domain:rifters.com
DirtyWaterHotDog
17hr ago
Haha, yep, tables and rich extraction is pretty bad out of the box.
In this case though, I can confidently say I'm an expert on PDF extraction for llm use.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
18hr ago
But the obvious corollary to that is that if the "new right-wing counterculture" wins, it will then become The Man and there will be a rebellion against it, too, at some point, no?
JarJarJedi
18hr ago
That "interstate commerce" stuff has been going for a while now. I remember a case where a guy grew weed on his own backyard, and was prosecuted under "interstate commerce" with the logic somewhat like: if you grow it, then you would consume it or sell it. If you'd consume it, you wouldn't buy any other weed on the market, and if you sell it, you participate in the weed market. Since weed is sold and transported across the state lines, participating in the weed market influences interstate commerce, therefore the interstate commerce clause gives the state power to regulate what you grow on your own backyard and smoke in your own house. Yeah, it's nuts and nobody cares. Welcome to the clown world, we have cookies.
I don't deny that there's some amount of vibes, but looking at stats always is biased by what you want to see. We have data spanning the better part of the century showing lower religious beliefs, consistently high rates of premarital sex, and even among the groups for whom opposition to premarital sex should be highest, the issue is unpopular. If someone wanted to make a rhetorical case why they believe abstinence won't gain significant popularity in the next 50 years, I don't know that it gets more solid than that.
What would be the rhetorical claims as to how the trends might reverse? Is there a hypothetical event that might change a large number of opinions? An up-and-coming charismatic politician or political commentator? A point at which society realizes the status quo is unsustainable and agrees to a specific fix? An argument that the trends observed aren't trends at all and the statistics are being misread?
If I wanted to argue that America could become communist, maybe I predict that AOC will finally wrest control of the rudderless Democratic Party. Maybe Trump does a business deal so corrupt that the U.S. decides to burn the system down. Maybe a new strain of covid emerges and the disproportionately vaccinated liberal arts majors inherit the earth. As obviously silly as all of these are, they are relatively defined theories that one can discuss. They propose scenarios and how they might lead to a shift.
Or in the slavery metaphor, a person on some date might make predictions based on whether abolitionists are becoming more popular, the untenable legal conflicts of north vs. south, public outcry over legal cases, etc. Again, the argument is - could they make a rhetorical case for their prediction that a change will happen, were they so inclined.
(Edit to add, because it was late) As to whether someone should need to bring this evidence, I don't know if we have polling on slavery in the 1800s. If 5% of society was abolitionist, a person suggesting abolition will happen would be outside the norm. The average person probably couldn't see a way it might become popular. If 45% was abolitionist, the listener can probably figure out on their own that this is a hot button issue and society's position is shifting based on hearing about events like Dred Scott or Bleeding Kansas.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
19hr ago
That is rather the weakest part of his argument. Many people here absolutely do argue against video games, against pornography and in favor of marriage.
TitaniumButterfly
19hr ago
It doesn't 'just' mean harmful, but it's always harmful.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
19hr ago
Not unless they dress for a black-tie event in a badly fitted tuxedo, or are wearing a male sleeveless shirt and shorts with no bra (or binder) and a packer.
I don't think normal tomboys are autoandrophiles any more than men working an email job are autogynephiles.
Lizzardspawn
19hr ago
I am not sure he has the mandate of heaven, but the bastard has barakah. If you had to write Trump bio so far as a movie script - no one would buy because it is too implausible
2rafa
19hr ago
This is just a re-run of the “stunning” surprise justice-reform prosecutor / mayoral wins in some big cities during Trump I. The core of progressive ideology is only temporarily vulnerable to reality-based criticism (for example ‘crime just doubled, the streets are now full of psychotic homeless vagrants, the subway is unsafe, these guys want to defund the police’).
As soon as the issue is even partially resolved, the progressive voter returns to his comforter position (electing candidates like Mamdani) because he never actually questioned whether his own ideas were wrong; his shift to the center was ‘pragmatic’ (fear based), as crime stabilizes he again has the luxury of voting ideologically.
More generally, the Democratic establishment is at least partially responsible for screwing over Adams. Corrupt? Maybe, but there are 50 Dem mayors of major cities over the last 100 years who were more corrupt than him.
Tree
19hr ago
Anti-porn feminists have been looking for evidence of harm from the inside for ages.
Conservatives have plenty of studies they use to support their other arguments, it just happens anti-porn is among the least empirically supported of all their positions.
Long time lurker, first time poster on the thread. I'm currently halfway through learn python visually. I know the python parts, I'm doing the book to get a different sense of programming. My mentor wanted me to see things from a different side. So far I'd state the book is a great tool for anyone young who wants to learn programming because making things go off on screens is a fun experience.
The hardest parts are the non programming ones, it's a mild detour, knowing the math behind things is a plus for me. I'll start data structures in python after this.
Also gophercon is happening in my hometown this year in September, so if any mottizens write go or may be panning to visit, do lemme know. I'll be there for all three days.
I use ratatype for typing and my current keyboard is a terrible sub 6 dollar piece of trash where using the pinky finger to press enter or backspace would mine in sub 5 minutes. I keep missing a lot of keys on that side since I have to reset my hands anytime I use backspace or enter. Any suggestions beyond getting a split keyboard. I'll get a new slightly better mechanical keyboard soon which should ease this a bit.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
20hr ago
Sounds pretty good. I'm a noob engineer so can't offer any feedback whatsoever. My only experience with llms and pdfs was when we tried to build something that dealt with large pdfs and the biggest hurdle was the tables. I've heard pcr got better in the latter half of 2024 and I stopped my startup LARP right about that time.
That won't save the party alone. It might save the name.
The Tories in the UK are basically in that spot right now. They have a machine and no shot at relevance. Therefore everybody expects Reform to essentially buy the machine and maybe the name attached to it, as has happened before (they are after all officially "The Conservative and Unionist Party").
I doubt that happens to the Dems because Americans have their two party system bolted down to the institutions pretty solidly so there's little path for a takeover, but you can't run a party on machine politics alone, not a government party anyways.
Another trajectory is what happened in Malta, another famous two-party system where one party just consistently wins and another consistently loses but not by large enough a margin as to make the loser party politically irrelevant. And essentially you just start seeing the winner party leadership make deals with the loser party to keep power, in a classic example of the high-low vs middle mechanism.
All that said, it seems very early to call the Dems permanent losers at all. They're in disarray but I don't think they've been dealt a killing blow the likes of which the Tories got. I can totally see a Clinton or Blair type figure come up with a novel coalition formula and reinvent the party.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20hr ago
Right, I did mean to mention how Cuomo was basically hiding because he was so sure the name-ID and perceived experience/steady hand/moderation would carry him, but I forgot. But to be honest, usually that strategy works! Also, great point about heat, I did see that mentioned in the lead-up as something that would hurt Cuomo, who is stronger with older folks. Will have to wait for numbers to see how much of a difference that may or may not have made.
Despite thinking Mamdani's (general) election to office would be a disaster, I'm encouraged. I absolutely hate political dynasties, despite thinking they often result in decent governance. One of the few exceptions to my rule, along with poor personal judgement of the candidate. Cuomo basically illustrates that dilemma perfectly: exactly the kind of establishment figure even an avowed moderate, "the establishment actually kind of works" person like myself would normally favor, but where my hate for dynastic figures and corrupt individuals overpowers what would normally be my main interest. I would definitely be a Brad Lander voter (maybe a Mamdani 2, followed by blanks?) though this is double moot because first I don't live in NYC/don't intend to ever, but secondly locally still refuse to register with a party even in my own area, so I'm not ever voting in primaries anyways. Is this somewhat contradictory with my position as a pragmatic moderate who thinks working within the system is almost always the best choice? Yes, for sure, but I like to think I more than offset that by actually volunteering for campaigns (usually state, occasionally local, seldom national) with some regularity. I do sometimes wonder how many people actually to fit in my same boat, though. Probably not many. Though the electorate is far more diverse than most pundits give it credit for, so less-predictable people like me (but on different issues than mine) I think are more then norm than party-line types.
watching pornography, playing video games, engaging in "devil worshipping" activities like D&D, and not being married
Eh. We've heard enough about neckbeards, pick-me's, and incels not to buy that line.
Nobody's being honest here. Just waving the old carrot and hoping it's not rotten...
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20hr ago
Vans or, it must be pointed out, it's pretty darn common for a pickup truck to have one of those pop-up covers (some of them extremely stock or permanent-looking). I'd say the actual contractors get a nice cover more often than a van, especially if it doubles as a personal vehicle. True minivans are basically reserved for secondhand purchases by the illegal immigrant.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
20hr ago
Oregon: Ask the locals where the good tidepools are at! Washington has some, but there are some great ones in Oregon too, and poking sea anemones is never not fun. Also, dress WARM, and prepared for rain just in case. The beach is often cold (and windy), though not always; the water is always super-cold, wetsuit territory, suitable for "how long can you stay in" competitions. Kites are fun for the wind! And the scenery is pretty, and you can still do sand castle things if that's your jam. Speaking of wind, if you want to try wind or kite surfing and are in the right spot, the Columbia gorge has some of the best in the whole world, but there are a few places on the coast that do it too. And yeah, of course there are great hikes everywhere, including waterfalls.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
21hr ago
The traditional argument is that US voting systems are mostly first-past-the-post (aka FPTP, single winners on plurality), and this naturally creates a two-party system due to fears about third parties just being spoilers/wasted votes (see Duverger's Law for the poli-sci theorizing). However, there is a counter-argument in that some other countries did not turn out this way despite similar voting systems, like Canada or India (for now). The traditional answer to that is that the US selects a president directly, while the PM can be chosen via some more indirect process. This is on purpose! Historically, although Parliament was kinda-sorta democratic, there was this weird interplay with the King. Baby America vehemently hated kings, and was trying to challenge the whole idea altogether! A directly-elected president is the ultimate rejection of a king-model. The modern reality of directly elected presidents being more powerful than confidence-of-Parliament heads of state was a bit unforeseen.
However, I want to make a different appeal, beyond structure: it might just be the way history shakes out! Remember the US is inventing representative democracy almost from scratch! Now-common ideas like political parties weren't even concepts yet, much less actual practice. The specifics of history have had very strong impacts on how the vote has gone. The first two pseudo-parties formed pretty early on over a mix of national vs state power, with a dash of foreign policy disagreement, pretty natural. One collapses and you get a brief mega-party period. Then Jackson shows up and is Trump-level controversial, setting up Democrats vs Whigs, partly stylistic but economics plays a big role here, and this starts to create more noticeable party-level mechanics as well (beyond voting blocs, you start getting them more involved in vote-getting, persuasion, and financing). Worth noting that at this point voting also starts to expand to non-property owners. Slavery eventually guts the Whigs a bit more than the Democrats, and you almost get a three-party scenario developing, or even a four-party one. It was probably the most likely electoral outcome for a while!
...and then a literal Civil War happens instead of waiting to let elections resolve things. At the end of which, you get two parties again, and surprise surprise for a while these line up neatly with the boundaries of the two actual contenders of the war. And yes, one of the two (the winner) is more powerful for a while. Also, every time an international war happens, you tend to get dominance by a party in the nationalist afterglow (sometimes backlash), and the US has had semi-regular wars. Since then, many of the issues have been packaged in such a binary way that arguably the "need" for a third party wasn't super strong. There's an interesting scenario where the Civil War doesn't happen and you do get some more regional powers competing, maybe even forming individual parties. However, circling back to one part of the "structure" argument: only one person can win the Presidency outright, otherwise the decision goes to the House. This happened, but was messy and unpredictable, so no one really wanted that to happen again. And remember, the president is increasingly powerful, and drives the big issues in politics, rather than reflects it! So there's motivation for regions to group together if only for convenience.
Since the US was first, many other democracies formed since then sometimes deliberately structure their democracies to be multi-party, such as via proportional representation or so such. Historically, though, again the US was first, so not only was our system the only one in town, but parties had to be "invented"! It took like 40 years for them to start to take shape, and the issues that became big deals in the US were also often of a very specific flavor: how to use the national apparatus to help specific local regions. Thus state-level and national politics are very intertwined. Also, due to the historical structure of state government, as well as state loyalty and identity, municipal power would very rarely be competitive with state power, so those elections were often done in tandem. And national issues almost historically have very often driven voting enthusiasm more than municipal issues (!!), so splinters in local approaches within one party almost never lead to local-only splinter parties. Furthermore, state and national candidates have to come from somewhere! If you have ambitions to be a bigger fish, why would you join a smaller party? I buried a lede for voting expansion in the earlier paragraph. It's my (weak) understanding that some important "third-party" groups in Canada formed in the aftermath of increasing suffrage. In the US, these new constituencies were often rapidly absorbed.
India is the other major counter-example of the FPTP theory. Duverger notes that FPTP works on a district-level, and this is low-key the case in India. However, India has also had extreme local social, religious, and economic stratification! This pairs with fewer major wars and international crises (we are in the post-WWII era exclusively, remember), which also means that there are fewer overpowering national questions. To some extent, there is economic motivation to create more national party-coalition blocs, but local identity politics is very strong to this date. While in the recent decade the BJP is showing early signs of a dominant party, it is yet to be seen if and how that might trickle down to state and municipal contests. Finally, India has a president, but they are also chosen indirectly, and are mostly ceremonial, but it's still worth pointing out how they are chosen: members of parliament (!) combined with locally elected leaders (!) use a secret ballot (!) of RCV-IRV ranked voting (!). The president in turn works basically like the Crown does for the UK, where the PM is chosen, again indirectly, via a confidence-based coalition approach (and can lose said confidence), and then basically appoints all the top level executive branch themselves.
So in short: I'd argue history mostly, which has heavily involved the president. A typical political scientist might say it's structurally all FPTP, with the constitutional role of President being relevant as a tiebreaker. Furthermore many modern democracies deliberately construct themselves to be different than the US in some way, despite the obvious influences, so it's not really a fair comparison in the statistical-causal sense.
TIRM
21hr ago
Agreed. A single instance of tit for tat is impressive. Almost all the way there.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
21hr ago
You are listing 90s and 2000s culture war topics.
Right, and there are a lot of people who want to go back and re-litigate those same fights. Some of them are in this thread.
lollol
21hr ago
Here are my thoughts on the race:
- The people of the current era want fighters to represent them, no matter the political ideologue. Cuomo didn't have as much appearances or events as Zohran. This is similar to the dynamic of Biden, then Harris for a little bit, vs Trump. The people can sense when someone is putting in the work for their vote.
- Unlikely but Eric Adams still has a chance like Joe Lieberman did in 2006. Lieberman is at least respectable though, unlike Adams, which seems almost every New Yorker has some level of distaste for.
- I solidly believe the heat made a difference as elderly people are less likely to turn out to vote, this would be the first election I know of where climate change matters.
- This is going to be like AOC in 2018, tomorrow this news will be across the world. Lots of eyes, and resources are going to be pouring in.
- Yes, absolutely win for grassroots campaign.
- There are some talks going around how if we look at the geographical breakdown, it's a separation between transplants (Manhattan LES, Brooklyn Williamsburg, etc.) vs natives (Bronx, deep Brooklyn, deep Queens). I still want to wait for the full numbers though before more speculation.
Arguably, the manly dignity and self-reliance aspects were a side effect of feudal Europe, or at least an older, aristocratic way of thinking.
I can't really speak to "manly dignity", since I'm not really sure what that means, but self-reliance was never an aristocratic value. It is an eminently middle-class one. One of the notional justifications for aristocratic arrangements was that it enabled the aristocrat to pursue higher callings without having to be bothered about the sordid necessities of life.
yeoman farmers (landed gentry)
Yeoman farmers are pointedly not landed gentry: they might have farmhands, but they work their own land. In a sense, they are agrarian petit-bourgeoisie. The gentry by contrast, manage estates (or, more likely, have it managed for them) of tenant farmers (or slaves, in the pre-ACW US). The idea of doing their own farming would've been seen as distasteful.
I note this not to be pedantic, but to point out that there is a massive, yawning gulf between a nation of yeomen and shopkeepers on the one hand, and an aristocratic one on the other. The former is one that at least permits the idea of universal dignity; the latter is one that sees dignity as a zero sum affair.
Have you ever actually gone in, and lost the whole budget quickly? I can understand that the experience of winning might override the knowledge of -EV, but thats definitionally not something that can happen most of the time.
Im especially wondering about the olde times when there was no house and its all peer-to-peer betting, where presumably the others want to stop betting as you want to keep going.
More options
Context Copy link