never got round to this one before. good stuff

this has always been the meat of the Alito stories. not just that there’s a “scandal” in the traditional sense, but that he is legitimately a moron

lmao Google's AI is eating itself already -- telling you how much glue to put on pizza, citing a @katienotopoulos.bsky.social Business Insider article about Google's AI telling people to put glue on pizza

sound like wrong 'uns to me. a bad lot i shouldn't wonder

hmm. rather not

guess they promised not to put his wife in jail after all

I like the out of nowhere swipe at wyndham lewis in this NYT review of The Unnameable by stephen spender

seems like the obvious answer here then is that they should all, at all times, say "i am not capable of judging my own accuracy" www.newscientist.com/article/2429...

what annoys me most about them is that 75% of the ones I get are obvious lies. not that I read them but I involuntarily skim the subject lines and most of them are "your membership in something you never joined or even heard of is about to lapse unless you act NOW" or the like

my basic mental model of the court divides them into the three liberals; then you've got alito and thomas who i would absolutely believe will vote for any proposed piece of right wing hackery at all, no limitations, no doubt, even and especially the things that sound like or are meant as jokes

and the technology is still young, imagine the day when you can be in six meetings at once, or ten

"unfiltered" is a great euphemism

the punitive damages are meant to do this. that's what they're for. what happened here is that a jury of his peers decided it was right to impose an additional penalty that would make him cry, and a judge calculated the sum necessary to do that

I think about this all the time. Let’s give a big thank you to “the disgraceful state of analytic art criticism!”

as a little treat

the funny errors were the only good thing about it

Miller devised it as homage to John Martin’s “Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum”! Martin was the blockbuster spectacle guy of the early 1800s

doing the clockwork orange forced viewing behavior modification scene to every single democratic staffer and consultant and the screen just keeps flashing “appearing savvy to political reporters is not an important goal and does not help you win elections”

a physician who says the law does not allow abortion under those circumstances may well be wrong in their legal assessment, but a physician who says there is an unacceptable risk that a prosecutor and jury would not agree with their judgment that those circumstances exist is almost certainly right

My understanding is (and my guess is that this is what the third note was really about) is that some of the checks were signed directly by Trump and those were tied to 24 of the counts and 10 of the counts were tied to checks that Trump didn’t sign.

people keep saying this "all 34 counts" thing but was it ever really logically possible to convict him on some but not all of the counts. aren't they all the same misrepresentation on different documents

in another couple of years it will just be understood that right wingers fly the flag upside down all the time, that that's just the right wing flag now

will no one rid me of this troublesome pervert

head of six companies, including a major U.S. military communications contractor and a company that puts wires in paraplegics' brains, wants you to know that he considers filing fraudulent business records to be a trivial matter

i agree but it's very funny that this needs to be said www.politico.com/news/magazin...

twitter is about 80% trump fundraising ads for me this evening

tried to explain all the pending and recently resolved trump civil and criminal trials to the kids and had to look one or two of them up

lol

"even the conviction of a former president is novel only in the american context" well ok but that is the context in which it is occurring

Average American president has been convicted of .74 felonies

a solemn day

no

Alito lied about the reason the flag was up because he didn’t know the couple had text messages establishing the date of when the incident took place. They were supporting the insurrection. www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/u...

fun read on why chatbots are so bad at saying "no" www.quantamagazine.org/ai-like-chat...

[on the verge of achieving full AGI] why would they be asking whether it's safe to drink bleach if they didn't want to drink the bleach

the soft pivots have begun. that's fine, nobody gets everything right. but for the record: you didn't need clairvoyance or irrational pessimism to worry that a campaign beginning with a defense minister promising to engineer a famine might end somewhere bleak from Oct 9: www.pbs.org/newshour/wor...

so, I didn't go looking for this. this is genuinely the first interaction i had with the AI Overview, or at least the first one i noticed

people ask "why are there so many articles about these freaks" and obviously one answer is just "peter thiel" but another answer is that it's fun to judge other people's parenting but generally you should try not to but here you have the green light to do it without reservations

Maestro

well now I have a second-favorite fact checking parenthetical, coming after "(Eritrea denies committing human rights abuses.)"

what Very Serious People (derogatory) In fact "We want innocent people to stop dying" is the most serious position, and "the bombing will continue until someone comes up with a plan to do the thing the bombing won't accomplish" is childish

really telling that the default solution proposed here is to drop bombs in pursuit of no particular strategic objective until such a time as an objective occurs to the people with bombs

if you want a picture of the future imagine this weirdo slapping a toddler's face

it's very easy to criticize the NYPD for arrogant, contemptuous lawlessness but who are you going to call if you have a problem and you need someone to come over and kill your dog and threaten to arrest you for being upset about it