Anecdotally, I think this behavior is undesirable for most commercial LLM use cases. I have several friends that have complained about Gemini’s “back talking” and prefer ChatGPT’s relative sycophancy.
I was talking about ChatGpt, but other llms also have this problem. I don't really care how polite they are, etc., I just want to get the job done, but the llm often gets stuck at some point.
I'm not the first one to see parallels to the Cultural Revolution. Policies like purging the intelligentsia and sending educated urban people to go work in the fields weren't motivated by any thought out plan, but by an irrational sense of resentment against "elites" and a desire for "purity".
This probably won't end with millions of Americans starving to death, but I'm sure the administration is hard at work looking for ways to destroy our seed corn.
Arts/academia/sciences are being disciplined for thought crimes and will learn one way or another through this coercion to bend the knee, it explains the crackdown on student protests against Israeli genocide, science funding, the arts takeover, using all the federal levers of funding and immigration.
Trump said yesterday he wants to raise taxes on people earning over $2.5MM[1]
People on the left are going to be caught totally flat-footed if they don't pull their head out of their bubble. Trump is a populist president. He was elected by working class individuals and so far he has shown every intent of following through for them. People on the left don't recognize it because they don't recognize the tools that right wing people use to stimulate the working class.
Right now, if Trump has his way, people under $150k will pay no income tax, no tax on tips, increased tax on millionaire earners, and tariffs to shield American blue collar jobs.
Trump is dangerous because he is an idiot and recklessly pulling levers. He is clearly bent on the idea of abolishing democracy so he can be the king of America savior of the factory worker.
He is clearly not working for billionaires when he tanked the stock market and spiked bond rates playing his tariff game. Stop using that dog whistle because it makes it clear you are ungrounded from what is happening, unless all you care about is praise from other detached people.
Except that Trump's tariffs are causing massive financial uncertainty for small/medium-size businesses. If you want to onshore manufacturing and production, and specifically build up the blue-collar class, you don't implement tariffs immediately and unilaterally. You plan for them to be implemented over time and give businesses the opportunity to shift their procurement and production to domestic sources.
When you implement tariffs with no warning, the only businesses that can absorb those increased costs are the largest businesses. Then those large businesses can also start to buy up every other business, or at least outcompete on price long enough to monopolize the market.
Trump says everything basically and then just repeats what his MAGA crowd cheers the loudest about. "Trump said..." isn't a meaningful indicator of his intent, his beliefs, or his "plan".
> Trump said yesterday he wants to raise taxes on people earning over $2.5MM[1]
This has been countered better elsewhere, but the gist is that this proposed taxation is for posturing only -- it's taxes on wages, not on income, and the rich don't get their wealth from wages.
Not sure why you're downvoted. It's part of Trumps schtick. He says contradicting ideas, and since everyone knows he lies, people pick the idea they want to believe. Pretty wild actually.
Where's Trump's socialized medicine plan? That's by far the most populist desire of populist America. It's very easy to get caught up in the name of things and not look at it substantively, which is what you seem to be attacking the other poster for.
Trump might have a populist appeal, but it doesn't make him a populist. The weight of Trump's actions and promises lie in all this deportation and culture war nonsense, not actually populist solutions to popular problems. None of these cuts are going to benefit the American populace at all. I doubt there will be a reduction in the taxes most Americans pay (this is just some new rhetoric from Trump, likely stemming from his horrible approval ratings because his administration is operating like shit), but there is already a reduction in the services populist America receives like social security and medicare.
The idea that a politician who seems to fundamentally want to destroy the mechanical functions of the government, operate an executive branch that is beyond the reproach of the courts, and privatize America's crucial social programs, does not comport with populism.
I don't even think the notion that Trump isn't working for billionaires because he tanked the stock market even makes sense. Did you not see the video where he points to his friend who made hundreds of millions that day? While smiling, joking, laughing? He's letting his best friends do inside trades on the huge market-moving moves Trump makes in the news and you think it's somehow not cronyism? I'm sorry, but your intuitions are off.
>People on the left don't recognize it [populism] because they don't recognize the tools that right wing people use to stimulate the working class.
I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole because it takes years to escape the ideological camp you grew into. But suffice to say, both sides ultimately want the same things and disagree on the route to take to that destination (while telling their base that obviously they are right, and obviously the other side is just evil).
I'm not sure how your post doesn't fall for exactly what you claim to be criticizing. You do not engage with the substance of anything I said and instead just name call.
I'm not talking about the route, I'm talking about the destination. A socialized medical plan is incredibly popular on both sides of the political spectrum and polls well with Trump's supporters. That's not an avenue, that's a destination. I have a feeling you will twist this around and try to make it how it can either be served by market forces or the gov't and that's just "idealogical" but populism is an ideology which I am accusing you of not understanding. You didn't engage with that. You just repeated your premise.
The thing about populism is that it doesn't require any plans as such. You can just say things like, "we'll have the best healthcare system in the world, you've never seen healthcare as good as what I'm going to give you, I guarantee it!".
For as long as you have the cult of personality going, anyway. Which is plenty of time to put your men in key positions of power for when your charisma is no longer convincing enough.
It's because most people on the left are not aware that there even is a right wing populism. To them it is an oxymoron.
Pulling someone out of that "it's an oxymoron" hole takes a long time. I don't want to go back and forth with you here trying to explain what right wing populism is here, and the philosophy behind it.
Once again you are just talking about "left" and "right" not engaging with anything I discussed while accusing me of being in denial of "right wing populism" which is facially not the case.
I don't "not believe" in right wing populism, I disagree with your assertions of how it functions and what its goals are and how that relates to your notion that populists want the same thing regardless of whether they are "left" or "right" and that it's just "different paths."
>It's because most people on the left are not aware that there even is a right wing populism.
This isn't even remotely true. What "left"ist stuff are you reading?
I don't particularly care about anything Trump says. He says a lot of things. A lot of what he says is just outright lies. A lot of what he says is just to make a particular audience happy at a particular point in time, and ends up having little relation to any actions he ends up taking. Even when it seems likely that something he says is something he actually wants to do, he'll walk it back in a heartbeat and pretend the opposite was his position all along, if he believes doing so will make him look better.
What actually matters is what he does. And nothing that he has done suggests to me that he will actually push for tax increases on the rich. It would be great to be proven wrong here, but I'm not holding my breath.
(Regardless, Trump can't raise taxes on anyone. Congress does that. On tax policy, it's not clear that even the MAGA fools in Congress will play ball if it upsets the rich people in their states.)
It's a food fight between opposing elites. ("The grass suffers when elephants fight.")
As you surely know, some do advocate crashing our economy, enabling them to seize even more power. They use shibboleths like dark enlightenment, free enterprise, taxation is theft, yadda yadda.
He is a billionaire himself, his admin has the most billionaires of any admin ever. He passed tariffs, which are a direct tax on the working class, he passed massuve tax cuts profiting mostly the wealthy, he cut every welfare programs which only benefit the poor.
> Trump said yesterday he wants to raise taxes on people earning over $2.5MM[1]
He also said he would end the Ukraine war on day 1.
> He is clearly not working for billionaires when he tanked the stock market and spiked bond rates playing his tariff game. Stop using that dog whistle because it makes it clear you are ungrounded from what is happening, unless all you care about is praise from other detached people.
Of course not. Why would anyone get the idea that Trump is working for billionaires? It's not as if he hawked cars on the White House lawn for the world's richest man.
According to the national debt clock, we're at around 36.8T in debt. I don't know if that's his motivation or not, but we're not starting all this from a balanced budget.
Trump cannot raise taxes, he only can impose tariffs under laws that Congress could rescind if they wished to, and only Congress can change tax laws. Trump also took both sides on issues while campaigning and low info voters ate it up and ignored the parts they did not like, it's the gish gallop, and Trump never stops campaigning with rallies even after winning office. Nothing that he says matters, it's what actions they have taken that matter. The bill in Congress now does not have anything like what he said yesterday about raising taxes on millionaires.
The thought leaders within the Trump administration simply hate academia. They've said it out loud over and over. Folks like Yarvin or Rufo would like the university system in the US to be reduced to smoldering ash and replaced with ideologically focused universities that exist to teach particular religious, social, and economic values.
The issue is not that they don't like the NSF in general or that science funding is breaking the bank. The issue is that people they hate rely on the NSF.
This is a pretty old belief system amongst conservatives. God and Man at Yale was published seventy years ago and argued that universities should actively teach that Christ is divine and that free market capitalism is the best thing ever at all times and in all venues.
There are very few places an administration can cut costs without touching entitlements. Until voters stop punishing politicians for raising the retirement age or trimming wasteful healthcare spending, they will cut the discretionary budget.
Social security is entirely self funded, has a large surplus in the form of the SS Trust Fund (that’s being spent down) and has contributed $0 to the deficit or debt. You should really learn the basic facts about something like that if you’re going to support cuts to the program.
The SS Trust Fund is numbers on a spreadsheet. It doesn't matter. It's gone and spent.
The question is about real actual resource distribution. SS is drawing more resources from young people than it is giving back. That's an actual problem, no matter how many tabs you add to your excel spreadsheet.
> The SS Trust Fund is numbers on a spreadsheet. It doesn't matter.
"Numbers on a spreadsheet" is meaningless, you just described functionally all of accounting for the entire economy, and if that's a reason it "doesn't matter" then the debt also "doesn't matter" because it's also just numbers on a spreadsheet. What do you think nearly all money is?
> It's gone and spent.
Simply, factually wrong. If so, then so's your 401k. And all the money in your bank account.
> The question is about real actual resource distribution. SS is drawing more resources from young people than it is giving back. That's an actual problem, no matter how many tabs you add to your excel spreadsheet.
You're wrong about Social Security (and medicare, for that matter) contributing to the budget deficit, so you're trying to change the topic to "is social security's funding fair?"
The SS trust fund produced a surplus. Boomers then spent the entire surplus on their own deficit spending. There is no actual cash in a bank — it was put on a spreadsheet and then spent on other budget priorities — wars, military, medicaid, everything else.
The SS trust fund was one of the main reasons the US could spend profligately for the past couple decades!
The SS Trust Fund is NOT A BANK ACCOUNT. I cannot emphasize this enough. The money got spent.
Now, boomers are retiring and demanding that money — which they already spent — back again. That's absurd double spending which impacts young taxpayers as inflation or deficit spending.
You have fallen for propaganda aimed at getting people to not give a shit when republicans try to end Social Security.
The money didn't "get spent", it's invested. If that counts as "got spent" then your savings account also "got spent" (funding loans) and your retirement accounts also "got spent" (buying bonds, treasuries, securities) so you can go ahead and sign those over to me since they're empty anyway—right?
If the money had been spent then it would have reduced deficit spending by that much, but it didn't, because that spending was funded by debt (some of which the SS trust fund owns). If that isn't "real" then the entire debt isn't real so who cares if anything contributes to it?
The money is lent to the federal government via Treasuries. As the surplus is spent, it will directly decrease the funding for the government deficit, increasing the cost for the government to service its debt. The original poster is wrong since the surplus is real, but spending down this surplus will still cost the government a lot. And even if it didn't, Social Security will burn its entire reserve in 10 years and be forced to cut benefits by 20% in 10 years or be forced to spend trillions to maintain its current level deficit.
It's true to the same extent that redeeming any treasuries "contributes to the deficit". The only way that is meaningfully true in the context of "how do we reduce the deficit?" is if we're willing to not repay our debt and if that's the case, the entire issue is moot.
Framing it that was is just priming us for the government to actually empty the account by defaulting on that debt, i.e. rendering the assets owned by the fund worthless.
It's true in the same way that it's true to say that cars can fly, which is to say, that it's way more true to say that no, they cannot, even if yes, sure, the other thing is "true".
Maybe you should have organized your argument at the outset instead of leading with baity statements and then trying to leverage the attention for your 'real' argument. I am sick to death of this sort of manipulative discourse. It's bullshit and wastes everyone else's time.
Society isn't going back to old people eating dogfood, a child labor workforce, and people being denied basic healthcare. Adjust to reality and make it work, or the masses will make it work but it won't benefit anyone how we get there.
Argentina tried this. The rich people were just fine (they mostly left). The masses are the ones who ended up poor and fucked. Adjust to reality and fix the system, or you end up the same place.
Some of your comments in this subthread were arguably unfairly downvoted and flagged, as you were making valid points, but you fanned the flames with some activating language, most notably this:
> Lol what an internet tough guy.
Please take care to read and observe the guidelines, particularly these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
defense is squarely not a government responsibility. not federal at least. state militias and small arms in the second amendment are respectively nainle for US defense
The amount they plan on raising defense spending by more than cancels all other things we plan to save, even before considering tax cuts. At the current rate, the national deficit (rate of growth of national debt) is expected to be about double what it was (on average, over four years) compared to the last presidency.
Not to mention that the Department of Defense has never passed a financial audit in the last seven years and money frequently disappears into contractors who are known to delay projects on purpose to make more money.
They're pushing a 55% budget cut. There is absolutely no universe in which you can justify that with rhetoric around "DEI" science. This is going to cut very, very deep into basic STEM / biomedical research.
They're cancelling mRNA research, they're flagging research that uses words like "trauma" or studies how medications impact men and women differently. There's no sensible agenda behind all of this, it's just backlash and destruction done haphazardly. This is no different from the Department of Defense deleting the Tuskegee Airmen from the website because "DEI", except far far more consequential.
I'd be interested in discovering what the breakdown is, DEI vs non-DEI, but I wouldn't be surprised if this move was to censor climate change research, since this administration doesn't consider climate change to be real.
Nonsense. NSF awards are all public. If you could actually give enough examples of these "extremely large" awards to constitute 55% of the NSF budget you would have.
So after the first simple question, we're already at less than half the original claimed figure of 55% (a bad sign for its credibility, if you're a Bayesian!).
But more importantly, I'm familiar with the linked document, and it's garbage. It was thrown together practically overnight to justify a political decision that had already been made, and in its incompetent haste, flagged proposals that had phrases like "diversity of sources" that had nothing to do with DEI and included them in the totals. Not a credible source.
I'm not the one that made the original claim. The 25% is the government's figure. Whether some of it was classified incorrectly is up for debate. I haven't personally double checked every claim, but it is not hard to believe that money is being siphoned via those grants into DEI programs, and it is the government's position to not fund these programs anymore.
Even the word "siphoned" is loaded with bias. Is research aimed at understanding why kids choose to participate in high-school science classes or not, and whether certain teaching approaches lead to better outcomes for boys vs girls, not legitimate NSF research? We can't make improvements to science education without that kind of data.
That's not siphoning anything away from science -- it is science.
Completely aside from the incompetent misidentification of which proposals have anything to do with race, gender, or sexuality (hint: it's a lot less than 25%), the staggeringly stupid premise that all of them are inherently politically-motivated is part of the problem here.
They literally categorized research as DEI ("Status") if it had the keywords "HISTORICALLY", "EXCLUSIVE", "INSTITUTIONAL", "STATUS", "BARRIER" and on and on...these are not serious people.
They're not spending 55% of their budget on unnecessary administration. Though ironically, having their ideological crusaders check every science paper that mentions the word "bias"[1] to check that it doesn't also mention minorities they wish to normalise bias against will probably increase the administrative overhead...
[1]I think it's probably fair to assume that whoever concluded the word "bias" indicated a likelihood the paper was "woke" struggled with high school statistics and has never read an academic paper of any sort...
The research that NSF funds is not in competition to private companies, it's mostly basic research. To the contrary, it's part of an important pipeline for training young scientists. And many of those later will work e.g. in pharma companies.
Big pharma has thrived by letting public sector R&D do basic discovery that's high risk, and then pick up the successful projects as part of public-private commercialization programs.
The OS / UI toolkit should be strongly opinionated, making the consistent, happy path easier to develop and making customization possible but with great effort.
But people would claim that it's easier for a company to take a bunch of web frontend devs and have them develop a UI which rides on top the already-existing Electron. Which is why we have such a plague of bloated Electron apps - because companies are lazy and don't care about the end user experience.
I like the idea of trying crazy and new ideas, but this looks like they just thought corners weren't round enough, and that people will pay money for a file manager that has no sharp edges and won't integrate with your OS.
(The images aren't working. I believe those were auto-generated class inheritance or dependency diagrams.)
* The first paragraph is pretty good.
* The second paragraph is incorrect to call pw_rpc the "core" of Pigweed. That implies that you must always use pw_rpc and that all other modules depend on it, which is not true.
* The subsequent descriptions of modules all seemed decent, IIRC.
* The big issue is that the wiki is just a grab bag summary of different parts of the codebase. It doesn't feel coherent. And it doesn't mention the other 100+ modules that the Pigweed codebase contains.
When working on a big codebase, I imagine that tools like mutable.ai and Pocket Flow will need specific instruction on what aspects of the codebase to document.
Please, some reasonable Trump voter explain how this is acceptable. How can the sitting president still be openly claiming that a previous election was fraudulent after all this time?
I mean, this is very obviously retribution. But nobody's going to reply to you saying "yes, I want those who have wronged my beloved president to be annihilated." So I'm not sure what you're expecting here. There's no good faith explanation for these events save for whatever vague spin Fox News can come up with.
Not a trump voter or supporter by any means, but you can reflect on what made this action possible from the pr perspective (even considering the above quoted unnecessary own goal - they could have done the same thing with even more plausible deniability)
There was indeed a campaign to fight "misinformation", with active cooperation between the previous administration and social media companies. There was an official effort to establish a disinformation fighting team within the government. Some of the stories like Hunter biden's laptop and COVID origin stuff blew up as what looks like potential partisan censorship cases. And frankly while I'd attribute the latter, and most of these efforts, to stupidity, the former looks like malice even to me. So now one sides idiotic authoritarian self own can be used by the other side to justify even more idiotic even more authoritarian "corrective" action.
> But ask yourself: "Which party supports actual election integrity more? The one that insists on US citizens voting in person with valid id (nothing special, just the id that we all need to get by in society),
You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles covering this, many of which contain extensive links to sources [1].
It is cute how some people can simultaneously believe that (1) you need the type of ID that Republican voter ID laws require for voting in order to get by in society (and so everyone already has the ID they need), and (2) there are tens of millions of illegal aliens who have been living in this country long term (and hence are obviously getting by).
This implies either that you don't actually need such ID to get by or that illegal aliens can easily obtain such ID (which makes the ID law ineffective at preventing fraud).
>You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles covering this, many of which contain extensive links to sources [1].
That is all a bunch of hogwash. Most people can get ID for like $20 from their state. Even if I accept it, the answer is not to lower standards. It is to actually help these people get the ID that they need. Anything else permits rampant fraud. This is so obvious that I have to assume people like you are malicious actors, with all due respect.
>you need the type of ID that Republican voter ID laws require for voting in order to get by in society (and so everyone already has the ID they need),
Is there any case where a state ID such as a driver's license is not adequate? I don't even care. Go try to open a bank account or cash a check without ID. Everyone will tell you GTFO if you don't have the same type of ID needed to vote.
>there are tens of millions of illegal aliens who have been living in this country long term (and hence are obviously getting by)
These people are issued ID, and besides that they often work for cash or in other ways that dodge the law.
>This implies either that you don't actually need such ID to get by or that illegal aliens can easily obtain such ID (which makes the ID law ineffective at preventing fraud).
If there is simply a field on your ID that says if you are a citizen, and that shit is verified at the time you register to vote or at the time you actually vote, it would be as effective as the enforcement. We have Democrat precincts where poll workers have been forbidden from asking for ID. It is pure insanity, so egregious that it seems engineered to outrage everyone with a shred of common sense. I keep having to mention all of these things on this site amid a flurry of downvotes because too many "hackers" have drank the Kool-Aid.
> That is all a bunch of hogwash. Most people can get ID for like $20 from their state
There's also the cost of finding and getting copies of supporting documents, which are often in another state (e.g., the state you were born in, not the state you now live in). Records for many older Americans have not been digitized or even centralized so if your family moved when you were very young you may have to search the physical records in multiple counties to find yours.
> Even if I accept it, the answer is not to lower standards. It is to actually help these people get the ID that they need.
Obviously, but the same people passing voter ID laws are also making it harder for people to get ID. They reduce the number of offices that issue IDs, with the reductions disproportionately being in districts that tend to not vote for the people who are passing those laws. They say it is because those districts have much lower drivers per capita so don't need as many DMVs (which are usually the offices that deal with ID).
In the offices that remain they'll reduce the hours in which IDs are issued, getting rid of evening and weekend hours. For many poor people that can mean a full day of lost work to go try to get an ID, and many cannot afford that. Besides the loss of a day's pay these places often have terrible public transit so they are looking at an expensive ride on commercial transportation.
For people in low income jobs these barriers can be huge.
> Anything else permits rampant fraud
Then how come no one has been able to actually find evidence of such fraud? No matter how well funded the search they all come up empty.
> Go try to open a bank account or cash a check without ID. Everyone will tell you GTFO if you don't have the same type of ID needed to vote
23% of people earning under $25k/year do not have bank accounts but manage just fine. On that comment I gave you early with all the links to research that you ignored, someone asked how people live without ID and I posted a response there covering some of the ways they get buy.
Look, I don't like waiting at the DMV either but doing it for a few hours every four to eight years is part of life. I don't believe anyone with a job is actually disenfranchised by this requirement. If they won't do that, then they won't register to vote either. In many cases, you can simultaneously get ID and register to vote too. By the way you can't get a job legally without providing ID, unless you are working gig jobs for cash. The elderly are often given IDs that don't expire.
I might be biased but I don't want people who can't manage to get or keep an ID telling us how to run the country. If you can't manage such a basic task, then you can't run your own life and have no business having a say in how other people live or die. That said, the real solution that would make everyone happy is to subsidize the issuance of ID somehow and to make employers accommodate the required absences. We do that for jury duty, more or less, so we can do it for ID and voting too. The solution is definitely never going to be to get stupid and have zero requirements for ID at the polls.
> don't believe anyone with a job is actually disenfranchised by this requirement.
You are betraying your own ignorance. You clearly have never associated with people from a ghetto if you are saying that.
> If you can't manage such a basic task, then you can't run your own life and have no business having a say in how other people live or die.
There's probably some merit to that but I think it would really depend on why. If you can't in the sense that you just don't follow through that's one thing. Whereas working the same hours that the ID office is open, not having PTO, being unable to afford taking unpaid time off, not being able to afford a personal vehicle; if you can't simply because you are poor that hardly seems a reasonable basis to disenfranchise someone.
If nothing else, it certainly isn't consistent with either the word or the spirit of the current law. If you want to change that then the appropriate course of action is to lobby the general public for it. If you believe you won't manage to convince them then I would like to suggest that it is your views that have no business being imposed on others.
Oh and the kicker? It's a poor filter anyway, at least for the purpose that you stated. Someone who doesn't work will have little issue passing it since he has no scheduling conflict with office hours and what's a multi-hour trip on public transit to him?
>There's probably some merit to that but I think it would really depend on why. If you can't in the sense that you just don't follow through that's one thing. Whereas working the same hours that the ID office is open, not having PTO, being unable to afford taking unpaid time off, not being able to afford a personal vehicle; if you can't simply because you are poor that hardly seems a reasonable basis to disenfranchise someone.
Not everyone gets PTO. People from the ghetto, as you say, work part-time and can simply reschedule their work in most cases or go during off time. They are not working every single weekday during business hours, in general. Have you ever worked in the retail or restaurant industry, or done gig work? Nobody is booked solid like this. Besides, even the ghetto people need ID to buy alcohol and cigarettes, and to cash welfare checks.
Not to be a jerk, but there is a good reason for very poor people to have less say in how the country is run. You don't get poor by being super productive or owning a stake in the country. Poor people could be seen as not having skin in the game. The relationship between contributions and wealth is loose, as is the relationship between contributions and merit. But let's just say that people who have nothing to lose, and who probably hate the most productive members of society out of envy, and who may have severe character flaws or mental issues holding them back, probably are not on the same level as the best among us. We have decided to run our country in an egalitarian way that ignores these differences in general, but when we look at extremes I think the outliers are still jarring to most people. There are many people who fail at every aspect of life and envy others, who can vote to make others miserable too.
>Oh and the kicker? It's a poor filter anyway, at least for the purpose that you stated. Someone who doesn't work will have little issue passing it since he has no scheduling conflict with office hours and what's a multi-hour trip on public transit to him?
For an important appointment once every four to ten years, you can get a friend to drop you off or else take Uber. Don't give me this shit about being unable to get to the DMV. I've lived in red states and the DMV offices are perhaps 10 or 20 miles apart. In the worst case, you live way out in the country. I want you to start talking to people to see who doesn't have an ID. I'm sure you'll find that everyone with a regular job has one. Everyone who serves you or interacts with you in everyday life, besides some illegal immigrants, will have one. Basically everyone except children and the very elderly or disabled will have one. It is easy and cheap to get, and essential, so anyone who is not a complete hermit or headcase is going to have one.
> The margins were extremely thin in 2020, and there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff.
These allegations from Trump supporters have been disproved in court many times. What will iy take for you to admit that he's misusing his power to target people who disagree with his election lies?
Considering how ill-treated Trump and his supporters have been and still are by courts, it is no wonder that they don't trust the courts. Regardless of what you or I think, he is going after people he believes are corrupt. The exact same people who targetted him unfairly for years, in some cases. I'm not losing sleep over this.
It's not ill treatment, they're being targeted by courts because they're doing illegal shit.
It's not that libs are avoiding courts because they're favored, it's just that there's nothing to, you know, try them with. They didn't pull an insurrection. They don't constantly make up lies about everything. So...
Prove that Russians bailed him out, please. I've got to hear this.
He did inherit money, like $10M if I recall correctly. But he made the rest of his money. Even if not literally a rags-to-riches case (I never said he was, either), he does not need money. Compare that to, say, AOC who is suddenly worth millions of dollars after a few years on a salary of $180k. Who is more suspicious?
He inherited money, ran through it, went back and fleeced his dad and siblings of their money. Ran through that. Racked up hundreds of millions of debt, then ran for president. Now he bastardizes public office and exploits his position to generate wealth.
> But Trump eventually made a comeback, and according to several sources with knowledge of Trump’s business, foreign money played a large role in reviving his fortunes, in particular investment by wealthy people from Russia and the former Soviet republics. This conclusion is buttressed by a growing body of evidence amassed by news organizations, as well as what is reportedly being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Southern District of New York. It is a conclusion that even Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has appeared to confirm, saying in 2008—after the Trump Organization was prospering again—that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.”
> According to the most recent disclosure from 2023, Ocasio-Cortez had documented that she had no more than between $1,001 and $15,000 in each of three different bank accounts. The total for these three accounts would land somewhere between $3,003 and $45,000. She also recorded in the disclosure having between $1,001 and $15,000 in additional funds in a fourth account for a 401k plan. Further, she noted in the disclosure that she was still paying off student loans, with an "amount of liability" landing somewhere between $15,001 and $50,000. In other words, Ocasio-Cortez was at least $940,000 short of being a millionaire, with the maximum possible amount of the four accounts totaling $60,000, and that's before even factoring in her student loan debt.
Do you get your information from anywhere other than random twitter posts?
>Why do you speak so confidently around something you clearly know nothing about?
I know about as much as you my man. I could sit here and throw links at you, and neither of us would leave thinking any different.
I am not gonna argue about AOC. I think you might be right as it seems like the top stories now support the theory that she is not rich (despite ostentatious things like showing up in a $12k dress to a charity event) and I don't have time to research it now. But there are many members of congress that are far sketchier than her. Such as the queen of insider trading, Nancy Pelosi.
Trump is definitely rich, and has been at least since the 80s. He has done some sketchy stuff, but it's not even close to what happens routinely in Congress. He is not accepting his salary as POTUS either. Has that ever happened before? But here you are trying to spin it like he has no money, or else he owes it all to Russians who somehow have him on a leash.
> there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff.
Just because Fox News repeats false claims over and over doesn't make them true. Do you have sources? 2000 mules was debunked. Fox News settled for their false claims against Dominion. Court awarded damages to that one victim who was accused of smuggling a flash drive of "fraudulent votes" or whatever. Don't fall for the firehose of bullshit. Please share what specifically convinced you of this.
>By the way, Hillary and her cronies never accepted the 2016 election.
She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real.
>She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real.
She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate. Not just her but the entire Democrat media machine that backed Hillary over other plausible candidates. The smearing and denial cancel out any good will she gained by "conceding". Shall we talk about the Russiagate hoax that went on for years, that Hillary herself started by commissioning the Steele Dossier? I suggest you go educate yourself on all of that and how she paid a fine for election interference (and how Trump did not).
Given up being a debunked 2020 election conspiracy apologist?
The Steele Dossier was commissioned in 2016, before the election. Trump is claiming the 2020 election was "stolen" well after. Both bad. But not the same.
Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. (edit to add: Challenging, and getting their day in court, is fine! However,) No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. (edit to add: Despite losing in court, they continued to spread debunked conspiracies, and still claimed it was "stolen" without evidence. And still tried to hold on to power, Trump asked Pence to "do the right thing", and declare Trump the winner despite losing. This is the bad part.) Clinton did not challenge the election results after losing. Not the same. Not even close.
>Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. Clinton did not challenge the election results after losing. Not the same. Not even close.
I think the key here is that not enough was proven to change any results. But the margins were close. Candidates routinely challenge elections (even Kamala was fundraising to challenge her clear defeat), and some (like Hillary and Trump) never accept it all the way. These things are all similar. The media pretends that everything is uniquely bad when Trump happens to do it and they turn a blind eye to Democrats doing the exact same stuff. It is exhausting to argue with people who refuse to understand this hypocrisy happening right before their eyes.
> The media pretends that everything is uniquely bad when Trump happens to do it and they turn a blind eye to Democrats doing the exact same stuff. It is exhausting to argue with people who refuse to understand this hypocrisy happening right before their eyes.
Got it. Did Clinton try to gain the presidency despite losing? Did she ask the vice president to "do the right thing" and throw out electoral votes?
Ok it is not exactly the same but it is quite similar. Clinton and fellow Democrats initiated a years-long legal campaign against Trump using her connections in 2015. They even had his whole campaign wiretapped. Trump did not even prosecute her for her mishandling of classified data. Now that the political persecution chickens are coming home to roost, these people have no actual answer besides to fearmonger about Trump even more.
Acceptance and formal concession are two different things, just like clarification versus moving the goalposts. The real bullshit here is trying to avoid the actual issue at hand by attacking my choice of words when you know damn well what I mean.
Has your friend talked with current bio research students? It’s very common to hear that people are having success writing Python/R/Matlab/bash scripts using these tools when they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to.
Possibly this is just among the smallish group of students I know at MIT, but I would be surprised to hear that a biomedical researcher has no use for them.
Unironically, yes. The industry clearly has more experience, but it’s silly to assume students don’t have novel and useful ideas that can (and will) be integrated
I'm taking a course on computational health laboratory. I do have to say gemini is helping me a lot, but someone who knows what's happening is going to be much better than us. Our professor told us it is of course allowed to make things with llms, since on the field we will be able to do that. However, I found they're much less precise with bio-informatic libraries than others...
I do have to say that we're just approaching the tip of the iceberg and there are huge issues related to standardization, dirty datas... We still need the supervision and the help of one of the two professors to proceed even with llms
I have general one-shot success asking chatgpt to make bash/python scripts and one-liners where otherwise it would take 1hr to a day to figure out on my own (and I'd use one of my main languages maybe) or I might not even bother trying, which is great for productivity but also over 90% of my job doesn't need throw-away scripts and one-liners.
If this tool looks like it would improve your life I think you should consider using Bazel instead of whatever build system you are using. I don’t see much value add here for a project using Bazel.
Anecdotally, I think this behavior is undesirable for most commercial LLM use cases. I have several friends that have complained about Gemini’s “back talking” and prefer ChatGPT’s relative sycophancy.