Pagliacci

I thought it was pretty when it was novel, but it’s been around long enough now that it just kind of blends in. I think it’s still a nice clean design, but not really eye catching anymore.

I get why people do it, but man do I hate the glorification of Sherman when it comes to addressing Confederates southern conservatives.

He used the same tactics that he used against the Confederacy against the Native Americans, to vile ends.

https://www.history.com/news/shermans-war-on-native-americans?cmpid=FACEBOOK_FBPAGE__20181210&linkId=60909388

Why would this be treated any differently than googling things? I just googled the same prompt about hiding food that’s mentioned in the article and it gave me pretty much the same advice. One of the top links was an ED support forum where they were advising each other on how to hide their eating disorder.

These articles are just outrage bait at this point. There are some legitimate concerns about AI, but bashing your hand with a hammer and blaming the hammer shouldn’t be one of them.

I don’t think so, his “X” idea has been around for a long time, he really thinks it’s his next big idea. I’m sure people have raised all of these concerns with him, but I doubt he’s listening. Tesla, SpaceX, etc. are ideas that he bought, this one is his baby. I don’t think he’s open to ideas or criticisms on it.

He bought the company to bootstrap his idea of his “X” app which he envisions becoming something like WeChat for the world outside of China.

I think it’s a terrible idea that’s a solution in search of s problem. WeChat works in China because the government literally enforces it’s usage. The rest of the world isn’t interested in a one-stop-shop for anything and everything.

It’s the problem of trying to be everything for everyone. You end up with mediocre or bad solutions for many problems instead of great solutions for a couple of problems. It works when there’s no competition, see WeChat, but when there is competition that competition is going to beat you at their game because you’re too busy playing a dozen others.

Haven’t used my desktop in ages, has been completely replaced by my personal and work laptops.

I’ve had Pixels since the first one, this is news to me.

Edit: Just went looking for it, not installed. It’s in the play store but not sure how it could be unavoidable when it’s not pre-installed.

He’d probably have to put all of his eggs in the reincarnation basket and start doing some good deeds.

Or bad deeds, depending on your opinion of actors.

This line from Schindler’s List always stuck with me:

“Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”

The context is that at the end of the movie Schindler is distraught thinking of how many more he could have saved if he just did certain things differently, like selling a ring and using that money to hire another Jewish worker. One of the people he saved tells him the above line.

It’s stuck with me for two reasons, I think.

First, it’s an interesting perspective on individuality. Each person has their own unique perspective of the world. When that person dies, that perspective is gone forever. An entire universe dies with them, never to be seen again. I think that’s a powerful way to view the individual.

Second, it’s a reminder that we do what we can, and while it may be imperfect, it’s enough. You can’t save everyone, just live well and help those you can in the capacity that you can. If you save one of those people, you’ve saved the world.

The Exorcist got me pretty good

Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can’t I eat a person?!

The major question doctrine acts as a “get-out-of-text-free card” that conservative justices make “magically appear” whenever they see an executive branch policy that goes against their ideological “goals,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent in the 2022 case of West Virginia v. EPA.

Apparently legislating from the bench is fine for Conservatives as long as you make up your own judicial doctrine as justification.

I don’t know how we fix the problems we face. The court is seated by politicians, Congress is seated by grifters and ideologues, and the people are too defeated/controlled to make meaningful changes.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have dismissed the case because of the intervening North Carolina court action.

Was this the crux of their dissent, or did they disagree with the actual ruling in regards to the independent legislature theory? Having 3 justices endorse that theory would be alarming.

Happy this is settled for at least this iteration of the court. The idea that state legislatures can ignore their own state Constitution, that they themselves wrote, is absurd and paradoxical. Being bound by the state constitution isn’t giving or sharing power with the state courts, it’s a limitation placed on themselves by the state legislature.

I’m not sure what could be done. It’s an executive order, not a bill, and it’s scope is fairly limited. It doesn’t create any new powers, just uses what’s outlined in the HEROES Act to reduce the burden of student loans. Since it’s an executive order the next President could revoke it, but the cancelled amounts can’t be brought back so that would just wipe away the changes to how interest is handled.

This is just bizarre…what’s the goal here? Putin already declared their acts as treason, how can he let this go unpunished? Is the Russian state really so weak that they have to forgive literal treason just to maintain power? What did Prigozhin gain from this? What about Kadyrov’s movement towards Rostov, does he stand down as well? Was this all a weird performance?

Just…bizarre.

It’s pretty incredible how out of step Alito and Thomas seem to be even with the other conservative justices. Anytime there’s a 7-2 or 8-1 ruling you can almost guarantee they’ll be writing the dissent.

I’d take both boxes.

We’ve been given no information on the accuracy of the machine’s predictions. Therefore, we have to assume it has just as good of a chance of being wrong as being right. There’s essentially a 50/50 chance that box B has $1,000,000,000 regardless of my choice, so I would choose the option that at least guarantees the smaller prize while still giving me the same chance at the larger prize.

OP analyzing the Lemmy logo.