@idothethinking.bsky.social I’m curious if you have an update on open.substack.com/pub/darrello... given the new stats. Seems like you were correct that policing was inefficient, but fare evaders were causing real problems
The takeaway for me was that for anything important is still getting human translation, it’s just that tons of other stuff used to also require human translation, and that market is going away fast.
This is a really interesting subject. Here’s a great article including interviews with some professional translators.
www.understandingai.org/p/how-human-...
@dieworkwear.bsky.social Dumb question: what about a collar gap without the jacket.
With Jamie Dimon out there lying about wage stagnation, I'm reminded of what @mattyglesias.bsky.social said about his message discipline: Dimon is never foolish enough to talk about the issue he actually cares about: lower taxes on the rich.
But how will the penguins open the packaging without opposable thumbs?
We're not getting SB 677, but presumably SB 79 was the more important one I hope?
So maybe she’s not open to changing her mind? 😟
Owens thinks she may not hold these beliefs strongly and could be convinced to turn back these positions.
Oh yea, gotta try some movies
Great article on Waymo safety by @binarybits.bsky.social, who has IMO the best reporting on self-driving cars out there
I tried a straight-on version of that photo, but I'm not sure I prefer it.
It’s good to personally support things that are morally right but unpopular.
But I voted for Obama and was proud to do so even though he opposed gay marriage.
Who’s “everyone”? Didn’t Trump oppose this back when the bill was passed? He’s willing to break the law on funding USAID, he’s willing to break the law on this too.
He already reneged on a bet on COVID no? With Sam Harris I think?
Amazing end to the episode this week @matt-levine.bsky.social
Waited the whole episode to understand the title, but it was a satisfying answer.
What a great metaphor on the AI Summer podcast @deanwb.bsky.social is quoting Aidan McLaughlin, I have no idea if it’s accurate, but it got the point across.
Folks discussing this on Manifold think it won’t actually happen, apparently something about it being part of the “high seas”
manifold.markets/MaxwellTabar...
Are you gonna ask Josh Barro about his opinion on this?
It’s literally what he’s asking for, yes
Not that I approve of the guy, but Tom Cotton said that yesterday. I was honestly surprised he’d break with Trump so loudly.
If that was your point, you could have said it! You just successfully expressed the concept in 300 characters.
Maybe I should just complain to Charlie for taking you out of context… but you can see how that post looked on its own right?
Look, @cstross.bsky.social reposted your claim. I follow him, I saw it, I thought “woah, that’s wild” and then before reposting it myself I did like 5 minutes of research and found that the claim is factually false. And now I’m a bit annoyed with you both!
But you feel it is true in your gut. Ok 👍.
You literally said “no mention” pre revolution. I’m not making an argument about Tea Party. If that’s what you’re arguing now…
![If the parliament have a right to lay a duty of four shillings and eight pence on a hundred weight of glass, or a ream of paper, they have a right to lay a duty of any other sum on either. They may raise the duty as the author before quoted says, has been done in some countries, till it "exceeds seventeen or eighteen times the value of the commodity." In short, if they have a right to levy a tax of one penny upon us, they have a right to levy a million upon us. For where does their right stop? At any given number of pence, shillings, or pounds? To attempt to limit their right, after granting it to exist at all, is as contrary to reason, as granting it to exist at all is contrary to justice. If they have any right to tax us, then, whether our own money shall continue in our own pockets, or not, depends no longer on us, but on them. "There is nothing which we can call our own", or to use the words of Mr. Locke, "What property have" we "in that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to himself."[34]
These duties, which will inevitably be levied upon us, and which are now levying upon us, are expressly laid for the sole purpose of taking money. This is the true definition[77] of taxes. They are therefore taxes. This money is to be taken from us. We are therefore taxed. Those who are taxed without their own consent, given by themselves, or their representatives, are slaves.[35] We are[78] taxed without our own consent given by ourselves, or our representatives. We are therefore——I speak it with grief——I speak it with indignation——we are slaves.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:lro6fd7pk2anz5lesl56r63d/bafkreifplzvdev3obqdkamyrdcruegbaogxgtk234zdprmeisbon6erpdq)
Look, I’m not going to argue that “taxation without representation” was definitely the true motivation. But saying the complaint didn’t exist pre revolution is flatly false. Here’s letter from a Pennsylvania Farmer VII, published in January 1768.
Most of its reasons are things like “you don’t know germ theory”. It’s fundamentally misunderstanding the prompt!
Watch out, Dana is gonna see this and it’s gonna be another fight
I think that media organizations might also be more interested in highlighting notable diversity firsts for a Democratic president than a Republican.
It’s just another way in which media is accidentally hurting Democrats.
I’m actually not sure if there’s anything in this beyond what Meta announced in late 2023
about.fb.com/news/2023/09...
Iraq war as the single most politically influential event of the last 25 years was an interesting insight.
