Have you seen Optimus do literally anything? It can like, pick up bottles from a tray I guess? Can it even open a door?

Fuck. Not good.

@chrislhayes.bsky.social do not underestimate Trump. Look at his actions and restrictions and extrapolate a goal.

Trump is unable to withdraw from NATO unilaterally (he requires congressional approval and NATO is still popular in the US). He's trying to get the US ejected from NATO.

Natural resources: why are we imposing tariffs making imports more expensive if our goal is better access to natural resources?

National security: by undermining allies who could help us deter Russia?

The singular goal here is to dissolve NATO. Trump has expressed said goal many times.

The threat of invasion makes no sense. The reasons given are "natural resources" and "national security". That's incoherent. The real strategy is to get NATO members to see the US as increasingly hostile and re-evaluate whether the US belongs in the alliance.

@briantylercohen.bsky.social please recognize that this is probably all a ploy to get the US ejected from NATO. Congress made it so the president can't withdraw unilaterally via NDAA.

Why is Trump threatening Greenland and Canada? Why is he being economically hostile to allies?

@atrupar.com I think this is all an attempt to destroy NATO. He's not allowed to unilaterally withdraw the US from NATO, Congress passed legislation ensuring that. He's using tariffs and threats of military invasion into Canada/Greenland to get the US ejected instead.

What happens if we ask ChatGPT how we, as president, could withdraw from NATO without formally withdrawing from NATO?

chatgpt.com/share/67f2c9...

Yikes.

This has never been about national security or imperialistic conquest. If it were, what good would undermining our allies do? Why would we limit the importing of valuable natural resources through tariffs?

This is very clearly a circumvention of Congress through a loophole.

Threatening Greenland and Canada is a way to eject the US from NATO.

Because Congress enacted Section 1250A of the NDAA, Trump can't simply withdraw from NATO as he would like to do. He needs to find an alternative approach. Conveniently, he's head of the executive branch.

#NATO #Dgg

Owning a rocket company makes you a rocket scientist?

This is true, but I don’t think democrats can afford to give up the anti-Billionaire rhetoric. In fact, it’ll probably be advantageous to double-down on it with Trump’s cabinet.

Young Liberal EMBARRASSES Tim Pool And His Crew In Brutal 1v5 Debate YouTube video by Destiny

“Long form content is important” - so always go broad, never go deep? Malicious pundits do hours and hours of soundbytes. Never diving deeper than surface level disagreements. When they have a position that’s indefensible, they claim “two movies, one screen”, but they don’t explain their movie.

Of course they'll say, "what, you don't like freedom of speech?", and ignore the fact that their "freedom of speech" exists inside of a game.

Bot nets plague certain networks. Pundits are also rewarded with views, likes, and algorithm boosting. These are all perverse incentives to "tat".

This is what it means to live in a "post-truth era". In fact, the post-truth era could only ever exist with a "free market place of ideas".

To reward Player 2 with no punishment, while they routinely "tat" out of self-interest is akin to not punishing people for driving recklessly.

See: "tit for tat" systems.

The questions they ask serve their interests; e.g. shadow money from the Russian state funding "US influencers".

When pundits ask the wrong question, they are participating in a game. The game is a stop light, and they do not hesitate to run the red light. There are no consequences. In fact, they're often rewarded.

Perverse incentive structures exist in every game.

This is the "game theory" of the "free market place of ideas". It's like questioning the legality of stop lights because they limit your freedoms. Coordination in a shared space requires rules to maximize efficiency.

It's the "tragedy of the commons" of "free speech".

The truth will eventually prevail, but how you get to the truth of a question matters. And if you focus only on answering the question, the truth doesn't matter, only the consequences.

i.e. a truth may be answered, but the damage of discovery costs more than the value of the truth.

I can and I must.

My class tried using an LLM service as a study guide for the final and it did not prepare me at all. It was terrible, but also probably not set up correctly.

nancysbw's comment on "Thoughts on Kenneth Zucker?" Explore this conversation and more from the asktransgender community

I do need to look more into it. It seems like he was defending Zucker, and Zucker seemed like he was running an operation where he was attempting to push kids in a particular direction. This was a good write-up I found.

Fair enough, but which part of my description don't you agree with?

From reading the article it seemed like he was defending Zucker who comes across as pro-conversion with some evidence of a preference in the cisgender direction.

I could understand the rationale being to give children an opportunity to explore, but that didn't come across in what I read.

Are you anti-HDI? Or anti-institution? Or is it just the NATO thing (e.g. helping Ukraine defend itself). Or is it Node.js?

No, I read 1 of his articles, and I read the rebuttals to that article. I found myself agreeing with the rebuttals more, but the original article did have good information in it.

SORRY. I meant "desistance". Thanks for the correction.

Thanks, I agree mostly with Julia's critic. He's also wrong on dissemination and seems to misrepresent the data there.

I also saw numerous allegations of harassment, but I've not been able to track down actual evidence of it besides allegations.

Further, he seems to be overly worried about "activist" parents putting pressure on their kids to be trans. I don't think this is a worry that's founded in reality.

He seems to incorrectly interpret some studies specifically around dysmorphia in children. Specifically, he says that "most" children with "dysmorphia" will disseminate. I don't think that's true. He's probably leaning on an incorrect diagnosis of "dysmorphia".