Eli Bishop

At least, that's what I took Solnit's comment to mean

Either way, I don't think the point is that we need to ponder what Musk really meant, but just that his choice of words was actively hostile to the huge number of Irish-Americans whose ancestors were *not* Ulster Protestants

(And Scots vs. Scotch in this context is an unimportant variation)

"Scots-Irish" is an existing term with an unambiguous meaning, regardless of whether Musk understands it or knows how to spell it.

That is true, but the hypothetical quote is still something she would say. Bruenig's standard schtick is "Progressives should listen to my anti-choice beliefs because I'm really a progressive at heart." It's nonsense, but she's aware that that's her niche & is the only reason anyone would read her.

They're talking about Minneapolis, because Homan said Walz & Frey in particular should be thankful.

Ugh 😬

I mean, I can easily believe that there were some crappy Democrats who said something in his defense, but the idea that he didn't get significant criticism seems wrong. That came out a while after his appointment, though - it wasn't a nomination, there hadn't been any vote on it - or have I misread?

I don't know what the dialogue was within Montana, but all of the national coverage I saw of this at the time (not that there was a lot) consisted of Democrats and liberals expressing outrage about it, and Carl complaining that Democrats and liberals were attacking him.

Well, they're not betting it all on "rage bait into forgetting", they're also leaning pretty hard on "the leftist excesses *caused* the fascist backlash, so we were right all along, never mind little details like who is actually doing the bad things."

I'm unbelievably sick and weary of this reflex that everyone has online where they think you need to keep repeating BUT WHAT IF WE'RE ALL FUCKED or else you're not a serious person. Please consider that maybe others are already just as scared as you are.

Partisan corruption involving all 3 branches of the government is a disaster, it's a huge problem, it's just not the subject of the "nobody ever imagined..." comment I was replying to. I have no goddamn idea how this will shake out. Is that ok with you?

Please don't assume that just because I answered a more specific question (did the founders forget to make a way to remove a corrupt executive officer who is in charge of law enforcement), that I think things are fine.

Todd Haynes's POISON. I walked into it randomly, as a teenager who was just getting used to being able to go to random arthouse movies in the big city. Had no idea what I was in for, ended up still not being sure what I'd seen but loving it.

In the same year, I had a similar experience with WAX, OR THE DISCOVERY OF TELEVISION AMONG THE BEES... the difference being that I absolutely hated that movie

Todd Haynes's POISON. I walked into it randomly, as a teenager who was just getting used to being able to go to random arthouse movies in the big city. Had no idea what I was in for, ended up still not being sure what I'd seen but loving it.

History is full of people who were arrogant and stupid enough to act like they feared no consequences. That's not a reliable way to predict what the future holds for them.

Sure they imagined it. The remedy is impeachment.

The first time I reviewed some code that a PM had vibe-coded, I spent so much time writing comments like "I see the intention with this, but here's why we don't do it this way", because I thought he wanted to learn how to do stuff & might be able to pre-correct his next attempt. Alas, no.

One of many great "can we find some way to rescue/refit every version of the Harris universe" choices in the Hannibal show was to have Eddie Izzard play a guy who is sort of the Cox Hannibal (but dumber) and can't stand that people are only interested in the supervillain version.

I realize it's unwise to try to make Yudkowsky's writing make sense, but I'm not sure I even understand what he's saying about outcomes of AI "optimism" or "pessimism". Hopeful engineers should give up and turn tricks... if AI optimists are right? But then they *shouldn't* try to enjoy their lives?

No one is saying they have to do a different job than they're doing. The reaction is to the "whistles are bad for people" stuff that they made a point of adding. They could've very easily just said they're doing a different thing and left it at that.

Oh come on. 3/4 of their post is about why using whistles is bad and harmful and shouldn't be done. Their stance on this is very clear, they are not in any way saying "but we're fine with people doing it."

Oh my, you're one of those liking-your-own-posts people, I should've known better

People do get confused about how to use social media, and usually when people write "you" in a reply, it's meant for the person they replied to. I wasn't giving you shit, I thought you might like to know. Bye.

If you're under the impression that you're replying to the author of the Guardian article, you're not - emptywheel simply posted a link to the article.

Speak for yourself. Plenty of people have continued to talk about ICE and Epstein. If you can't handle that another outrage even gets *mentioned*, because you can't imagine that anyone has more memory than a goldfish or actually cares about things, that's on you.

Using CLAUDE.MD files: Customizing Claude Code for your codebase | Claude Learn how to use CLAUDE.md files to give Claude Code persistent context about your project structure, coding standards, and workflows.

Btw, what I mean by "specific effort" is like what's described here: claude.com/blog/using-c...

People commonly make the mistake of thinking they are helping a chatbot evolve and understand them because they've had a bunch of conversations with it, but that's not how this works. They're talking to the same fully-baked model each time, which has a very limited set of notes from last time.

At least, if the work is proprietary code within a company, rather than i an open-source repo.