starkd

How did everyone forget how to be funny? It's like there's a formula that's been patented and hidden away so no one else can find it.

Or maybe he just realized that politics is just one big club and he ain't in it. And neither are the people.

Exactly, AI-generated text reads so smoothly, that the same short-circuit shifts my attention away from deep focus and onto scanning of the text, looking ahead to get the gist of it. Forcing myself to read the text fully feels almost painful. It's like reading a terms-of-service or any boilerplate document.

So now the Library of Congress has to manage all these submissions whenever someone scans something? How do you even go about enforcing such a thing?

How is Anna's Archive getting around the copyright violations of hosting all these books for access to all? I suspect it won't be long before they get sued and are forced to shut down. I spent some time reading the web site, and it doesn't look to be a well thought out project. Even the way it is organized leaved much to be desired. There's much more to library science and the organization of a vast collection of books than meets the eye.

Good to see someone making this point. I'm confused by the panic, because they are making it out like AI companies are destroying every copy of the book. They only need one, and they destroy it after scanning it only because they don't want to store them all. And storing or archiving all these books is not a trivial task.

>> According to the official settlement website, each person who qualifies and files a claim will get around $7.70.

Woohoo! I can now retire!

That would explain my Radeon Graphics card I never managed to get working properly. It arbitrarily froze. I was told that it did that for Linux and that it was guaranteed to work on Windows. But when I tried it on Windows, it did the exact same thing. They were unresponsive.

The state is not the only means by which a society conducts charity. It needs to encourage charitable giving through various avenues.

Exactly. Scientology is not a religion. Its barely a business dressed as a religion. The standard for tax exemption should be charitable non-profit.

They did reference satellite data. However, I do not know to what extent satellite data can show turbulence. The article implied a total cause, but I suspect its a bit more complex. Not sure how you would tell if its more common. I remember people complaining about turbulence for as long as I can remember. Maybe people's expectations about flight safety are just higher now, because planes offer a better experience.

Corporate marketing departments have been pretty adept at promoting their products on the backs of this science. They are far from unintelligent. Populists, for all their deficiencies, are fairly adept at eventually detecting marketing ploys and gimmicks.

Plus the solutions are narrow in scope. For instance, we are led to believe that it will be solved if only we all buy electric cars. It might help for certain areas, but it is far from a complete solution. It comes off as a corporate grift.

This kind of framing also keeps us from imaginative solutions, because only one solution is implied to the exclusion of all others. Hence, the suspicion is that it is merely another political agenda. I think its probably why nuclear energy - which is a clear solution with the least disruption to our lives - is less prioritized. It also allows certain corporate interests to make even more profit off their preferred solution.

Perhaps that 20-25% portion that you disagree with them on is actually a lot larger than you think. These differences of opinion are not exactly minor. They are fundamental to the other 75-80%!

Hence, the requirements they have a DEI office in order to get funding.

Congresses set budgets. Presidents have little to do with it. The last time the budget came into balance was in the late '90s (Dem president, Republican congress). Due to gridlock and some real spending restraints that were put in place.

It's only a Republican issue, because the only time they can make it an issue is when they have control of the Congress. You basically just admitted that Democrats don't care about the debt. You think it can just keep going up forever? You don't think eventually this thing is going to pop? The sooner we deal with it, the lesser the repercussions.

Maybe because the congress is the place the budget gets written? The president has little to do with it. Democrat congresses tend to initiate larger spending packages.

Regardless, that still doesn't address the debt problem.

You must be young. Debt limit debate has been going on longer than that.

Strange how I suspected I was reading something from ChatGPT before I got to your last sentence. I think maybe we're already starting to rely on ChatGPT as an authority way too soon.

Maybe because that's the only way we end up talking about it? Would you prefer they keep the Gephardt Rule and keep lifting it and go on to start planning another massive infrastructure package?

People are sick of the finger pointing. No one cares. Something has to be done about the debt or its going to end up biting us even harder than it already is.

No one cares about any of that political posturing. We can argue back and forth about who is going to get the blame, but eventually its got to be addressed or its going to bite us even harder than it already is.

Like it or not, the debt limit is the only time where we end up talking about it. As soon as its over, they are back to planning another infrastructure spending package. I'm still waiting to see what we got from the one in 2008 that was supposed to change everything.

He doesn't have the power to do that. If he does and gets away with it, don't complain when that power is abused by other presidents in ways you disapprove.

But new immigrants will need a vibrant economy they can assimilate into and pay taxes. If not, we will just be swamped and become another shithole country. That helps no one.

As if Democrats aren't postering here?

This isn't a dem/repub issue. If you can't see that, you are falling for it just as much as anyone else. Its that kind of thinking that is forestalling reasonable measures that could be taken now instead of fear-mongering that the other side is going to leave old people eating catfood.

I'm still waiting to see the results of the massive infrastructure package that was passed in 2008. We've had a few more rounds of such spending, supposedly because of outdated infrastructure. You have to wonder how many more times they are going to get away with that trick.

Whenever they pass massive spending, its clear they are not talking to American people. They are talking to the corporations that are going to benefit.

you think it can just keep going up forever?

The issue is not whether we reach a sovereign debt crisis, it is when we reach it. Sure, we've been able to avoid it up to now. But eventually something's going to give.

What are you talking about? He is refuting the doomsday claims that the entire reef was dead. He is pointing to its regenerative capacity after mass bleaching events. He never claimed it had completely recovered.

But crying "its the end of the world" is also an outrageous claim used by the modern left to generate attention and raise funding.

From the Australian Institute for Marine Science: https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-co...

A couple of points:

-Over the past 36 years of monitoring by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), coral reefs in the GBR have shown an ability to begin recovery after disturbances.

-In 2022, widespread recovery has led to the highest coral cover recorded by the LTMP in the Northern and Central GBR, largely due to increases in the fast-growing Acropora corals, which are the dominant group of corals on the GBR and have been largely responsible previous changes in hard coral cover.

During Covid pandemic, I found it quite remarkable how some research studies got thrown to the side, while others were promoted as the standard. I really don't know which ones were truly good studies, but the speed with which they were dispensed or upheld with little outside discussion revealed to me there is a lot of politics at work in deciding which ones are authoritative.

But do you believe it because of the science or because you really really want to believe it? That's a serious question. I don't expect a ready answer.