The post notably included the statement:
that’s not the kind of thing that should happen without the community agreeing to it
With no voices in support in the original post and currently the only two voices in support here being the mods themselves.
If promising some more progressive policy was a clear winner, why wouldn’t they do it? The answer I generally see implied or stated is that the dem establishment doesn’t want that policy, but that isn’t really an adequate explanation, because politicians are perfectly familiar with dishonesty. If supporting some progressive policy they didn’t like would win them power, they’d just promise it and then just not do that thing upon getting elected.
Because their personal motivations are not “maximize the chances for a Democratic win”, but preserve the power of themselves and their allies with money and influence. If these policies become a centerpiece of the election and broadly popularized, it becomes dangerous to ignore it and advances the saliency regardless of the outcome, pushing it closer to someone actually doing it. A campaign that says “the rich are abusing workers to fill their pockets and the government should tax their wealth until there are no billionaires and provide benefits to the workers” is dangerous to the rich people, even if its initially proposed by someone with no intention of following through.
The people you want to blame aren’t here in a politics community. Maybe a few posters here did a protest vote, probably in a safe state where it didn’t matter, but most people here voted. The people who didn’t vote (in numbers meaningful to winning) weren’t sitting down to think about what the world would be like in each outcome and then saying “eh, it’s fine either way”, they were marginal voters who just didn’t really think it was important because politicians either don’t care about them or don’t follow through on promises. They’re just going to check out when you call them or the other politician names, because it’s a tiring endeavor that they don’t care about. You definitely have people in your life that say “they’re not political” and check out as soon as politics is brought up. You’re never going to reach those voters by expressing your disdain in a forum for politically engaged people, the only way to get to them is to actually motivate them to vote en masse with legit campaigns to inspire them that their lives will get better if they take this action.
You do realize people can log in to websites from anywhere in the world, right? You see, there’s this series of tubes…
I truly appreciate the random non-sequitur comment about my instance tacked on to the end without explanation. It really completes the man yelling on the sidewalk vibe.
It is not the length that makes your posts tedious, it’s the weird Russia fanboyism.
How tedious.
Trump doing things to women whether they like it or not is kind of his whole deal.
I legit had to check whether this was The Onion. This is such an absurd thing to announce it seems like a parody of their actions.
It’s certainly very feasible. They just would be very unlikely to be commenting on or printing this story if that was the whole story.
There’s a low chance that this is a story about actual shortages that would indicate a weakness in Israel’s missile defenses and very high chance this is about the weapons industry trying to milk more money from the US and Israeli governments.
Israel arrested some journalists for merely reporting on missile strikes. I have a hard time believing an Israeli weapons exec is dishing with a foreign paper on their weakness or the Jerusalem Post would get approval from the censors to write about it, even if the Financial Times had already done so.
Call them antisemitic like they did with the antiwar protests. And they’ll have all the centrist press reinforcing it so they’ll never need to consider whether there’s any deeper issue they should be thinking about.
If you (or anyone else)
Voters are a spectrum. Some number of people in OhStepYellingAtMe’s rough demographic either started out less engaged or have a more visceral reaction and won’t vote. A reliable Democratic vote being demotivated means an unreliable vote may already be lost. Not threatening to withhold your individual vote doesn’t mean comments like this aren’t a warning sign.
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.
How many times do the Democrats need to reach across the aisle with a “show of good faith” and have it thrown back in their faces for you to realize this is fucking stupid? It’s not like someone only just now proposed and enacted “shows of good faith” to an increasingly radicalizing Republican party. That’s been standard operating procedure for decades.
And they don’t give two shits if you elevate the RINOs. They already don’t believe they’re representing conservatism.
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?
Ah, the nostalgia of early net flame wars. Those were the days.