Correction: Melania Trump’s ghostwriter defends abortion rights in upcoming memoir.

Does anyone think Melania has been up late at night in Trump Tower working on her memoir? Or read every sentence that was written for her? Whatever her private views on abortion are, she’s probably learning about this passage along with the rest of us.

I don’t know if “coincidental” would be the right term. They were presumably both in response to the same act so there’s a good reason they happened at around the same time even if there wasn’t coordination.

While that’s often the punishment, this particular event was a repeat of a previous event that resulted in a two year prison sentence. At least that one particular judge is throwing the book at climate protesters for minor acts.

Aileen Getty is a philanthropist who inherited money and has nothing to do with the oil company. Her father and the rest of her family sold their stake when she was young. This is just a convenient conspiracy for oil companies to spread because people just fucking slurp it up without the minimum due diligence.

A license that requires source. And since then there have been many different licenses, all with the same requirement. Giving someone a binary for free and saying they’re allowed to edit the hex codes and redistribute it doesn’t mean it’s open source. A license to use and modify is necessary but not sufficient for something to be open source. You need to provide the source.

“Open source” is not a license, it’s a description. Things can be free with no license restrictions and still not be “open source”.

A freely available and unencumbered binary (e.g., the model weights) isn’t the same thing as open-source. The source is the data. You can’t rebuild the model without the data, nor can you verify that it wasn’t intentionally biased or crippled.

It’s a fine sample size. That’s a normal national poll. A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error (from random sampling) of 3%. There are other errors than random chance that could bias a poll, but random chance is what sampling size is generally managing.

There’s no reason to take this guy or his organization at face value when they make claims. It’s been hype and hopium for a decade now, fueled by TED Talks and wunderkind-loving media.

Cleaning up the garbage patch isn’t just a matter of collecting nicely floating big pieces of plastic. Doing that is good, but it’s not actually something that can ever get it to “clean”, it’s just something that helps slow the accumulation over time. You get the big stuff (relatively) easily, then it gets progressively harder, and eventually impossible.

Which is progress. It’s just not the lofty result they keep promising. If all it took was a big net and a relatively modest (by government standards) budget, this wouldn’t be a problem.

At least during this period of anger we won’t have to also deal with the gnawing realization that they’re 100% going to lose. Harris may still lose, and this could certainly help her along the way, but it’s not a certainty, which is kind of better?

I didn’t ask whether you thought they were diverse, I asked whether you thought they would ever be given the same consideration in the name of “diversity of thought”. We both know they won’t.

Diversity of thought is very important

So she’s going to appoint a Democratic Socialist? No? Someone from Sunrise then? No? A Palestinian-American Democrat? They couldn’t even get 2 minutes at the convention. How about a BLM activist? She marched for that cause, surely that’s some diversity she’d want to have represented. Not that either? Hm.

Maybe this isn’t about diversity of thought and instead about the doomed Democratic instinct to try to coopt the center-right, which according to the theory of centrism will make them win forever! Just not any of the times they’ve already tried it.

Metric is about measurements, not formatting. The date measurement is in days, months, and years for both ISO 8601 and what’s shown.

She’s literally in the thumbnail of this post. You didn’t even have to read the article, just the caption on the headlining picture. But thanks for telling us what you read on Wikipedia instead of reading the article you’re commenting on.

I know fuck all about French politics, but it seems strange that he doesn’t just appoint the candidate from the left. It sounds like it’s a fucked up non-functional situation, so he should just let them try to do the impossible and then fail. He’s probably worried that she might actually succeed and is holding out hope for some way to cobble together something as close as possible to the centrist coalition that shit the bed in the first place.

You’re just not addressing automation at all. We have no where close to a billion people specializing in tasks that can’t either currently or in the near-term future be either automated entirely or made so efficient the required workforce would be drastically reduced. You don’t need 4 billion people to maintain (and improve) our standard of living and we’re rapidly approaching the point where many jobs are better automated than done by people.

If you want people to be free to innovate or make art or explore, the best way to do that is to not have them working pointless jobs for half their waking hours.

Why do you think all that good stuff is due to more people rather than just technological advancement yielding faster technological advancement? The person tending to an ever growing landfill isn’t an essential component of modern life. The well-functioning landfill might be, but the person is just moving trash around. Replace them with a robot and the trash still gets moved around, will no reduction in art, freedom, or QoL.

Are you questioning whether Joseph Stiglitz is a secret communist? Because that’s the only genuine sentiment at play for your top level comment. If you instead wanted to call out some other poster and argue with them about communism, maybe you should have replied to that person?

Or maybe you should have read the article before you commented so you wouldn’t have to be trying to figure out a post hoc justification about the nonexistent context making your comment correct all along.

I think I don’t understand the context because you’re not responding in context, you’re just continuing an imaginary conversation you’ve had elsewhere because you saw some keywords.

This is not an article about communism or socialism or dictatorships or any of the other things you’re talking about.