Rule number 1: Don’t obey in advance. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but still, never lapse, even for a second.
Fuck Trump, and you should also know it’s incredibly illegal to say “I want to kill the president of the United States of America.” It’s one of the only sentences you’re not allowed to say!
This whole article is just a condescending mess.
“Why does everyone who has been repeatedly burned by AI, time and time again, whether that be through usable software becoming crammed full of useless AI features, AI making all the information they get less reliable, or just having to hear people evangelize about AI all day, not want to use my AI-based app that takes all the fun out of deciding where you go on your vacation???”
(yes, that is actually the entire proposed app. A thing where you say where you’re going, and it generates an itinerary. Its only selling point over just using ChatGPT directly is that it makes sure the coordinates of each thing are within realistic travel restrictions. That’s it.)
And it’s more expensive than the most expensive US mobile plan, which would have faster speeds, whereas Trump Mobile’s drops off after a certain (lower than T-Mobile’s own plans) amount of GB data usage since they’re solely using T-Mobile as an MVNO, and also has deprioritized data speeds during periods of network congestion.
It would also get you the ability to switch underlying network providers if you’re in a dead zone, international calling and data in more locations, better customer support given all the experiences we’ve seen from reviewers, and unlimited hotspot data, plus better bundle deals for families or people with smart watches that need separate data.
Hell, even T-Mobile’s own own plans, which are usually substantially more expensive than other companies they solely act as an MVNO for, like Mint Mobile, (which is actually owned by T-Mobile now) which will get you the same value as T-Mobile’s $50/mo plan in a $30/mo plan that is just $15/mo for new users for up to a 12 month period.
Trump Mobile is just $2.55 cheaper than T-Mobile’s $50 plan.
The CDC’s “vaccine safety” page now claims that the statement “vaccines do not cause autism” is not based on evidence because it doesn’t rule out the possibility that infant vaccines are linked to the disorder.
This dumbfuck doesn’t understand that science can’t fully rule anything out. That’s why science continues to evolve, and things we once thought were true change over time as we get more evidence.
Science explains what we see in the world, it doesn’t magically explain every possible outcome of every possible thing we look at.
No shit you can’t “rule out the possibility”, because you can’t have an omnipotent view of every possible way every chemical reaction occurs ever between any infant and any vaccine.
What we can do, is look at how vaccines and autism rates are correlated, engage in numerous studies, and find out that there is no observable causal link between the two, or even a statistically significant correlation. That is the closest we can possibly get to “ruling it out.”
You wanna know what there is an observable causal link for? Viruses killing people that would otherwise not have gotten sick from the virus had they gotten the vaccine.
Jfc we are so cooked as a nation.
“I can explain, your honor… whoopsies! :3”
It runs autonomously to a degree, but a lot of these sites operate via posting a wide variety of content on the same domains, after those domains have previously gained status in search engines.
So for example, you’ll have a site like epiccoolcarnews[.]info hosting stuff like “How to get FREE GEMS in Clash of Clans” just because previously they posted an article about cars that Google thought was good so they ranked up the domain in their ranking algorithm.
Permanently downrank the domain, and eventually they have to start with a new domain that, as is the key part here, has no prior reputation, and thus has to work to actually get ranked up in search again.
They’re also going to be making this a public database, and have said they’ll use it to train AI-generated content detection tools that will probably be better at detecting “AI generated articles meant to appear legitimate by using common keywords and phrases”, rather than just “any text of any form that has been generated by AI” like other AI detection tools do, which would make them capable of automating the process a bit with regard to specifically search engines.
This fight wasn’t about SNAP, it was about the fucking healthcare. These SNAP recipients are talking about how they endured these SNAP cuts and felt it was worth it because in the end they would get their healthcare back.
There was literally a court battle in progress that would have forced Trump to pay the SNAP benefits regardless of the shutdown, and they couldn’t even wait for the outcome.
Now, there are no extensions for ACA credits, and the Democrats have lost their single biggest point of leverage to force any other legislation.
To repeat that, in essence, the Democrats just traded slightly sooner SNAP payments that would have already been required to happen in exchange for nothing. That is why people are so angry about this. Hope this helps.
I meant if you were in the actual time, 1975. As in, trading your current bills for those bills, and spending them back then.
You would still have the same number of dollars, but you’d have dollars that had more value in each, and thus more purchasing power. Prices were lower, because the value of each dollar was higher, even though the same goods were still priced in dollars back then and today.
A dollar is not an unchanging unit, because it’s purpose is to be spent, and to represent value. One dollar is one dollar, but how much goods someone is willing to give you for a dollar changes, thus a dollar is never truly equivalent to itself at a different time in the past.
The value of a dollar will change from one second to the next, as the prices of goods in the economy are updated to reflect how many dollars someone thinks they are individually worth, and by doing so, the value of the dollar as a method of purchasing power changes.
There is no objective measure by which the dollar determines its value, and there is no peg that one dollar will always be worth. One dollar today gets you less than a dollar 50 years ago, thus the dollar today is worth less than a dollar 50 years ago, even if the denomination on the bill is the same number.
Yes, a dollar is a dollar. But it is not worth the same value.
The dollar categorically holds less value. Worth is just a measure of how much value something has to people.
The goods are more monetarily expensive, but have the same intrinsic value (e.g. calories do not give your body more energy now than they used to). Thus, the dollar is worth less than it used to be, and it requires more of them to equal the value of the same amount of food. A dollar today is equivalent to one other dollar today, but it is not worth one dollar ten, twenty, or 50 years ago.
If I could trade $100 today for $100 50 years ago, I would have more value even though both are classified as “one hundred dollars”, because $100 50 years ago has more value and gets you more goods.
$1 today gets you the same amount of goods as $0.53 got you in the year 2000 in terms of actual buying power, hence why people use that term.
…or when divided by the population (currently 342 million), under 2 cents per person.
In the US attention has now turned to the nickel, which has a face value of five cents but costs nearly 14 cents to produce. Retiring that coin would have a far bigger impact on shoppers, costing consumers some $55m per year, according to the Richmond Fed study.
…or about $0.16/person.
In exchange, everyone gets to:
However, nickels only result in an annual loss of about $17.7m/year right now, so economically it would still be a net-loss, dollar-value wise.
You get a dollar’s worth of goods, but the amount of goods you get is less, because a dollar is worth less.
the article says they’re comparing it to their earnings and likelihood to switch jobs among other things.
Two things that are coincidentally lower (in terms of pay) and higher (in terms of propensity to switch jobs) for black people, rather than white people.
They just use the buzzword “AI”, but in reality it’s probably going to be a machine learning algorithm.
Take the dataset, split out the groups of people you do/don’t want to hire based on whatever criteria, train the model to be more likely to pick faces with characteristics from the “do hire” group, and less likely to pick those from the “don’t hire” group.
Then, use it on real people, and it will provide similar outcomes based on faces.
The study claims that they analyzed participants’ labor market outcomes, that being earnings and propensity to move jobs, “among other things.”
Fun fact, did you know white men tend to get paid more than black men for the same job, with the same experience and education?
Following that logic, if we took a dataset of both black and white men, then used their labor market outcomes to judge which one would be a good fit over another, white men would have higher earnings and be recommended for a job more than black people.
Black workers are also more likely to switch jobs, one of the reasons likely being because you tend to experience higher salary growth when moving jobs every 2-3 years than when you stay with a given company, which is necessary if you’re already being paid lower wages than your white counterparts.
By this study’s methodology, that person could be deemed “unreliable” because they often switch jobs, and would then not be considered.
Essentially, this is a black box that gets to excuse management saying “fuck all black people, we only want to hire whites” while sounding all smart and fancy.
I’ve got context.
That area is a parking lot by the ICE facility. So it doesn’t appear to just be any old photo of a man crying in a parking lot. Both the color and density of the bricks, distance of the grass, color of the parking lines, and placement of the door, which I initially was led to believe was a pole based on the angle, are all a match, though whatever’s partially obscuring the second photo in the original post is something that was likely added later on, as the most recent street view photos are from about 3-4 months ago, give or take.
Both reverse image searches on the attached photos, and facial recognition scans via PimEyes of his face turn up no results.
I was able to find two additional photos of him from this post on Bluesky, one from behind talking to officers, and another of him sitting on the ground but with a different angle of his face visible.
I found an additional photo from what appears to be the same poster on Facebook this time, showing more of his face. Still no facial rec match, though. (PimEyes doesn’t search social media for privacy reasons though, so there’s a chance it’s just missing him on there)
The org that seems to have the largest swath of the photos, and initially did the reporting, is Humanizing Through Story, who’s mission is to capture documentary-style photos of immigrants and refugees in an attempt to humanize them.
Their site links to an Instagram post by their account. That post claims that “This is what was reported to me by a community member who offered aid and resources to him on site.”
So to wrap that all up:
He also has a minimal existing cult following to build popularity off of, unlike Trump, who has people like this:
A great Medium article on the topic that analyzes the entire situation: (coming to the conclusion that no, Proton does not really seem to be in favor of Trump/MAGA at all given their actual actions, and how the original statement was misinterpreted)
I also recommend Progressive Victory!
They were the ones who initially got me to phonebank for Zohran, and they’ve got good communities of people who can help you out in a number of different ways.
You CAN make a difference if you get involved on a local level and get active in your community.
And this is the VERY key part. Local organizing almost always makes larger impacts, because most people, to be perfectly honest, don’t give a shit about any form of organizing in their local community. It’s easier to cast a ballot for a federal candidate, “chip in” (as all political fundraising emails love to overuse so fucking much while setting the default for every donation to like $50 or some bullshit after asking 20 times a week) a few bucks, and be done with it, than it is to walk down to every house over a few block radius and have a chat with any person who answers the door about a local candidate or policy.
To use Zohran as an example, he’s already gotten hundreds of thousands of votes, but as of one of his campaign’s emails yesterday, got just 1,000 people to canvass today (a day they were trying to break the record for most doors knocked in a single day, which is meant to attract a large swath of anyone who wants to canvass for him).
One person in a thousand canvassing for him is infinitely more impactful to the end result than one person voting by ballot.
Almost certainly yes, at least based on historical precedent, though Trump loves ignoring that.
For example, Watts v. United States, where someone said:
He was originally convicted, but that was then reversed, as the Supreme Court stated:
At the end of the day, the law only really states that you have to:
So let’s say I say “I am going to kill the President” not as an example, but as an actual statement. That could be interpreted as an actual threat. However, If I am a 13 year old kid with just $20 to my name, no access to a gun, and no means of transport to even get near the president, it would be hard for the government to argue that’s not just a joke, or political hyperbole, as it was in the case of Watts v. United States.
Given that all of those would be a threat for you to do something, and not just you wishing he was dead by any other means, it’s quite likely that any court would determine you saying something like “I hope Donald Trump dies a horrible, agonizing, painful death,” or even something like “I hope someone else shoots the president” would probably be considered AOK, and again, just political hyperbole, or statements without any material threat behind them.