"He doesn’t see conversations with NPCs as anything but obstacles to the good part. Plow through them and get back to playing the game."
He's doing it right... it's the Devs who are hopelessly lost.
As DD says below, a lot of these games are just interactive books... some of you like that... I just see it as really bad books written by people who should be writing meta-rules, not books.
Kinda think it would. And 99% sure it would actually comply with the re-written Electoral Count Act to be 'challengeable' as "The vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given"
Oral arguments in the Trump Disqualification case were yesterday.
Tea leaves say: Not looking good for disqualification.
However, the goat entrails don't point to which line of reasoning SCOTUS will use to overturn. (We all know what my read on this would be).
I'm mildly happy it doesn't seem to be focused on the 'dumb' who's an officer argument... but a little sad that there seems to be more focus on, 'what if all the states did this' argument... and a little gratified that Congress and the Section 5 argument is in the hunt. Though I'll admit that I'm a little surprised at some of the lackluster historical research shown by the justices, especially Kavanaugh (or his clerks anyway).
Thanks, the EC is a great point to bring up, so I did a little poking around as it jogged my memory about 'faithless electors' and questions about the 'true autonomy' of the EC, which has slowly been circumscribed over the years.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday [2020] that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, and electors almost always do so anyway."
In the realm of theory... if 32 states require that the Dead Guy receive their EC votes (whomever that might be) while 28 states take the 'prudential view' of electing a Party's preferred candidate rather than the vote getter... we might have votes cast for 3 candidates -- most likely giving the election to the non-dead candidate. In theory.
Probably the best thing to do would be elect the dead guy, then VP succeeds, then appoints new VP, then... profit?
[edit]
p.s. I'd assume there's some sort of provision in at least one state's Fed Election laws for this sort of thing... but ironically, if each state has a different process to manage this scenario, it might make things 'worse' in terms of getting the guy with the most EC votes elected.
Post Convention? My question is about State level federal ballots/votes... I suspect the votes *wouldn't* do that if a candidate dies between early election and election day... the Party doesn't own the votes once they've been cast (I don't think). And each state has or doesn't have rules on what happens to those votes or when a party can change a candidate on the ballot.
What's the scenario of a candidate dies after the convention, but before election? Let's say Sept 30th? Does it change if it's Dec 15?
Does every state have the same process for changing a declared candidate prior to the election date? I seem to recall that different states have different requirements for ballot access and changes?
Might be weird if Oregon has Biden locked in but NY is able to substitute, say, Newsom or Harris?
Which is just to say that either candidate would do us all a big favor if they'd die before the convention.
Big and Dumb, but scores off the charts on loyalty and teamwork. Also accustomed to playing second fiddle to bigger draw.
Hope it's a love match and they have a dozen children... maybe they will have discovered the secret to lonely Artists failing at love with other lonely narcissistic artists and a new dating paradigm will emerge?
The Gretzky, Beckham, Kelce project.
Though, the DiMaggio/Monroe variable could be a confounder.
But let's be serious for a moment; there's a 100% chance that Taylor's people have, under a mutual NDA, started work on his social media brand. They probably chuckle at his rudimentary NFL media training and report back to Taylor that he's got potential, but needs a lot of work. Just part of the ROI analysis on whether the Swift/Kelce '25+ project is greenlit.
Anonymous sources I have in the Swift camp hint that break-up is showing more favorable numbers with focus groups testing the new single: "I bet on Kansas and lost my ass(ets)"
Right... Pop Icons are rarely making the most interesting songs -- you have to trade accessibility (major keys) and mainstream themes for Icon levels of paying fans.
Yeah, I once made a 'Cradle-to-Grave' country playlist and pointed out to my daughters that I had Taylor Swift's 'Our Song' in the mix. Well before Swift was a thing, making me an OG Swiftie.
But yeah, her pop songs seem to clock in well below her talent level and are astonishingly forgettable... but hey, that's what selling-out is, man.
Right, I can report that in the orthodox Christian ecumenical homeschooling communities Taylor Swift is an ordinary thing. There's no visible 'backlash' is flesh and blood world. Heck, even Ross Douthat is joking that a Swift/Kelce marriage and children might help break the Milennial anti-natalism.
Like all pop music, we talk about some questionable themes and messaging... but that's just life as the counter-culture.
This is just the usual online quixote complex at work.
Dang, we just took down the Christmas tree and the Nativity sets are still up... is it election season already? Definitely not in the mood yet.
And for that reason, I'm not really ready for a vibes test on election predictions. But, to play the game:
Trump will be on the ballot, and at this point it's pretty clear that campaigning for President, defending against civil, criminal and constitutional indictments *is* both his political and legal (and fundraising) strategy. So running for president pays for potentially ruinous civil judgements against him (in his mind a cost of doing business); but I also expect the monetary damages and NY 'fraud' lawsuit not to yield 'ruinous' $$ after appeals etc. Whether or not criminal charges can resolved *before* the election? I'm gonna say 40% chance. And, if they are resolved, I'd also 'predict' that the sentences will be less than what opponents are imagining... especially for the documents charges (unless they find evidence of espionage... which would then make the odds of wrapping up before election almost nil). BUT, I'd have to say there's an 80% likelihood he's convicted (of something) but also an 85% chance the sentencing is suspended pending the election and therefore a slim 4.8% chance he's in jail running a Eugene Debs reprise. He'll still be on the ballot.
Trump's running mate? Doesn't matter and I have no idea.
Biden/Harris with a 10% chance that Biden either dies or suffers a debilitating health event... depending on the timing, he might still be on the ballot (???).
Prediction: Too soon to predict.
Hypothesis: Trump's self-absorption campaign will bigly underperform 2016/2020. Biden wins by a lot.
Counter-hypothesis: Biden's decline and weakness has impacted his ability to shape the Dems -- progressives actively work to denigrate the good he does, and he's too weak to marginalize the progressives and create the 'big tent' some hoped he'd build in 2020. Therefore, he campaigns on a 'too-online' platform and he isn't seen as a foil to the Dem crazy for independents; this leaves the race shaped by that last worst thing done by either side in the negative-partisan sweepstakes to tilt the balance. Trump eeks out a squeaker, and MattY commits ritual suicide.
As for everything else, that'll have to wait until after Easter.
"Oh, let me state for the record: I am sure that the NFL is getting more out of their (tangential) relationship with Taylor Swift than she is getting out of her relationship with the NFL"
Sure, since all we can do is put together a 'grand jury' type indictment but can't get access to the alleged crime scene... then let's move on.
1. Put back the 'Obama Mortarium' on GOF research, since we can't determine the origin or rule out the lab's culpability we have to conclude that the risk now outweighs our ability to manage it.
2. Suspend joint funding/research projects with all Chinese labs, since an important lesson learned is that they won't allow for audits. Every grant is contingent upon this.
3. Suspend Ecohealth Alliance's Grant requests for 5-years for failure of oversight... this comes from the fact that even during the Pandemic EHA asked for their funding to be reinstated and NIH asked them for oversight materials from the lab which EAH stated they could not get owing to the Chinese authorities.
4... feel free to add other lessons learned.
Absent additional information that would (probably) come from the lab, I don't have a particular axe to grind with NIH leadership... so they get to retire with their pensions.
[But I'd revisit if the threads lead to more evidence of cover-up... honestly, the stuff related to the Lancet article really does look like a cover-up -- and I wouldn't rule out that smoke turning into a fire]
How is this not baseline accountability? It's fine to say, move on -- as soon as we've applied the lessons learned. Right?
No one is adjudicating the science; this is journalism -- like Watergate, or Pentagon Papers, or any other episode where journalists pull on the thread back to the source. Usually unpacking various cover-ups and motivated reasoning behind various explanations and denials.
What's ultimately unsatisfactory in this case is that the threads start with what we have in the US, because we have US scientists/funding involved -- but they all go back to China. And China won't allow for further investigation or audits.
You could say, see? There's nothing to see here. Or you could say, well, we know what questions we'd like to ask, and what data we'd like to see, and what accounts/files we'd like to audit... but we can't.
And, because we can't, last I heard WIV (at least) is ineligible for funding. Ecohealth Alliance has changed it's focus to another part of SE Asia. So, *some* action has been taken, but given the scope of unknowns... probably not enough.
Manhattan Institute is well within bounds for 'serious discourse.' Better by far than many of the nakedly leftist stuff linked here that we're asked to take seriously.
I haven't read the article yet, but every link/document I've opened so far is not redacted.
Also, you're missing the point specifically being made -- not that Defuse was funded by the US, but we have no idea what may have been funded by China. You also know as well that sometimes labs apply for funding based on work already done... just because the funding isn't granted (or got suspended owing to, say, a moratorium on that type of research) doesn't mean that the work wasn't done -- or that alternative funding wasn't sought.
Heh, I grew up on the 'wrong side of the tracks' where both sides of the tracks were really, really good. But the right side was, oh, you mean *that* Froman? From the Sausage king Fromans?
But that was before Rumsfeld started dropping bon mots all over the news.
Me: No, no, Donald Rumsfeld? Donny Rumsfeld? With the mansion? The pharmaceuticals guy?
Yeah, 5-Guys is expensive... but in ruralia as Donald Rumsfeld used to say: you go to dinner with the restaurants you have, not the restaurants you wish you had.
{irrelevant fun fact, I went to HS with Rumsfeld's youngest and met him when he was merely the the CEO of Searle}
Plus, I can honestly say that at this point in my professional career, I am rich enough to be blind to $10 increments. Like if you told me this thing I wanted was $45 here but only $35 there I'd blink twice and try to understand what point you were trying to make.
Lady Marchmaine is on strike; er, on vacation; er, visiting her mom in MN.
So just me, two boys (23 & 9) and the youngest daughter (17) who just started driving and is now for all intents and purposes a boarder who doesn't pay rent.
Lady M was exceedingly thoughtful and bought a bunch of heat & go stuff so we wouldn't starve... but we all know that 5-guys, Chipotle, and sushi are all the survival skills we need to master.
I don't much care about this story, but two reasonable points I saw raised strictly relating to the matter were:
1. Wade *was* an unusual pick owing to his lack of previous experience...
2. Going the RICO route (which some on the Left have characterized as 'overly complex') increased the work and $$ for Wade by an order of magnitude.
The practical outcomes of which:
1. The case is taking much longer than it otherwise would have taken -- which has political ramifications (probably detrimental to the *anti-Trump* cause).
2. If the case is flipped to another DA, the RICO portion may be dropped -- which would both simplify and complicate things as (IANAL) the backbone would still be there but the skeleton would have to be rebuilt/refiled.
I don't know if this is strictly accurate from a Legal/procedural point of view... but if it is, it makes it worse from just a 'lapse in judgement'.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Watching a Zoomer play Fallout New Vegas”
"He doesn’t see conversations with NPCs as anything but obstacles to the good part. Plow through them and get back to playing the game."
He's doing it right... it's the Devs who are hopelessly lost.
As DD says below, a lot of these games are just interactive books... some of you like that... I just see it as really bad books written by people who should be writing meta-rules, not books.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/5/2024”
I'm still waiting for a good breakdown by justice by someone who follows the court regularly... send me a link if you've got one.
Prelim Rorschach tests seem to range from 6-3 to 9-0 depending on the viewer.
On “What happens if Trump or Biden drops out?”
Kinda think it would. And 99% sure it would actually comply with the re-written Electoral Count Act to be 'challengeable' as "The vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4573/text
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/5/2024”
Oral arguments in the Trump Disqualification case were yesterday.
Tea leaves say: Not looking good for disqualification.
However, the goat entrails don't point to which line of reasoning SCOTUS will use to overturn. (We all know what my read on this would be).
I'm mildly happy it doesn't seem to be focused on the 'dumb' who's an officer argument... but a little sad that there seems to be more focus on, 'what if all the states did this' argument... and a little gratified that Congress and the Section 5 argument is in the hunt. Though I'll admit that I'm a little surprised at some of the lackluster historical research shown by the justices, especially Kavanaugh (or his clerks anyway).
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-appears-unlikely-to-kick-trump-off-colorado-ballot/
On “What happens if Trump or Biden drops out?”
Thanks, the EC is a great point to bring up, so I did a little poking around as it jogged my memory about 'faithless electors' and questions about the 'true autonomy' of the EC, which has slowly been circumscribed over the years.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday [2020] that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, and electors almost always do so anyway."
In the realm of theory... if 32 states require that the Dead Guy receive their EC votes (whomever that might be) while 28 states take the 'prudential view' of electing a Party's preferred candidate rather than the vote getter... we might have votes cast for 3 candidates -- most likely giving the election to the non-dead candidate. In theory.
Probably the best thing to do would be elect the dead guy, then VP succeeds, then appoints new VP, then... profit?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/scotus-rules-presidential-electors-must-back-their-states-popular-vote-winner
[edit]
p.s. I'd assume there's some sort of provision in at least one state's Fed Election laws for this sort of thing... but ironically, if each state has a different process to manage this scenario, it might make things 'worse' in terms of getting the guy with the most EC votes elected.
"
Post Convention? My question is about State level federal ballots/votes... I suspect the votes *wouldn't* do that if a candidate dies between early election and election day... the Party doesn't own the votes once they've been cast (I don't think). And each state has or doesn't have rules on what happens to those votes or when a party can change a candidate on the ballot.
"
edit: Not Dec 15th... that would be simple succession... meant to say Oct15.
"
What's the scenario of a candidate dies after the convention, but before election? Let's say Sept 30th? Does it change if it's Dec 15?
Does every state have the same process for changing a declared candidate prior to the election date? I seem to recall that different states have different requirements for ballot access and changes?
Might be weird if Oregon has Biden locked in but NY is able to substitute, say, Newsom or Harris?
Which is just to say that either candidate would do us all a big favor if they'd die before the convention.
On “MAGA versus Taylor Swift”
Big and Dumb, but scores off the charts on loyalty and teamwork. Also accustomed to playing second fiddle to bigger draw.
Hope it's a love match and they have a dozen children... maybe they will have discovered the secret to lonely Artists failing at love with other lonely narcissistic artists and a new dating paradigm will emerge?
The Gretzky, Beckham, Kelce project.
Though, the DiMaggio/Monroe variable could be a confounder.
"
Heh, 2010 tweets. Oh to be an historian in 2110.
But let's be serious for a moment; there's a 100% chance that Taylor's people have, under a mutual NDA, started work on his social media brand. They probably chuckle at his rudimentary NFL media training and report back to Taylor that he's got potential, but needs a lot of work. Just part of the ROI analysis on whether the Swift/Kelce '25+ project is greenlit.
Anonymous sources I have in the Swift camp hint that break-up is showing more favorable numbers with focus groups testing the new single: "I bet on Kansas and lost my ass(ets)"
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/29/2024”
Right... Pop Icons are rarely making the most interesting songs -- you have to trade accessibility (major keys) and mainstream themes for Icon levels of paying fans.
Challenging music is niche.
"
That's why we like all the opposite Cure songs.
"
Yeah, I once made a 'Cradle-to-Grave' country playlist and pointed out to my daughters that I had Taylor Swift's 'Our Song' in the mix. Well before Swift was a thing, making me an OG Swiftie.
But yeah, her pop songs seem to clock in well below her talent level and are astonishingly forgettable... but hey, that's what selling-out is, man.
"
Right, I can report that in the orthodox Christian ecumenical homeschooling communities Taylor Swift is an ordinary thing. There's no visible 'backlash' is flesh and blood world. Heck, even Ross Douthat is joking that a Swift/Kelce marriage and children might help break the Milennial anti-natalism.
Like all pop music, we talk about some questionable themes and messaging... but that's just life as the counter-culture.
This is just the usual online quixote complex at work.
On “The Joy Of Opening Time Capsules: 2024 Election Edition”
Dang, we just took down the Christmas tree and the Nativity sets are still up... is it election season already? Definitely not in the mood yet.
And for that reason, I'm not really ready for a vibes test on election predictions. But, to play the game:
Trump will be on the ballot, and at this point it's pretty clear that campaigning for President, defending against civil, criminal and constitutional indictments *is* both his political and legal (and fundraising) strategy. So running for president pays for potentially ruinous civil judgements against him (in his mind a cost of doing business); but I also expect the monetary damages and NY 'fraud' lawsuit not to yield 'ruinous' $$ after appeals etc. Whether or not criminal charges can resolved *before* the election? I'm gonna say 40% chance. And, if they are resolved, I'd also 'predict' that the sentences will be less than what opponents are imagining... especially for the documents charges (unless they find evidence of espionage... which would then make the odds of wrapping up before election almost nil). BUT, I'd have to say there's an 80% likelihood he's convicted (of something) but also an 85% chance the sentencing is suspended pending the election and therefore a slim 4.8% chance he's in jail running a Eugene Debs reprise. He'll still be on the ballot.
Trump's running mate? Doesn't matter and I have no idea.
Biden/Harris with a 10% chance that Biden either dies or suffers a debilitating health event... depending on the timing, he might still be on the ballot (???).
Prediction: Too soon to predict.
Hypothesis: Trump's self-absorption campaign will bigly underperform 2016/2020. Biden wins by a lot.
Counter-hypothesis: Biden's decline and weakness has impacted his ability to shape the Dems -- progressives actively work to denigrate the good he does, and he's too weak to marginalize the progressives and create the 'big tent' some hoped he'd build in 2020. Therefore, he campaigns on a 'too-online' platform and he isn't seen as a foil to the Dem crazy for independents; this leaves the race shaped by that last worst thing done by either side in the negative-partisan sweepstakes to tilt the balance. Trump eeks out a squeaker, and MattY commits ritual suicide.
As for everything else, that'll have to wait until after Easter.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/29/2024”
"Oh, let me state for the record: I am sure that the NFL is getting more out of their (tangential) relationship with Taylor Swift than she is getting out of her relationship with the NFL"
... until the break-up song comes out.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/22/2024”
Sure, since all we can do is put together a 'grand jury' type indictment but can't get access to the alleged crime scene... then let's move on.
1. Put back the 'Obama Mortarium' on GOF research, since we can't determine the origin or rule out the lab's culpability we have to conclude that the risk now outweighs our ability to manage it.
2. Suspend joint funding/research projects with all Chinese labs, since an important lesson learned is that they won't allow for audits. Every grant is contingent upon this.
3. Suspend Ecohealth Alliance's Grant requests for 5-years for failure of oversight... this comes from the fact that even during the Pandemic EHA asked for their funding to be reinstated and NIH asked them for oversight materials from the lab which EAH stated they could not get owing to the Chinese authorities.
4... feel free to add other lessons learned.
Absent additional information that would (probably) come from the lab, I don't have a particular axe to grind with NIH leadership... so they get to retire with their pensions.
[But I'd revisit if the threads lead to more evidence of cover-up... honestly, the stuff related to the Lancet article really does look like a cover-up -- and I wouldn't rule out that smoke turning into a fire]
How is this not baseline accountability? It's fine to say, move on -- as soon as we've applied the lessons learned. Right?
"
You're so willfully obtuse on this.
No one is adjudicating the science; this is journalism -- like Watergate, or Pentagon Papers, or any other episode where journalists pull on the thread back to the source. Usually unpacking various cover-ups and motivated reasoning behind various explanations and denials.
What's ultimately unsatisfactory in this case is that the threads start with what we have in the US, because we have US scientists/funding involved -- but they all go back to China. And China won't allow for further investigation or audits.
You could say, see? There's nothing to see here. Or you could say, well, we know what questions we'd like to ask, and what data we'd like to see, and what accounts/files we'd like to audit... but we can't.
And, because we can't, last I heard WIV (at least) is ineligible for funding. Ecohealth Alliance has changed it's focus to another part of SE Asia. So, *some* action has been taken, but given the scope of unknowns... probably not enough.
"
Manhattan Institute is well within bounds for 'serious discourse.' Better by far than many of the nakedly leftist stuff linked here that we're asked to take seriously.
I haven't read the article yet, but every link/document I've opened so far is not redacted.
Also, you're missing the point specifically being made -- not that Defuse was funded by the US, but we have no idea what may have been funded by China. You also know as well that sometimes labs apply for funding based on work already done... just because the funding isn't granted (or got suspended owing to, say, a moratorium on that type of research) doesn't mean that the work wasn't done -- or that alternative funding wasn't sought.
On “Weekend Plans Post: The Royal Rumble”
Heh, I grew up on the 'wrong side of the tracks' where both sides of the tracks were really, really good. But the right side was, oh, you mean *that* Froman? From the Sausage king Fromans?
But that was before Rumsfeld started dropping bon mots all over the news.
Me: No, no, Donald Rumsfeld? Donny Rumsfeld? With the mansion? The pharmaceuticals guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwEmYDcASQ4
"
Yeah, 5-Guys is expensive... but in ruralia as Donald Rumsfeld used to say: you go to dinner with the restaurants you have, not the restaurants you wish you had.
{irrelevant fun fact, I went to HS with Rumsfeld's youngest and met him when he was merely the the CEO of Searle}
Plus, I can honestly say that at this point in my professional career, I am rich enough to be blind to $10 increments. Like if you told me this thing I wanted was $45 here but only $35 there I'd blink twice and try to understand what point you were trying to make.
"
Lady Marchmaine is on strike; er, on vacation; er, visiting her mom in MN.
So just me, two boys (23 & 9) and the youngest daughter (17) who just started driving and is now for all intents and purposes a boarder who doesn't pay rent.
Lady M was exceedingly thoughtful and bought a bunch of heat & go stuff so we wouldn't starve... but we all know that 5-guys, Chipotle, and sushi are all the survival skills we need to master.
"
I was never a wrestling fan, but when it hit in the 80s my impression was chubby circus strongmen do kinetic gymnastics.
By the 90s it was 'roid freaks losing their f*ing minds for $$.
But that's just an outsider's impression.
On “Fani Willis Allegations, and What To Make Of Them”
Sure, wouldn't disagree... just adding that I saw reasonable commentary that goes beyond DA boinks Lawyer for $$.
"
I don't much care about this story, but two reasonable points I saw raised strictly relating to the matter were:
1. Wade *was* an unusual pick owing to his lack of previous experience...
2. Going the RICO route (which some on the Left have characterized as 'overly complex') increased the work and $$ for Wade by an order of magnitude.
The practical outcomes of which:
1. The case is taking much longer than it otherwise would have taken -- which has political ramifications (probably detrimental to the *anti-Trump* cause).
2. If the case is flipped to another DA, the RICO portion may be dropped -- which would both simplify and complicate things as (IANAL) the backbone would still be there but the skeleton would have to be rebuilt/refiled.
I don't know if this is strictly accurate from a Legal/procedural point of view... but if it is, it makes it worse from just a 'lapse in judgement'.