Yeah, I wish the legal system didn’t have this deference to “the voters will decide” when it reaches the level of actual criminal activity. Like the fact that you are running for or currently hold some office should have no impact at all on whether we are all equal before the law or how the law treats us. Yet every court and law enforcement agency seems terrified of the appearance of influencing the outcome of an election to the point that as long as you are running for something you are essentially legally bulletproof if the election is coming up soon.

I wonder if they understand what they’re encouraging by making the punishment for protests harsher than the punishments for direct action…not that that’s any of my business…

Where I live we get lots of local candidates who are some combination of democrat-green-progressive-working family alliances. Building coalitions from the bottom up like that, and showing that people with “green” in their bio can really be elected, is the way to move things forward. At the national level, the two-party system is far too entrenched to have a third party be anything but a defacto spoiler that turns off their own supporters more that anything else.

So they slapped some reinforcement learning on top of their LLM and are claiming that gives it “reasoning capabilities”? Or am I missing something?

Just the way this is going to go I guess. Ukraine has to fight with one hand tied behind their back, because the US says so, because appeasement like that always works when autocrats invade sovereign nations… Imagine in the late 1930s the UK ordering, lets say Poland, to not set foot on German soil and only fight in Poland because otherwise (gasp) we might make Hitler really mad and he might do something crazy. So too bad for you Poland, but we’ll just have to adandon support for you if you attack inside Germany, just how these things go…

The old Chevy Sparks are basically golf carts with 4 doors and permission to drive in the roads. They are the least “techy” EVs I’ve seen in person as they are really just a battery swap with the minimally-appointed ICE version of the car, which is very sparse on the electronic doodads.

deleted by creator

Sounds like this “study” (aka a self-reported, retrospective, epidemiological survey - which is a type of statistics that I think just confuses the public to call a study but whatever) needs a lot more work to say anything with certainty. The kicker in the article is this I think:

“…the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake.” Yikes. That, and it sounds like they didn’t control for any of the possible confounding variables such as nutrient intake, demographics, weight, stress, or basically any other risk factors or possible explanations. Its entirely possible that once they actually control for this stuff, the correlation could shrink to almost nothing or even reverse when we see that people who tried this diet were just baseline higher risk than who didn’t.

It’s just sugar with a teensy bit of the natural brown color from unrefined molasses left in it. I don’t find your observation that it takes 5 or 10 times as much of it to sweeten something to be true for me whatsoever, it’s almost exactly the same, and leaves me wondering if perhaps you also find that today’s low-flow toilets need to be flushed dozens of times to work, or that you turn on modern showers and just a tiny trickle comes out :)

Andrew Tate himself is absolutely a problem, that doesn’t preclude there from also being other, related, broader, problems. Usually, when you see an argument in the form of “X thing (small, defined, addressable) isn’t the problem, Y thing (large, nebulous, intractable) is the problem!” Then what is happening is someone is re-framing the debate from a cognizable issue to an unsolvable issue, to defuse any actual action. It’s a great tactic!

No appeals based on incompetent/ineffective counsel for a civil case. In a criminal case, a convicted defendant may appeal on the grounds of ineffectiveness of counsel at trial. This principal arises because of the constitutional right to be represented by counsel. Such a right would be meaningless unless it implies a right to effective counsel. There is no such constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and therefore no such ground for appeal in a civil case.