domain:rifters.com
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
23hr ago
Right now, the party which is most likely to blow itself up is the Republicans, because they need to manage the succession to Trump.
Yeah that's essentially what I have in mind with the Thatcher into Blair analogy.
That said, as a counter-counter-counter-point, succession fights can also be positive if they are sufficient free for alls instead of entrenched factionalism. We must remember here that Trump himself comes out of this kind of situation.
The way the splits in MAGA are shaking out though, I think we'll get factionalism. Techies vs Neocons vs Populists is just too clearly drawn with Trump the sole unifying figure. Unless Vance (or anybody else) manages to soften up the two other factions, it's going to be mean. There won't be any Dem radicals to sue the opposition into unity this time.
f3zinker
Its A/B testing all the way down
23hr ago
I can confidently say I'm an expert on PDF extraction for llm use.
ANy tips and tricks you picked up regarding this not available out there on the web? I basically just throw the most powerful vision model at it and YOLO it.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
23hr ago
Labour are the winners and NP the losers since 2013. The roles switch around every few decades or so. I didn't mean to imply that it's a one party state with some subsidized opposition like Singapore. It's just very stable for long stretches which allow for the dynamics I described.
Yeah pretty much. The party that controls the zeitgeist favours conservation, because they want to preserve the zeitgeist. The people in charge are in charge in one sense because the culture favours their politics, if it stops favouring their politics they'll lose power.
Edit: Added the rest of the post I meant to write when I accidentally hit send. God damn it I am getting worse at posting every day.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
23hr ago
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.
Uhh, which one is which? The timeline here shows both Nationalists and Labour holding power for long stretches. I checked some of the recent elections and Labour seems to win bigger victories when it wins, but still, winning is winning.
ControlsFreak
23hr ago
Scalia's concurrence in that case, relying on the Necessary and Proper Clause, made a lot more sense than the majority opinion.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
1d ago
They have a machine and no shot at relevance.
The UK Tory machine doesn't deliver votes any more. To the extent they are irrelevant, it is because nobody can see a scenario where they win a majority at Westminster and form a government (except possibly as a junior coalition partner to Reform, or heaven forfend as a junior partner in an anti-Reform grand coalition with Labour if they find themselves swinging that way). To the extent they are relevant, it is because people can see a scenario where they will continue to hold 100+ seats by inertia and hold the balance of power between Labour and Reform.
The Democrats are likely to take control of the House in 2026, and the 2028 Presidential election winning party market is currently a toss-up on oddschecker.com, which aggregates the big UK sportsbooks. (In contrast, the "Most Westminster seats after next UK election" market is a toss-up between Labour and Reform.) The Dem machine in its current state can deliver 48% of the popular vote for a poor candidate.
Right now, the party which is most likely to blow itself up is the Republicans, because they need to manage the succession to Trump. The MAGA GOP relies on Trump's reality-TV star charisma to turn out the down-with-everything loser voters who are now part of its core vote, and there is no obvious successor who has that. The Democrats OTOH have a decent shot at the 2028 Presidential election with a replacement-level candidate, just like they did in 2024 (where Trump was never as much as a 2-1 favourite after Biden dropped out).
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1d ago
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.
DirtyWaterHotDog
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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.
1d 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
1d ago
It doesn't 'just' mean harmful, but it's always harmful.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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
1d 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.
Two things that strike me about Mamdani:
his main proposals really go beyond Bernie-style "Do what they do in Nordic countries!" style stuff. While there are still elements of rent control in Nordic countries, I haven't heard anyone put a total rent freeze, even in public housing, on the table. Free public transport is not really on the table either, apart from some small Danish towns (and Tallinn if you think Estonia can get into Nordic). I don't remember anyone even suggesting publicly owned grocery stores. Even a failed attempt to do these in the "capital of the world" would probably put all these on the table all around the West.
Mamdani's platform, as presented, seems like a specific attempt to do what many class-first leftists have proposed doing and run on lunchbucket issues instead of idpol. There's a LGBTQ+ page, sure, but if one drills down to proposals then there are some specific Black and Hispanic appeals but way less and way less prominently than I'd expect most Democratic candidates in a similar position to include. My understanding is that there's more idpol stuff if one drills down to Mamdani's old tweets and like, but if we're talking about a specific campaign strategy, it seems to have worked.
More options
Context Copy link