My understanding is he is a tankie. So a mix of left and right as commonly understood - the left associate with him because of the overlap, and the right see the opportunity to divide the left on the areas where they disagree. But apparently he puts on a good show to attract audiences of the size he has. Guess it might be helpful to have someone with many left views to counterweight all the Joe Rogan types that are solidly right.
That the highly competent woman is the first to be blamed, and not the highly and prominently incompetent Hegseth, is telling. Also a minor consolation to them having power for so much longer that they will have less skill supporting their agenda.
Wiles is the latest in a series of prominent female administration officials to leave or be fired ‒ including Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Press Secretary Katie Zacharia, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer.
I had heard that a majority of jobs are acquired through networking. Being open about your network seems healthier than hiding it. Especially if it’s a case of choosing one qualified candidate from a pool of qualified candidates and not hiring a bad fit just for nepotism’s sake, but even then seems better to tell people yourself and not let it be exclusively gossip behind your back.
It has repeated with often horrific results across many cultures. European with hunts, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouge (Cambodian genocide), etc. Seems to be a bug in the human source code.
The low-residue diet (to avoid poop stops) takes a lot of planning. I have zero desire to do that myself, but am kinda glad people I know who did that were open about what was involved. Seemed more like a public service announcement than a flex.
The campaigns get donations. Some donations are money, and other donations are time. Seems fine to me.
Presidents not labeled here, but you can look those up separately to figure out what you want: https://history.house.gov/Institution/Majority-Changes/Majority-Changes/
I have no interest in making third parties viable. I see the governance failures of parliamentary systems that fail to form majority governments and spend all their energy fighting each other instead of improving the lives of their citizens, and I don’t want that here.
What I hope for from RCV are 1)making the major parties more representative, by providing high-quality information on what single-issue parties are appealing to voters. Currently parties do polling and focus groups, but these are by nature small samples that can be misleading, and a full-voter sample would be hugely valuable in guiding party strategy in the way voters want. And 2)reduce negativity in campaigns, and hopefully bleeding over into less negativity in governance. The whole campaign ecosystem is intensely negative because it works for winning FPTP. Creating a structural incentive to have some positivity - making second choices count - has the potential to encourage bipartisan work (who wants to co-sponsor a bill with someone who media blitzed horrendous lies about you and your family?) and ultimately make government work better for the people.
I disagree on the improvement being slight. Having incentive to campaign cooperatively because second choices count could dramatically change political culture. And Australia has used ranked choice for a century, without becoming any hotbed of subversion.
Further, RCV has a foothold in the US Alaska (pending surviving the latest repeal initiative on yesterday’s state ballots), Maine, and many cities. It’s much more realistic to spread it than to start from scratch with something else.
It might be a claim he understands the investigative process well enough to gum it up and run cover for targets of Democrats.
Deflating the balloon is a way better scenario than a pop. Fingers crossed.
Humans, in aggregate, behave consistently when presented with structured prompts. The trick with new technology is to figure out what presentation of the information results in the desired behavior of checking for AI blind spots. An example with Flock is that they don’t present partial matches any differently than complete matches - in that case the improvement of describing partial matches as incomplete is obvious, but other triggers for human common reactions are more challenging to tease out. But it can be done!
I believe if regulators set up a system to encourage research and implementation of responsible data presentation - meaning outputs that make it easy for humans to have appropriate trust and add checking as needed - that would have more positive and lasting impacts than a ban.
Weirdly, the problem is more supplements claiming to be “all natural” and then illegally containing drugs regulated for prescription only: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mens-health/hidden-viagra-ingredients-performance-supplements-safety-guide-rcna181692
Which primary party ballot they had is only available for primaries in states that have partisan primaries (as opposed to “jungle primaries” where all candidates are on one ballot). Whether a person voted is public. How they voted is private.
It’s legally required to make public who voted. Similar reasoning to sweepstakes being required to publicly announce the name of the winning person, it makes it much more difficult to game the results.
I think just the size of the projects. My employer has had a team of ten-ish people working full time on porting a piece of our COBOL program (the full thing was deemed not possible to port to a single modern application, so it’s getting split up) for about a year now. I was peripherally involved in four rounds of increasingly integrated testing environments. Go live was yesterday. They rolled it back three hours in.
It’s hard for a company to invest multiple people’s salaries for many years on reworking software that currently mostly works.
Your link goes to the end of the Graeber piece, I had to scroll way up to find the start. But wow, what a start.
I would like this book to be an arrow aimed at the heart of our civilization. There is something very wrong with what we have made ourselves. We have become a civilization based on work—not even “productive work” but work as an end and meaning in itself. We have come to believe that men and women who do not work harder than they wish at jobs they do not particularly enjoy are bad people unworthy of love, care, or assistance from their communities. It is as if we have collectively acquiesced to our own enslavement. The main political reaction to our awareness that half the time we are engaged in utterly meaningless or even counterproductive activities—usually under the orders of a person we dislike—is to rankle with resentment over the fact there might be others out there who are not in the same trap. As a result, hatred, resentment, and suspicion have become the glue that holds society together. This is a disastrous state of affairs. I wish it to end.
Both. People who are promoted to management because they are good individual contributors are often lacking in management skills (they turn from something they are good at to something they are bad at), and people who crave and hard pursue management positions rarely have management skills (always bad).
Open weight models can be run by anyone with the hardware, and many models can run on residential hardware. Rich people sure think they are going to control it, but it’s not clear that’s going to be the outcome.
The listeners should have a right to know whose message they are hearing. It’s a civil issue - I think any laws should have fines and required communication fixes, not any criminal charges or jail time - but allowing fake grass roots movements that are actually collaborations between billionaires and grifters is harmful to civil society.