"I think it's actually very unfair to the victims of sexual assault to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for president"
"Can we ask victims of sexual assault what they think?"
"No no no! No need. I'll tell you all about it. Here's the thing..."
We're both wrong. It's Joe Manchin.
Holy god that's by far the worst one. Still the same gaping chasm of moral vacancy, but he looks younger and more vigorous, more capable with his greedy darkness.
(Edit: It's Joe Manchin, a totally different crooked rich white guy who gets away with everything)
I have this totally unreasonable belief that I can sometimes tell just from looking at someone that they're an awful person.
I mean, generally speaking, I do think it's better not to publicly humiliate anyone if you can avoid it. The fact that some people think this doesn't apply to "underlings" doesn't make it any less true as a general rule.
So one day, the build was broken. The guy that was running the project freaked the fuck out. He said the client needed to have a nightly build or really bad things would happen.
Now, to manually produce a build of this project was an intense undertaking. It usually ran overnight and it was a long, fiddly process that took several hours. I proposed to him that I just fix the builder instead, and they'd get a build tomorrow. No, he said. It has to be today.
I spent the entire goddamned day making a new build. Finally, at the end of the day, I got a build. We could give it to the client.
He said, good news, I got you some extra time. I told the client we've got some new features we really want to show you, and they'll be in tomorrow's build.
You can see where this is going.
Four days in a row this happened. Four days of making a new build by hand, never with the time or permission to just fix the builder. The client never received the build they kept getting promised, because there were always new features waiting, tantalizingly close, that they absolutely had to witness for themselves. But alas, these features had just been implemented, brand new, and we had to make a build that would include them. Tomorrow. It was always just in the works, tomorrow. And yet... tomorrow, when everyone came in, the build was broken! This was a surprise to no one, except the guy running the project. He seemed genuinely not to grasp the idea that if no one fixed the autobuilder, the autobuilder would continue not working. He lived in a perpetual state of fear and anxiety, driven to wild agony by the prospect of an unhappy client. I wasn't privy to the conversations, but I suspect the client was genuinely unhappy with whatever he was telling them. I have no idea.
Finally, on the fourth day, I happened to talk with one of the higher-ups, and filled him in one what was going on on my project. His conversation about it with me was fairly brief, but it was fairly clear that he wasn't happy.
Within a few minutes, I was officially told that I had permission to take some time to fix the autobuilder. Oh joyous day it was.
Once the project was over, there was a very, very short delay before the guy who'd been running the project had been offered an exciting new opportunity at some other company and we all wished him the best.
An outrage. I don't want prisoners in the US to make my food, just vulnerable immigrant populations kept perpetually at the edge of deportation, and subsistence foreign farmers victimized by a century and a half of gunpointed economic oppression with the full-throated support of the entire permitted US political spectrum.
If only everyone else would agree with him and do exactly what he says at all times immediately, we wouldn't have problems like this. He specifically told them how unreasonable it is that they're out of soy milk. Several times.
Fast forward 3.5 hours to his local Starbucks
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN YOU'RE OUT OF SOY MILK LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING
Force is proportional to m1 * m2 / r^2, so your weight as a percentage of your surface weight is equal to (radius of earth / (radius of earth + height above surface))^2.
So there's a bunch of different things going on.
Real historically, it meant to assert something without proving it, and base your logic on the unproved assertion and go on from there. "I couldn't have been driving drunk, because I wasn't driving." You can keep saying that any number of times, and insist that your logic is flawless (because in terms of the pure logic, it is), but if someone saw you driving, it's kind of a moot point.
Saying "begging the question" to mean that is weird. The phrase is a word-for-word translation of a Greek phrase into pretty much nonsensical English. Wikipedia talks about it more but that's the short summary.
So after that meaning came what Wikipedia calls "modern usage," which is where "begging the question" means not just something you haven't proved, but the central premise under debate. You assume it's true out of the gate and it's obviously true, and then go on from there. "We know God exists, because God made the world, and we can see the world all around us, and the world is wonderful, so God exists. QED."
In actual modern usage, no one cares about any of that, and just uses "begs the question" to mean "invites the question." Like you're saying something and anyone with a brain in their head is obviously going to ask you some particular question. It has nothing to do with the original meaning, but the original meaning never actually meant that in English, so pedants like myself that prefer the original meaning are engaged in a pure exercise in futility.
The six justices were named as defendants in the case. They did not give a detailed justification as to why they chose not to weigh in, and are not required to do so.
As Hunter Thompson said: "To ask the question is to answer the question."
Disclaimer: I have no real qualification on this. But it seems like this whole technology is pretty sensitive to the specific model being used and the specific details of the pixels; the whole thing is written like there's some silver-bullet image alteration that can fool "machine vision" in general, but what it demonstrates is nothing like that.
I asked Midjourney to identify the altered images that machines are supposed to identify as a sheep or a cat or whatever, and it said:
- A bouquet of flowers sitting on the table in a brown vase
- Some bright colored flowers in a circular vase
- An omelette and sandwiches on the table
- An omelet with hash browns
... which is what they are.
The last two images were actually a little more interesting -- they're distorted to the point that it's visually obvious that they've been altered, and Midjourney actually picks up that the image is distorted a little, and includes that in the style part of its description, while mostly-accurately describing what's in the image. These are its full descriptions:
"a red bridge, traffic lights, and a fencedin section of street, in the style of digital mixed media, thermal camera, american realism, found object sculpture, stipple, ricoh r1, xbox 360 graphics"
"a pole with a traffic light and a van, in the style of distorted, fragmented images, manapunk, found objects, webcam photography, suburban ennui capturer, hyper-realistic bird studies, 19th century american art"
Hunter S. Thompson was right all along...
The stuff about ibogaine in "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72" was in a rare category where I genuinely couldn't tell if he was being serious or making up nonsense. Maybe it was real.
Makes sense. I don't use Tor for much of anything, just have an awareness of it, but I do donate money to lemmy.world and SDF for pretty much exactly this reason.
It's a freeze frame from the third video here.
