was because tiktok was how word was spread to embarrass him at his rallies.

All this to say - age has nothing to do with conservatism. Even back when I was in high school and college, there were always those asshole kids that cared way too much about their parents’ wealth and how it was taxed and had the views of an old white man.

Didn’t this also happen on Reddit when people were posting the alternatives? Links/posts got removed, the subreddit about alternatives got shut down

I am fully aware of the terrible things that have happened with ivermectin, the fraudulent clinical trials, the plagiarized data and papers, etc. The papers you linked to used patients that had already died, already been hospitalized, etc as data points, and various other forms of fraud and bad ethics. Does that negate the study that showed that pathway in which that medication is actually supposed to work if people had actually read it properly?

Edit to add: the paper I’m referring to didn’t claim ivermectin cured Covid. It claims ivermectin treated the already existing parasites, thus giving the immune system a better chance at fighting Covid. Whereas the papers being retracted fraudulently claimed a link between ivermectin and Covid using false data.

In the beginning of Covid, a doctor in very rural India started treating Covid patients with ivermectin and they got better. So the doctor wrote a paper about it, and this paper was touted as proof that ivermectin was the cure for Covid, and nowadays everything.

Because schools don’t stress science literacy, what people didn’t notice in the paper was that WHY ivermectin helped these patients with their Covid infections is because they ALSO had multiple parasites because they were living in a very rural area and rarely sought medical help, and therefore their immune system was already overburdened dealing with the parasites. By treating the parasites with ivermectin, their immune systems were able to focus on Covid and actually fight through it. This was all explained in the paper, people just didn’t read past the title, clearly.

Ivermectin is prescribed for humans - specifically in the cases of parasites. We need to get back to teaching science literacy and critical thinking in schools.

For such a major claim by the accused and his lawyer, you’d think they would have an assessment by a psychiatrist or psychologist to diagnose Dissociative Identity Disorder and therefore would be noted in the article. Otherwise it would seem like he’s just using the commonly misused term as an excuse. But hey, I’m not a lawyer that leaves places open for the other side to poke holes, what do I know?

Exactly what ArchRecord said. The main things for federal are Medicare, Social Security, and some disability (other disability is state). Other than that, there are so many federal programs that are such small percentages. Why do you think Congress takes over a year to approve the budget every year? NPR and PBS combined cost less than $7 per taxpayer per year, whereas military spending costs on average over $5000 per taxpayer per year (depending on income, and spread out over each paycheck). National forests cost the average tax payer $28 per year.

Do you know how many programs there are in the federal system? And then also in each individual state system? That paystub would be impossible, and as ArchRecord pointed out, out, it would be listed as 0.0000x% $0.000x for each stub, not yearly. But you can look up the federal budget and state budget and see what each of these programs cost and what they are for each tax bracket.

Your paystub (in the US) should state how exactly much is going to Medicare, unemployment, social security, disability, and general state and federal income for various programs (highway repair, workforce development, etc depending how your state uses income tax). If this is not on each of your paystubs, speak to your payroll department.

I find this to be a breakdown of training, because the training was pretty clear years ago when I had clearance with the navy that we were never to use apps like this that could disclose location, not just while on-duty or on base, but at any time that our location could be given away. We were specifically not allowed to have Fitbits or other smart watches (Fitbit was the big one at the time) that could share location and any apps that wanted to know our location (yes, on our personal phones) needed to be cleared by IT because we were people that had been granted clearance and therefore could not give away critical location information.

The big scandal that got a lot of people into trouble was Pokemon Go, because not only did it use location, but I guess it used camera too? I didn’t know, I didn’t play it, but using cameras on base was a HUGE no-no, so using an app that shared location AND picture during your lunch break broke the brains of the COs.

It seems so weird to me that this is something that is so widespread right now. I didn’t work for the navy anymore and haven’t in a while, but I still follow the basic safety protocols about not sharing sensitive information.