Also, in 2016 it was Just A Fluke, it was "people didn't like Clinton and stayed home rather than voting". In 2024 it was pretty clear that people actually did want Donald Trump as President.
Insulation is one of those things where modern stuff is so much better than historical stuff and it's not because of some mystical wonder technological development, it's more "just don't do the dumb-but-simple thing you used to do"
Jaybird, don't you remember Gruber and the ACA? We can't go by what the people who wrote these laws thought they meant, we can only go by what the people who implemented these laws thought they meant. Like when the lady said "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it", that's what she meant.
it would be amusing to try and sell the two bands as progressive (because of the former's strong support for creators' rights in the face of corporate arrogation and the latter's public stance on queer positivity.)
It'll be plenty legible, it just won't be something we like.
It'll say things like "these two people shouldn't be allowed to have children together", or "this person shouldn't be allowed to have children at all", or "this person can have children but shouldn't be permitted to raise them", and all of those are things we've decided are Not Moral To Say. And we'll have to explain why they're Not Moral in an objective and programmable way that can be consistently applied to reality, and we're not going to be able to do that.
An AI might be able to generate an image of a urinal, but it won't be able to explain why that image of a urinal is actually art despite the creator specifically intending that it not be seen as art.
What's going to happen is what happens with all such tools; we'll learn to want what the machine can give us, because it's so much cheaper than what we used to have. The "Best Stuff" will still exist and will still be done by people, but the mid-range will disappear because there just won't be a business case for "a little bit better than a computer at five times the cost".
Someone on Twitter suggested, probably as a joke but I think there's a lot of truth to it, that the future of "career creative" will be letting the computer random-roll a thousand ideas and then sorting through them for the ones that aren't garbage. People won't have the ideas, people will instead decide which ideas are "good".
also if you're Explaining Why Jaybird Is Obviously Wrong Because Here's All These Reasons keep that in mind the next time you scoff that some conservaturd Republikkan is just whining and making up stories and using ex-post-facto scrambling to cover for their obvious racist incompetence.
Such reports as I've read for the LAFD chief is that she's as good a firefighter as anyone else in the department, and that while it may have been for Diversity that a lesbian was chosen as chief she can get the job done just fine.
Now. If all you listen for is "DEI Hire", then that's not not true. But this seems like one of those "message" things that the Democrats have had such trouble with lately, where they'd prefer to splutter and gasp about "how dare you imply that she's not good enough", instead of saying "yeah she's a dyke, and she doesn't get in anyone's face about it, and she kicks ass at her actual job, so what do you care that the only hose she interacts with comes off a pump truck?"
Also a lot of people got trained early on that if they didn't Do What The Adults Said then they'd be Punished, and they interpret government guidance as The Adults Saying, and so they figure that a) if they don't do it then they'll be Punished, and b) if you don't do it then you're committing a moral transgression and they can jerk off their frustrated rage-boners onto you.
Remember when gas stoves were absolutely definitely 100% the reason for childhood asthma and the only morally-supportable response was to ban all indoor gas stoves and anyone who disagreed was a big mean jerk who was so conservative that they wanted children to die?
"The big problem is that the studies tend to find stuff that is small and blow it out of proportion to the finding found."
I think it's less the studies and more the people who let their endocrine system do their thinking. "Oh, big numbers are scary, big words are scary, information contrary to my established world paradigm is scary. I don't like being scared! I'll therefore listen to whatever this article says and do it times a billion."
A preview of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in that courts are less likely to say that the government agency is Inherently Right And Correct because it's The Government, that they actually have to do the work.
Also interesting, from the "caselaw" linked resource, part III-B: "The Service erred by conducting the data call as a post-hoc rationale for its predetermined decision to promulgate the Fuels CE..."
Which seems a bit of "sauce for the goose" here, because my experience with regulatory review submissions is the same thing from the other side; once you've submitted something for regulatory review, that submission is what gets reviewed, and you're not allowed to introduce new information or corrections except where requested by the reviewer. So if your submission lacks some key safety analysis and is denied on that basis, you have to start over again, you don't get to say "oh well we actually did that analysis and here's the result so it's okay now right?"
And, y'know. It seems like the court's criticism is "you did a crappy job of your paperwork because you figured it would be rubber-stamped, and we don't consider that appropriate; do better". Which is not prima facie a bad attitude to take about this stuff. And yeah, the Sierra Club probably did not have as its goal the assurance of rigorous review and planning, but if the Forest Service had done more than vague handwaving the court likely would have approved the plan.
Anyway, I think that for most audiences that was the first hit. It's like "Bohemian Rhapsody", which was a hit but I think did not become Part Of The Culture until it showed up in "Wayne's World".
"Are you seriously suggesting that two incidents, none particularly serious, in over four decades is something to wet myself over?"
One of the things people say about men, which I have come to believe is true, is that they've been trained by society to believe that trauma is wisdom and repression virtue.
So like this, where your memory of those two incidents echoes today, where you've clearly recast your freeze response into a sign of strength and courage instead of admitting that you were scared stiff about it; an admission you've fled from so thoroughly that you now argue that everybody should have the same response in order to validate your own.
Meaning: you're lying to yourself that getting threatened on a subway was no big deal, but I don't see why the rest of the world ought to believe your lie.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
"our strategic plan is to pivot to media-tie-in exploitation shovelware"
"
Also, in 2016 it was Just A Fluke, it was "people didn't like Clinton and stayed home rather than voting". In 2024 it was pretty clear that people actually did want Donald Trump as President.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Was Last Year This Cold?”
Insulation is one of those things where modern stuff is so much better than historical stuff and it's not because of some mystical wonder technological development, it's more "just don't do the dumb-but-simple thing you used to do"
On “Trump Term Two, Day One, Executive Orders”
"She lost by a hair"
so, no, she didn't get away with it
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
Jaybird, don't you remember Gruber and the ACA? We can't go by what the people who wrote these laws thought they meant, we can only go by what the people who implemented these laws thought they meant. Like when the lady said "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it", that's what she meant.
On “Weekend Plans Post: One Single Good Song in 2024”
Hey, the Rolling Stones did the Super Bowl in 2005!
And besides, Metallica was in Stranger Things (twice!)
"
it would be amusing to try and sell the two bands as progressive (because of the former's strong support for creators' rights in the face of corporate arrogation and the latter's public stance on queer positivity.)
On “Short Status Report on the Abilities of AI”
It'll be plenty legible, it just won't be something we like.
It'll say things like "these two people shouldn't be allowed to have children together", or "this person shouldn't be allowed to have children at all", or "this person can have children but shouldn't be permitted to raise them", and all of those are things we've decided are Not Moral To Say. And we'll have to explain why they're Not Moral in an objective and programmable way that can be consistently applied to reality, and we're not going to be able to do that.
"
that article doesn't link to any primary sources
"
An AI might be able to generate an image of a urinal, but it won't be able to explain why that image of a urinal is actually art despite the creator specifically intending that it not be seen as art.
On “Weekend Plans Post: One Single Good Song in 2024”
These days they might as well have a Metallica / Judas Priest halftime show. Actually that would rule, I want that for real now.
On “Short Status Report on the Abilities of AI”
What's going to happen is what happens with all such tools; we'll learn to want what the machine can give us, because it's so much cheaper than what we used to have. The "Best Stuff" will still exist and will still be done by people, but the mid-range will disappear because there just won't be a business case for "a little bit better than a computer at five times the cost".
Someone on Twitter suggested, probably as a joke but I think there's a lot of truth to it, that the future of "career creative" will be letting the computer random-roll a thousand ideas and then sorting through them for the ones that aren't garbage. People won't have the ideas, people will instead decide which ideas are "good".
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
"I'm not owned! I'm not owned!" -- Phil screaming as he slowly shrinks and transforms into a corncob
On “Multiple Wildfires Rip Through Los Angeles Amid Historic Winds”
also if you're Explaining Why Jaybird Is Obviously Wrong Because Here's All These Reasons keep that in mind the next time you scoff that some conservaturd Republikkan is just whining and making up stories and using ex-post-facto scrambling to cover for their obvious racist incompetence.
"
Such reports as I've read for the LAFD chief is that she's as good a firefighter as anyone else in the department, and that while it may have been for Diversity that a lesbian was chosen as chief she can get the job done just fine.
Now. If all you listen for is "DEI Hire", then that's not not true. But this seems like one of those "message" things that the Democrats have had such trouble with lately, where they'd prefer to splutter and gasp about "how dare you imply that she's not good enough", instead of saying "yeah she's a dyke, and she doesn't get in anyone's face about it, and she kicks ass at her actual job, so what do you care that the only hose she interacts with comes off a pump truck?"
On “A Society of Shame Attached to Everything”
There was more of it here, including the parts Clement thinks didn't happen.
"
Also a lot of people got trained early on that if they didn't Do What The Adults Said then they'd be Punished, and they interpret government guidance as The Adults Saying, and so they figure that a) if they don't do it then they'll be Punished, and b) if you don't do it then you're committing a moral transgression and they can jerk off their frustrated rage-boners onto you.
"
Remember when gas stoves were absolutely definitely 100% the reason for childhood asthma and the only morally-supportable response was to ban all indoor gas stoves and anyone who disagreed was a big mean jerk who was so conservative that they wanted children to die?
"
"The big problem is that the studies tend to find stuff that is small and blow it out of proportion to the finding found."
I think it's less the studies and more the people who let their endocrine system do their thinking. "Oh, big numbers are scary, big words are scary, information contrary to my established world paradigm is scary. I don't like being scared! I'll therefore listen to whatever this article says and do it times a billion."
On “Multiple Wildfires Rip Through Los Angeles Amid Historic Winds”
A preview of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in that courts are less likely to say that the government agency is Inherently Right And Correct because it's The Government, that they actually have to do the work.
Also interesting, from the "caselaw" linked resource, part III-B: "The Service erred by conducting the data call as a post-hoc rationale for its predetermined decision to promulgate the Fuels CE..."
Which seems a bit of "sauce for the goose" here, because my experience with regulatory review submissions is the same thing from the other side; once you've submitted something for regulatory review, that submission is what gets reviewed, and you're not allowed to introduce new information or corrections except where requested by the reviewer. So if your submission lacks some key safety analysis and is denied on that basis, you have to start over again, you don't get to say "oh well we actually did that analysis and here's the result so it's okay now right?"
And, y'know. It seems like the court's criticism is "you did a crappy job of your paperwork because you figured it would be rubber-stamped, and we don't consider that appropriate; do better". Which is not prima facie a bad attitude to take about this stuff. And yeah, the Sierra Club probably did not have as its goal the assurance of rigorous review and planning, but if the Forest Service had done more than vague handwaving the court likely would have approved the plan.
On “Re-Open the Asylums: A New Take”
"intelligent policing! but not with cops!"
okay Bernie Goetz
On “Weekend Plans Post: Leonard Cohen”
I enjoyed this article about the song:
https://www.dallasobserver.com/music/the-best-and-worst-uses-of-the-song-hallelujah-14487531
"
Oh, thanks for the correction!
Anyway, I think that for most audiences that was the first hit. It's like "Bohemian Rhapsody", which was a hit but I think did not become Part Of The Culture until it showed up in "Wayne's World".
On “Re-Open the Asylums: A New Take”
"Because like Jay he wants Judge Dredd, mistakenly believing he would become a Judge."
It's always funny watching someone stupid misunderstand Judge Dredd, although usually it's from the right-wing side.
"
"Are you seriously suggesting that two incidents, none particularly serious, in over four decades is something to wet myself over?"
One of the things people say about men, which I have come to believe is true, is that they've been trained by society to believe that trauma is wisdom and repression virtue.
So like this, where your memory of those two incidents echoes today, where you've clearly recast your freeze response into a sign of strength and courage instead of admitting that you were scared stiff about it; an admission you've fled from so thoroughly that you now argue that everybody should have the same response in order to validate your own.
Meaning: you're lying to yourself that getting threatened on a subway was no big deal, but I don't see why the rest of the world ought to believe your lie.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.