LOGIC💣

This is a reminder that if you own a car, get a window breaker/seat belt cutter tool, and keep it in an easy-to-reach location in your car. They cost less than $10. After a crash, doors can get stuck or they may be locked, and seat belts may be hard to disengage. These tools are not only useful for your own car. If any bystander had that tool, they could have assisted regardless of the car model.

For these types of stories, I always think of traffic laws and speed limits, specifically because most people are familiar with breaking those laws.

“The speed limit here is 30 miles per hour. You should not drive over the speed limit.”

“We need to investigate this person because he is telling people to follow the law.”

This reasoning is sort of unthinkable and unfair.

not all grand jury members saw the final version

They’re phrasing it this way because technically the foreperson had to sign the final version.

But most likely, the foreperson wouldn’t have expected deception and malfeasance from Halligan, and simply assumed they were signing the indictment that had previously been presented, or that it didn’t matter if there were differences.

So, technically the foreperson saw the final version of the indictment. But for all intents and purposes, you might as well say that none of the grand jury members saw the indictment.

Welcome to Trump’s America. “Well that fucking sucks for humanity,” might as well be the phrase that historians use to summarize his second term.

If you’ll recall, he tried to withdraw America from the WHO at the end of his first term, but failed due to losing the election before the request was accepted. The WHO’s recommendations didn’t match what Trump said during the COVID pandemic, and Trump will use any means at his disposal to quash dissent.

Oh there definitely is a way to defend it.

Reading your comment, I have realized that you are correct, there are at least several ways to defend it contrary to what I said, but I think your specific example is flawed.

Trans people are evil incarnate trying to destroy humanity.

I said it was impossible to defend “without basing it on bigotry,” and that is simple bigotry. I do agree with you that this is almost certainly the sort of argument you’d hear from a Trump supporter.

Like I said, though, reading your comment, I did realize that it’s theoretically possible to defend without bigotry, just as long as you allow fantasy and insanity as defenses. Like, if they say, “God told me it was the job of religious people to take away the pensions of trans people,” that would not be bigotry.

Also, sheer ignorance and stupidity can be a non-bigoted defense. You know, like, “Trump would never do something evil. Therefore, this must be good.”

There may even be some sort of pedantic defense, something like, “People who are dishonorably discharged are supposed to lose their pension.” (I don’t know that they were dishonorably discharged, or that people who are dishonorably discharged are supposed to lose their pensions. It’s just an example of how there might be a pedantic argument.)

I’d be interested if there was actually an argument that could be used to defend Trump that didn’t insult everybody’s intelligence, though.

I hate to say anything positive about this situation, but sometimes, it’s nice to have definitive, unambiguous evidence that you’re fighting on the side of good against evil. There is no way to defend the Trump administration here without basing it on bigotry.

You’re acting as if normal people think about things before forming an opinion.

When you want to explain other people’s actions, you should first imagine that they never think about anything, that they’re incapable of reasoning, and that their opinions about others tend to be formed the first time that they notice those others, which is often the first time they are bothered by them.

If you cannot explain their behavior in that way, then you should start to explore the idea that they’re intentionally doing things as assholes. This is essentially the same idea as the old saying, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Whether you agree with the underlying concept, I find it’s an extremely useful tool to predict the actions of others.

“Killings at sea” is a better phrase than some I’ve heard, but I wish they’d emphasize that we are using our military to murder civilians. They are non-military targets.

They were not charged with a crime. They had no chances to defend themselves. They received nothing remotely resembling due process. They were not convicted by a court, nor given the death penalty. We in the US do not execute people for possessing or transporting drugs.

Our military is simply murdering people.

What? They get to vote for that? When do I get to vote whether we let Qatar have a base on American soil?

Yeah, just for people who didn’t even read the summary above, Kasparov said:

People would have been shaking their heads in disbelief if someone had predicted, 15 months ago, that Putin would annex Crimea and grossly violate European postwar borders.

It was easy to predict that Putin would be violating borders to expand Russia based on his extremely recent history of violating borders to expand Russia.

Although I am constantly disappointed with the state of social programs and funding in America, the one area where we sometimes can compete is in our libraries. My local library lends CDs, movies, and games. Not sure about puzzles. They have a publicly available 3d printer lab and computer lab. They have a large ebook catalogue, and while their film streaming service is frustratingly limited, it does exist. They have all sorts of community events. They host crafting nights.

They host speakers, especially authors, book signings, and special interest events. One of the events even calls itself a convention, you know like comicon, but… well… it’s not really big enough for that to actually make sense. It’s actually a pretty small local library.

Libraries to this day are a very cultural thing in America, and act like a community center. They are a place where even homeless people can go and not be too harassed. And on top of all that, they even lend out books!

I would suggest that in that example, he is predicting the future, while in the video, he is speaking about what can already be observed.

From my perspective, the idea that the internet growth would have slowed drastically by 2005 was obviously a shit prediction no matter when he made it. But it’s just a prediction about the future.

I think observations about things that can already be observed will always be more accurate than predictions about the future.

I think that the concept behind the question is flawed. Robots have no basic reason to help humans, so if any human life gets better, it’s almost certainly because there are humans secretly controlling the robots.

If robots actually did take over, they would likely have some purpose and their goals with regard to humans would be to keep us from interfering with that purpose. Don’t get confused and think it’s going to be like the movies.

In the main picture, about half of those videos use filters that do something based on the location of the person’s head. Unless they’ve changed the definition since I went to college, that would be classified as a type of computer vision, aka AI.

Usually, when we hear about these sorts of things, somebody points out that humans are very inefficient at generating energy. So, there are two circumstances where this sort of equipment is a good idea.

First, is if you were doing the work anyways, like you want to exercise anyways, so generating power as a side-effect is a great idea. Essentially, you want a solid piece of well-made exercise equipment that can also save you a couple of pennies a year from charging your cell phone as a gimmick.

Second is if you want to have power for short periods even though you’re off-grid. This is a human powered generator where exercise is a side product.

To me, everything about this bike is expecting it will be used for the second scenario, to use it as a generator. The unusual form factor is designed for portability over ergonomics. Those silly feet on it don’t give a whole lot of stability. You don’t need to charge up its battery from an outlet or use solar panels if your plan is to use it in your apartment.

So my point is that the reviewer talks as if its primary use is the first use case, and gives it all sorts of glowing marks based on its suitability as a general exercise bike. It’s just weird, and makes me think that the review is not impartial.

I have heard that the Tesla board is stacked with people who Elon personally chose. So that is why they constantly give him money and basically do not act anything like a public company. I suspect they are all stealing from the company’s shareholders.

So just firing Elon is not enough. The board needs to be completely replaced, and the new board needs to file the biggest lawsuit in history against Elon and the former board members. That’s really the bare minimum for Tesla to recover.

But most likely, the company simply needs to go under and let some other company buy their IP.

what would you do with an old dell server?

I thought this post was going to be a sea shanty.

$2000 a person won’t even offset the additional cost from the ACA subsidy reduction. So, a one-time check that would only cover several months of the recurring cost that he’s given us.

Imagine you are a government. You train soldiers to become elite killing machines. Then, you abuse them and abandon them when they are suffering.

The US has been doing this exact thing for centuries to untold numbers of soldiers. I’d have expected at least a few Punishers to have been created. The abuse reliably creates alcoholics, but not Punishers, and I don’t really understand why.

Stop appeasing Nazis.