Yeah. There would be a way to do it that I feel like might potentially be useful. The described method (doing clustering instead of just having a similarity threshold to group tabs together, vectorizing the entire tab title through a whole fucking network instead of just tokenizing it and calling two tabs similar if they have uncommon tokens that are within a certain similarity level) really sounds to me like people who have no real idea what they’re doing, just being “ML experts” all over the codebase and fucking things up, and probably walking away very proud of themselves while helping themselves to bunches and bunches of the Mozilla Foundation’s Google-money.

Like why should including a feature with “AI” in it get them VC money?

Spoken like someone who’s never interacted with Silicon Valley VCs… just imagine someone with tons of a money, a moderately competent business background, and very little understanding of even the basics of technology that you and I take for granted. And then make them stupid and greedy.

“AI? Yes please! Here’s some money, I’ve heard of Firefox so I know you’re good for it.” It’s not really any more complicated than that, I don’t think.

This is vital context. They didn’t disable his truck because he talked trash about it. He loves his Cybertruck. They disabled it because he’s black and dances around like a black person while he’s talking about it, and that means he’s not welcome at the party. If he was Tim Pool making a song about how much he loves his Cybertruck they’d have invited him to the next event to put it on stage.

Plenty of people have died in ICE custody since this started. If you hear from people who have visited and seen the conditions, it’s pretty clear why. The camps in Germany were the same: A lot of the deaths weren’t “on purpose” but just the natural outcome of conditions so harsh that they can’t sustain the basic functions that are necessary for life.

The camps were already running in 1939, probably some people had died “not on purpose” by then. Gerhard Kretschmar was just notable because he was the first one “on purpose.”

Going after disabled and mentally ill people was actually the first step for the Nazis, long before anyone was talking about death camps for particular ethnicities or sexual orientations. A disabled child, in July 1939, was arguably the first person deliberately killed in an organized and “legal” fashion during what would eventually mutate and grow, and become the holocaust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

That too. That’s the reason he’s now moving to homeless people. The thinking is that not many people will stand up for them. And you know what? He’s probably right.

It’s a lot more sinister than that.

He started with the immigrants, because there was a tenuous theory under which his personal police force was allowed to fuck them up and do whatever they want. Some little speedbumps aside, that worked out okay, no one stopped it. Now he’s talking about federalizing the police force in one particular place, and moving on to the next target, who are citizens, American people, and where there’s not even that vague theory that he’s got a right to be throwing them in detention and letting them die of the natural conditions there.

If no one stops that, then it moves on to the next group.

Back into the global game?

They collapsed from being a global superpower, to selling off their natural resources to enrich a couple of hundred of the worst people on the planet, and beating up their neighbors for oil money and mostly being ignored by most of the rest of the world unless there’s an Olympics or something. Putin didn’t cause all of that of course, but he had a huge amount to do with entrenching the systems of corruption that doomed any chance they would have had of recovering their superpower status as China or Europe did after major catastrophes happened to them.

And now, as of the last few years, they can’t even beat up their neighbors anymore. Sure, they still have a huge impact on the world stage in the form of destabilizing foreign democracies. You’re not wrong about that part. But that’s another example of my point: The whole shtick is just weakening everyone else. It won’t do anything at all to increase their military power, increase standards of living for either oligarchs or common people. It won’t help them win any of those regional wars. And it definitely won’t help them against any threat that comes from “outside the sphere” (bird flu or climate change or whatever). It’s just more Tanya Harding shit.

All the Putin jokes aside, I don’t think he’s doing it for geopolitical or treasonous reasons. I think it’s mainly just a by-product of his style of interaction and competition, which exists for very logical (“logical”) reasons and which he’s been able to make work pretty well for himself.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-weak-strongman

Snyder says it better than I can, but basically, he is weak and stupid, but he needs to be able to dominate people around him, and so his whole strategy is to attack and weaken, because that’s his only way to be able to compete effectively. He can usually dominate the weakened version of whatever he’s attacking, in a way he never could if it was at full strength. It’s why he shows such innate and passionate violence against anything or anyone that is organized, effective, or popular: Because someday, they might turn against him, and if they did they would definitely win, and so he has to Nancy Kerrigan them before they get a chance.

Again Snyder summarizes it better, but it is also the exact same model that Putin uses, and it’s had exactly the same effect on Russia (taking it from at least a regional powerhouse and functioning country that could accomplish significant things, to being a pariah state that barely functions in the first place even internally.) The strategy only works for as long as there is no one “outside the wall” who can come into the sphere of influence in un-weakened form, and if that ever happens, then the strongman crumbles instantly into impotent rubble. To ever let one of these people get control of your country or organization is basically just a nonstop rolling catastrophe that just gets worse and worse the longer they hold on to power.

Wobbly Sausage

IDK, the original article is sort of in this Schrödinger zone. On the one hand, yes, it’s harassing and you shouldn’t make dickhead jokes where the principle of the joke is basically “lol they’re women.” On the other hand, people can do funny things sometimes and be dickheads, it’s part of living in a free society. Definitely trying to crack down on it and tell them they can’t is just going to spark this universal human impulse to say “Okay I hit paydirt here let’s double down because now it’s really funny if it happens again.”

who said he was surrounded and attacked by 10 young assailants outside his car

X

I fully expect that at some point soon someone will release video showing Señor Balls creating or escalating a confrontation with two or three fifteen-year-olds, and then them beating the shit out of him in turn while he cowers.

Edit: I checked the photo. The fact that his shirt was off, but apparently undamaged, is I feel like another little clue supporting my random speculation here.

You gotta talk to the legislature, tell them that if someone gets pulled over the rule should be that they get to just tell the cops to go fuck themselves, and it’s okay because ACAB.

Start a movement, see if you can get a whole city where the city council’s on board with it. Try the experiment. Things aren’t as fixed as you think they are, a lot of it is changeable. (Well, on the local level at least, IDK if we wait a year you may get your fantasy coming true where the federal level is defining what law enforcement is, and no one who’s a “civilian” can exercise any control over it.)

What the fuck, he looks weird and awful even in the retouched version. He looks like Michael Scott wearing the women’s blazer. He looks like a lumpy old sofa that’s gotten shiny where people have rubbed it too much. He looks like he has no eyes and has stolen some other person’s teeth but they don’t quite fit in his mouth right. He just looks fuckin’ weird.

WHAT THE FUCK THAT ONE’S WORSE

They chose that long ago.

Practically everyone in Washington has, as a matter of fact. There’s a reason they listen to consultants about how to fool the people instead of listening to the people about what they want and then delivering it. But the modern GOP has taken it to a whole new level, yes.

Yeah, I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I just don’t know of it.

I also like that judge, AI voice aside I feel like he has a perfectly valid point. I also have a feeling he was the same judge I saw scorching a prosecutor one time for cutting a plea deal where it seemed like they could have prosecuted the guy and he was getting away with sexual assault with a pretty minimal sentence, and he was furious at the prosecutor for not doing their job. He couldn’t exactly just take over the prosecution’s job for them, I think he sent the lawyers away to work out a new plea deal instead, and they came back with one that was still pretty minimal but I think added in some jail time. He sort of yelled at the guy some more and then just approved the plea deal, but if that is the judge I’m thinking of, it seems like he cares a lot about the purpose of what he’s doing, which is a really good thing.

I linked to the full bodycam video, the officer clearly says that there were two reasons for the stop: Headlights and seat belt.

Your video has the AI voice claiming that failing to give a Miranda warning before opening the door is a “clear 4th amendment red flag.” That’s a load of steaming crap. Moving on to the actual issue at hand, the charge there was for unlawful carrying of a weapon. The judge’s decision is that by the officer randomly opening the door of the guy’s vehicle, and then seeing the weapon, that means it was an unlawful search (it was “in plain view” according to the officer / prosecutor, but the judge says it wasn’t in plain view until you opened the door). That has literally nothing at all to do with the initial stop being unconstitutional, or failure to ID or anything. It’s just to do with how the cop found the gun.

Do you have one where the person failed to ID on a traffic stop, and their lawyer was able to make the argument that the initial stop was improper, and so they didn’t have to, and it worked? I feel like those would be super-easy to find, if that argument ever worked, since it is very commonly what people say while they are refusing to ID, and so if their lawyers were able to make it work we would have examples of it working.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-an-unlawful-police-stop-23464

If the cop sees you (allegedly) not wearing your seat belt, and then pulls you over for a seat belt violation, that’s a legal stop. I sort of agree with you that the headlights thing is bullshit (and briefly looking at the internet I think you’re right). For all I know the officer realized that the headlights was bullshit, and randomly added in the seat belt thing. But, regardless, him saying the issue was the seat belt is going to hold up in court completely, and so refusing to ID based on that is going to get you in trouble. Your lawyer is going to have a hell of a time making that argument, especially if you then obstructed and resisted arrest.

IDK where this “if I don’t agree, then I need to physically resist the cops, because it’ll be okay” thinking came from, but that’s not how it works legally. That’s part of why I am taking time to disagree with this, because people do get busted for crimes because of listening to what the internet told them.

And to answer yoir question, if you find footage where the initial stop was deemed unconstitutional, but the subsequent conviction fir failing to ID stands, I will accept that I am wrong.

What was a stop where the initial stop was even deemed unconstitutional? If I knew that, then I might be able to answer you. Except for some landmark cases, I don’t really know of it happening. I feel like that doesn’t happen very often. I feel like people getting charged for failing to ID is very common (including where they are trying to argue on the side of the road that the stop is improper in some way, and that’s why they are failing to ID and it’s okay.) That’s sort of my point.

You’re defining this as an illegal stop. It was not, in the legal terminology, an illegal stop. That’s part of where your confusion is coming in, I think.

I’m happy to find you one of these bodycam YouTube videos of someone failing to ID and getting their window busted out, and then look up the records and see if they actually got convicted of the failure to ID (or obstruction or whatever the statute is where they are). It may take me until later today. Would that influence you, if I found that?

He didnt do anything wrong - he was entirely within his rights to ask for a supervisor.

Absolutely (although they’re not obligated to fulfill the request… a lot of departments will, partly because when the stop is getting complicated they may want a supervisor to show up there anyway.) But anyway, that doesn’t absolve him of the requirement to provide an ID. He was arrested for failing to provide the ID, not for asking for a supervisor. Asking for the supervisor was a-OK, and if he’d done that while handing over his ID, he would have been fine.

Because if I fucking recall, George Floyd was not fighting back.

Yeah, and that’s why the cop is in prison right now alongside everyone who was with him that day. That was my point.

Pre-2014, charges for the cops were very rare even when they straight-up just shot somebody for more or less no reason. After that, it was intermittent, until 2020 was the inflection point where charges became practically universal, and also, those big walls of names of people who hadn’t done a damn thing who the cops had killed started drying up, because stuff had actually changed.

There’s a lot that still needs to change, a lot of bad things baked into the system still. But of course some dickheads can only hold one fairly simple type of world model in their head at one time, and so whenever any type of police interaction goes sideways in any manner, even one like this where it is objectively about 90% the guy in the driver’s seat who causes the whole issue in the first place, they start screaming BLACK LIVES MATTER, BLACK LIVES MATTER like that’s going to help everything get better.

This guy isn’t solving police brutality. He is helping to justify it, by diluting the examples of people who actually didn’t do anything, and providing a good example for people who want to say Breonna Taylor deserved it or whatever. Stop making him out as making some bold anti-racist stand because of what some other people did, successfully.