The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
Nevertheless, I think the complexity argument might fail for accountants. Complexity actually favors AI. They are good at it.
AI fails for accounting not because of complexity but because of care. Accountants have to get the numbers right, and occasionally hallucinating shit isn't going to cut it. Maybe it would work for mob accounting, but I suspect the mob wants their made-up shit to be less random.
If at the end of the day Trump is in the dustbin of history, the Democrats hand the strait to the Ayatollahs, and then Iran gets a nuke, Iran has won. By restricting the flow of oil, Iran makes that outcome more likely, therefore Iran is winning. Unless they die first, but like I said, they have 90 million citizens they can use up to survive.
Dog whistles are meant to be un-noticed by those not their targets. The term "anti-Zionist" is merely the thinnest veil of plausible deniability in most cases.
Ah, it's not because he waged the culture war. It's because he waged the culture war against an enemy that had resources.
Texas looks to be turning blue this term. I expect once Desantis is gone, Florida will go back to blue also.
Conservatives are also racking up wins on gun rights.
Only fake ones, like pot users getting to buy guns in states where others can. This year another state (Washington) moves to a permit-to-purchase system, and the states which didn't issue carry permits before are now issuing carry permits which don't let you carry. The AR-15 and the Glock are being subject to bans in blue states across the country.
As long as the war is still going on and Iran is able to restrict the flow of oil, Iran is winning politically.
Which means North Vietnam won. If Iran agrees to accept defeat, the US leaves and ends the blockade, then Iran renegs (restarts its nuclear program, supplies Hezbollah, tolls the strait, whatever) and gets away with it, then their apparent surrender was merely a ruse de guerre which worked.
Actual conditions in the Strait are unknown. Everyone's lying (except maybe CENTCOM, and they don't say much) and always has been. Gas prices are going up despite the summer demand peak being passed. The Houthis have the mandate of heaven and are pretty much rolling up government and Saudi forces and could stop traffic in the Bab-al-Mandeb at any time; they can also continue to threaten the entire Red Sea. The East-West pipeline was hit and is shut down. Iran is cut off from oil sales, but they're fanatics who don't care about the well-being of their population, so they have 90 million people to basically feed into its war machine to survive until the US can't take it any more (2029 at the latest). Not really looking good at the moment.
Only the US has agency; there is no novus actus interveniens from any other actor downstream of US action (or sometimes, inaction) so the US is responsible for all deaths attributable to its action or inaction, even indirectly.
I am always baffled by the inability of people who care about an issue to send conspicuous non-partisan signals.
This is easily explained if you accept the obvious (but uncharitable) explanation that they are partisans first and foremost, and that their issue is a soldier in their partisanship.
Will the memes be in Farsi or English?
Currently the biggest danger AI presents is to its users. People who spend too much time conversing with AI tend to get a bit off. I suspect this might be related to the phenomenon of AI training on AI-generated content causing model collapse. If you value your sanity, do NOT self-modify based on AI advice.
Your proposal works as well on the actually innocent as it does on the criminals released because the prosecutor likes certain sorts criminals, and for that reason among many others there is absolutely now way it would fly in the courts.
Democrats might unilaterally end the blockade and protection of ship traffic, abandoning the war. At which point Iran is in full control of the strait, a big win for them. They can continue attacking the pipelines at will. And without the threat of bombing and with all their nuclear material they can restart their nuclear weapons program. Another big win for them.
Whether that's better than taking Trump's deal depends on how much the Iranians value their nuclear material and their defiance. And this seems to be "quite high", compared to how much they weigh the welfare of their people.
Better than not mowing, which is what lead to the October 7 attack. But the US had an easier task -- we didn't need to convince people who considered us our sworn enemy to be destroyed at any and all costs not to attack us. We just had to convince people who hated us but mostly wanted to run Afghanistan not to attack us nor give shelter to those who would.
A juror is certainly allowed to say during deliberations "I think that witness is lying, there's no way it could have happened that way" by relying on his or her experiences or expertise.
It turns out the EA people were wrong about their signature policy: they should have been funding malaria vaccines.
But yeah, Africa's problems can't be solved by throwing money at them. Because even if your target is good, when you throw money, there's always people happy to get between you and your target.
It couldn't be done by air. But the US could have invaded, killed Al Queda in Afghanistan, killed all the Taliban who protected them and their subordinates a few levels deep, and then left -- basically a punitive raid on a massive scale. The new Taliban that would take over after that would likely get the message, and if they didn't the lesson could be repeated. I think this is basically what we should have done, but only in hindsight.
And they know that if they start trouble, the Americans will get involved, but if they keep allowing shipping through, the American's won't touch the conflict with a 10 foot pole.
I expect Trump has told them this in so many words.
You're allowed to bring your expertise and life experience to the jury room.
This is true but it does not allow you to interpret toxicology reports which some claim they did.
If the toxicology reports are in evidence, any consideration a juror makes of them is "interpretation". It would only be misconduct if they got the toxicology reports from outside the courtroom.
The punchline, if you can't read the Community Note, is that 9 of those were suicides. The 10th is unresolved but currently being treated as a homicide.
Doesn't matter. AOC isn't a conspiracy theorist, she's a liar, and she can get away with it because the mainstream Democratic press won't challenge her.
Correct; if the rowers are rowing us directly towards Scylla when we are not in danger from Charybdis, we are better off drinking than rowing.

No, it most definitely is not.
More options
Context Copy link