bluesky's team has indeed banned patton oswalt, showing that once again the leadership of this site identifies more with child rapists than with normal human beings

i think may days of attending this up and coming nazi bar are coming to a close

everyone who continues to work with or for the new york times either explicitly or implicitly thinks pedophiles are the real victims

not a single person affiliated with that organization deserves to be considered "one of the good ones"

i think it's bad when a government is run by child rapists, major media outlets are also run by child rapists, leaders in higher education are also child rapists, and every major tech industries are also run by child rapists

those institutions shouldn't be defended
they should be dismantled

i'm really frustrated that the NYT as an organization has been actively conspiring to protect child rapists - trump, musk, summers, etc. - for over a decade

but, hey, you go ahead and be frustrated that people are frustrated about that

by Amanda Marcotte

As all this disgusting Epstein shit starts surfacing more and more, I hope we don't lose sight of the fact that apparently every major media outlet knew everything and instead spent their time money and energy attacking the trans community.

whoa, slow down there. this is dizzyingly complex

i can see a reality in which some people can work their way into the top 10% - though admittedly, the chances of that are vanishing with each passing year - but there is no real way for someone to honestly work their way into the top 1%. you're either born into it or purely lucky/exploitative

What Net Worth Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, or 10%? See how much net worth you need to join the top 1%, 5%, or 10% of Americans—and what it says about wealth, inflation, and Gen-Z’s financial future.

i suppose that depends on what one considers wealthy. from this forbes article, to be in the top 10% requires "only" a networth of over $1 million, while being in the top 1% is for those whose networth is over $11 and a half million.

www.forbes.com/sites/jackke...

we live in an era where you could probably get away with saying "these are fake" and yet they're doing with "they're exculpatory" instead

fucking. wild.

the mechanism for this reality is surprisingly simple, too:

when you are wealthy, you pay people to solve all your problems for you. you never have to learn anything or even to maintain any previously-learned things

wealth is an obstacle to learning

i've said it before, i'll say it again:

you cannot be wealthy and smart. the two things are in fact incompatible, even if in theory they could overlap just a smidge

New Epstein emails claim Trump ‘spent hours’ with victim Democrats on the House Oversight say the emails provide evidence of a cover-up by the White House

BREAKING: (Gift) New Epstein emails reveal that Epstein claimed he had kompromat on President Trump. www.miamiherald.com/news/politic...

time for liberals to start asking themselves why the Democratic party, confronting a historically unpopular, pedophile president, is completely unable to resist his agenda

AI-Generated Videos of ICE Raids Are Wildly Viral on Facebook An account is spamming horrific, dehumanizing videos of immigration enforcement because the Facebook algorithm is rewarding them for it.

The most horrifying AI slop of ICE raids you can possibly imagine is wildly viral on Facebook, collectively totaling tens of millions of views from a single account. First spotted by @chadloder.bsky.social

www.404media.co/ai-generated...

i suspect this because in the text of their actual article, they alternate between cited standards of acceptable inter-rater reliability scores. also, because of just how circuitous i had to be when trying to reproduce their reported output

i never could figure out what columns TOR21, TOR22, and TORAVG are supposed to actually represent, but my suspicion is that they are left in columns from earlier attempts to try and see if they had sufficient inter-rater reliability (which, they do not) to justify their "content meta-analysis"

oh, you have no idea. it took me quite a while to try and piece together how what was described in their published article corresponds to the data file they shared, because it is so poorly described. which itself might be a strategic incoherence to help hide their ulterior motives

unlikely. the numbers in columns FSR1&2, RBR1&2, RER1&2, NRR1&2, and NWN1&2 simply represent a binary 1 or 0 to indicate whether qualitative coders coded presence (1) or absence (0) of codes abbreviated FSR, RBR, RER, NRR, and NWN. TOR1&2 seems to be simple summation of the preceeding 5 columns

their only provided supplemental material is a .xlsx file, which is what i downloaded and took a screenshot of

wouldn't something like that result in consistent issues across the spreadsheet, rather than the inconsistency seen in the screenshot?

e.g. some instances of correctly averaging 0 and 1 to get 0.5 in the same column as averaging 1 and 1 to get 0.5 (and averaging 1 and 0 to get 1 as in line 21)

but i am petty, and don't want woodley at al to skate by without anyone mentioning publicly that they have very likely engaged in scientific fraud in an attempt to defend their racist pseudoscience from legitimate critique

now, bird et al's critique is thorough and wonderfully unravels the strategic incoherence of woodley et al's bullshit (in the frankfurtian sense), so throwing on an accusation of data tampering probably doesn't contribute much more, and risks the real message getting lost in sauce

screenshot of the supplemental data file from an article titled "Content meta-analysis of a racial hereditarian research “bibliography” reveals minimal support for Bird, Jackson Jr., and Winston's model of “scientific racism”" authored by a cavalcade of racist pseudoscientists who skirted proper peer review to get this published in the journal Intelligence highlighted columns reveal multiple instances of averaging columns together to get impossible values. 1 and 1 averaged are together to get 0.5 on lines 1, 2, 12, 18, and 19, but line 34, 1 and 0 are correctly averaged as 0.5. on line 21, the numbers 1 and 0 are averaged to 1. similar such instances suggestive of data tampering are shown in columns that aren't highlighted either, but the frequency with which these anomalies occur are just too numerous

i do think the authors were exceptionally kind in their critique of woodley et al's content analysis

if you dig into the details of woodley et al's supplemental data, there's evidence suggestive of data tampering

for example, they average 1 and 1 together to get 0.5 multiple times, seen here

great paper by bird et al!

loved this line in the conclusion. the field of psychology needs to do some soul-searching, i think

the content of those emails says that trump actively participated in the rape of children

you'd think you would lead with that instead of that he merely "knew" epstein was raping children

I'm begging you all in the media. Please read the emails for more than 2 seconds. They don't just say Trump "knew" about underage girls. THE EMAILS SAY HE PERSONALLY PARTICIPATED.

you really need to get your farting and pooping under control, dave

it's interesting that most of the things in that are recognizable words, and yet their positioned in a sequence that produces no coherent meaning to be extracted from them

i'm starting to think that if you're rich and white you should not be allowed to raise children