this is one of those things that surely can't be true because it requires a vast conspiracy to suppress the truth
I first thought he meant don't own a single 'stock award'. It's standard financial advice to not correlate your investments with your work.
A bit off-topic but have you seen the back story for Mark Fisher who committed suicide in 2017 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fisher). Apparently, he is was involved with a group Cybernetic Culture Research Unit at Warwick University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetic_Culture_Research_Unit) with Nick Land who was involved with the Dark Enlightenment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment).
You would need to clone Elon and recreate Apartheid South Africa to carry out this experiment correctly.
The weird thing is that this is how some government departments have reacted to cuts in the past. They cut the things that are most visible in order to drive public support to reverse the cuts.
the UK are now organising a coalition of the willing so maybe there are countries that want to do more than virtue signalling. also, maybe Trump is a genius and is capable of getting other people to do his bidding because they consider him an evil oracle and they believe they can do good by doing the opposite of Trump. similar to the inverse cramer index. but i guess similar to smart is not the opposite of stupid, good is not the opposite of evil.
I wonder if @campfire would be interested in doing a breakdown of the destiny lawsuit drama similar to the Daniel Green - Naomi King scandal. Another youtuber pxie (https://substack.com/home/post/p-155256128) has brought a lawsuit (https://www.givesendgo.com/suedestiny) against youtuber Destiny (https://youtube.com/watch?v=c5Jwhx3ZggE) over sharing explicit videos to a third party without consent.
they need to get their people into the agencies controlling what the money is being spent on instead of using the OMB. short term they should be able to do something similar to impoundment from within the agency, however in the long run according to laws congress has passed they need to spend the money. but then they can just use their 'discretion' to spend the money in ways that are very objectionable. for example lots of agencies spent money on DEI commissars and that was completely legal. i'm sure trump and elon are not lacking in imagination.
If independent means they are effectively run as a faction of the Democratic party are they really independent? It sounds like the US has some agencies where for the electorate it doesn't matter if they vote in the opposition party the agency will still be run by the Democratic party.
theory 2 might hold weight if they believe any kind of storming of a building is now an insurrection
i don't know how blocking these cuts using the judiciary will work in the long term. unless this funding has very explicit earmarks from congress then the administration should be able to just redirect it to fund Trump allied NGOs. For example lets say judge decides you can't cut USAID funding overall then Trump just funnels funding away from basket weavers in Afghanistan to pro-life groups in China. Basically just do turnabout and then when people complain Trump is being a hypocrite by carrying out the same corruption he criticised others of doing he can claim he tried to cut the funding cleanly but the judiciary tried to stop him.
One good thing about having Trump as your head of state is that he would never negotiate a deal like this. Because a cursory look at the deal makes it look bad the idea would be toxic to Trump even if a full understanding of the context would make the deal seem more reasonable. I assume if Trump was negotiating he would try to get the lease for free but maybe that just incentivises the Mauritians to walk back the lease in the future.
My theory for why Hitler is seen as a unique evil compared to Stalin and Mao was because the western powers were allied with Stalin and Mao and made war against Hitler. Then it would follow that the way we see Stalin, Mao and Hitler today is poisoned by the propaganda of the past. But I guess that would not explain why Pol Pot is not seen as uniquely evil because the west fought against Cambodia.
it's sad that tracingwoodgrains made all the right noises in his article and they still accuse of him siding with the fascists.
also, its hilarious to create a 'test' where the 'correct' multiple choice answer is almost always the same. surely there is some web app or application where you can feed in your questions/answers and it will randomize the responses. or you can just do this in excel or roll a fucking a dice (rerolling on 5/6) or flip a coin twice for each question. or was this done deliberately because cheating would be too difficult because no-one would be able to memorize the answer key?
You can probably do this if you are producing. If you aren't producing and also not playing the game then things might be difficult unless you are working in a dysfunctional organization.
Can't you just assign people to work in Alaska or somewhere they don't want to work instead of firing them.
Maybe she is just really good at investigative reporting.
rick scott (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott) but maybe there are two
The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” -- Ibram X. Kendi: How to Be an Antiracist
I haven't read this book but I hope he would have addressed the obvious objection that this creates a loop. So if A discriminates against B then B discriminates against A as a remedy then surely A can discriminate against B in the future according to the same rule. I'm sure if challenged he would have a defence. But I feel like if social sciences are rigorous then you really should be pre-emptively defending obvious objections. My guess would be the concept of collective guilt or guilt following down racial or parental lines is very difficult to defend so the best strategy if you wanted to push these ideas is to just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
Apparently, medicare/medicaid fraud is a big thing with hospitals. Apparently, there is a US Senator (R) who used to be a CEO of a hospital company that engaged in a large amount of fraud with the US government.
I think Muskateers was a much better way to refer to the Dodge staffers.
Would it be possible to have an AI containment thread where all the people who want to experiment with AI discussion can do so without effecting the rest of the site?
i doubt there has been a legal misuse of funds. i suspect whatever words are used to control funding are broad enough that they let the wordcels do anything with the funding.
are you sure foreign aid helps the US perception in the world? i wonder if it suffers from this copenhagen ethics problem where because you help out you are now blamed for anything that is not perfect. not the best example but the US helped the afghans militarily then when 9/11 happened apparently the US 'deserved' it partly because they helped the Afghans militarily.

Grok AI is much less nerfed compared to ChatGPT
I used this prompt with ChatGPT:
ChatGPT replied:
I persisted:
and ChatGPT replied:
I tried to argue with Chat GPT:
And Chat GPT continued to deny me:
I asked for sources:
and ChatGPT crashed possibly because it failed to parse my bad engrish.
Whereas with Grok replied without any guard rails:
More options
Context Copy link