Corky I liked the Doonesbury on that, way back when.
Instead of Plastics, it was... Handguns.

"It's hilarious the child-raping orange leper couldn't tell E Jean Carroll apart from his second wife."

And the existential win for Trump in this?
They're both morally offended to be compared to each other.
Two rapes, for the price of one!

Carroll, whose advice column ran in the women's magazine Elle from 1993 to 2019, has reportedly accused at least six prior men of raping her, including former CBS President Les Moonves.

This is actually more credible now.
With CBS lining up behind Trump.
Do you not see that?

Do you not see how the common thread among Trump's personal contacts is a fondness sexual assault?

Those who are going to be best off are those who know how to effectively manage/use AI and can effectively judge the tasks where it's going to be most effective.

#15 | Posted by jpw

Field with lots of data that's supposed to be cohesive will do well.
Mathematics. Law. Medicine. Drug discovery. Anything that already has a well defined and robust ontology with history behind it. And, crucially, in these fields there's quite often a True and a False, and it's testable.

Fields where people lie constantly to get ahead --like business and politics and relationships -- being "best off" will probably come at some incalculable and unforeseen cost.
There's no universal true or false: My true is your false, your loss is my gain.

Sort of like how it's cool that we have cars and sporks.
But the ice caps are melting and microplastics are in every living cell.

Would you trust an AI model that you didn't train?

I suppose it varies greatly by context, but generally speaking, there is significant risk here.

There are significant known and unknown and thus un-risk-scorable risks in deploying a machine that you don't really know how it works.

That last one was for you too, little Eberly.
Why does punching down feel so good?
It's not nice. And I don't think it teaches you anything either. Because you already know everything I'm saying about you. You just bury it beneath alcohol and car payments.

the mere existence of a billionaire is offensive
It is.
#60 | Posted by ClownShack

I'm okay with a little nuance here:
A billionaire who doesn't give a hundred million to charity is morally indefensible.
This was the way of the Christian world for about two thousand years.
Until Capitalism rendered ten percent a pretty significant amount of money.
The Church once forbade usury too. Now it's just part of doing business.

The Church re-defined usury from "interest" to "excessive interest" around five hundred years ago.
And if you don't know that and you're a Christian, no you're not.
You're cosplaying a Christian.

I'm not some phony libertarian.
#59 | Posted by eberly

All Libertarians are phony libertarians.
You don't need to distinguish that.
The policy stuff you said after that was sensible.
But politically you're lost without a map.
Nobody in your party agrees with you, and they never will.

They only thing Republicans agree with you about is the very last thing, the whiny party where nothing Republicans ever do is good enough for America. Turns out that's the actual truth, as long as you've been old enough to vote.

Your relationship with the Republican Party is that of a lustful young man dating a coked-out dancer with warrants in three states, telling himself "I can change her."

"700k Kids Lose Food Aid" is actually:
loss prevention from states who states who can't be bothered with fixing their errors.
#63 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Oh I get it.
When kids lose food aid, that's loss prevention.

Like when your health insurance pays a medical bill, that's a loss.
Denying your health care claims is loss prevention.

Giving kids food is a loss; not giving kids food is loss prevention.
The math sure checks out.

We should stop all these losses, right? Why stop with kids?

"getting more"? WTF does that mean?
#70 | Posted by eberly

You've heard of Learned Helplessness.
Eberly is giving Night Classes in Learned Stupidity.

-We are currently starving Cuban children to death with an illegal immoral completely unjustifiable blockade
Are you aware of our economic history with Cuba?
#82 | Posted by eberly

Are you aware what a blockade is?
When was the last time we did that, and why, with your Big Important Man Worth Listening To awareness of our history with Cuba?

Glad I got a picture while I could!

I will sell a Trump autographed copy to any Trumpers for only 20^H^H 200 bucks.

40 some odd states have waste over 6%.
#73 | Posted by lfthndthrds

How much waste in there in the corporate world?
Hint: More than six percent.

-We're creating a generation of domestic terrorists.
"Give me a free lunch or I'll kill you"
#11 | Posted by eberly

You're in favor of a government that won't feed hungry children?
I think we should put down a government that won't feed hungry children.

I don't usually support the Death Penalty.
But when I do, it's for Public Officials who commit Murder or Treason.

"I'd like to help you kid but you're too young to vote."
--Republicans

"I don't see Trump backing down."

Co-Signed,
BillJohnson and E. Jean Carroll

"MAGA culture simply isn't appealing to most Americans."

They just need to get like 30% of young boys to go along with it, and time will do the rest.

I have a theory why this story hasn't been elevated to top tier MAGA propaganda.
The alleged killer once wore the military uniform of the United States of America.
So when people expressing sympathy for the victim say things like:

It's hilarious how these Self Made MAGA Men always want their Mommy.

"I wish to do everything in my power to make the Republican Party the Party of sane, constructive radicalism, just as it was under Lincoln." --Teddy Roosevelt

That's a bit of Revisionist History from ol' Teddy, as Lincoln was not actually a Radical Republican, though he did end slavery.
The core value Lincoln and Roosevelt shared is displayed at our National Monument To Indian Genocide aka Mount Rushmore.

"Teddy Roosevelt would punch Trump in the mouth."

Yes he would.
But he would also punch Sacheen Littlefeather in the mouth, like John Wayne wanted too.

There is no way Trump can agree to terms that leave Iran with uranium enrichment or control of the strait.
#57 | Posted by BillJohnson

Why not? Trump and the United States were just fine with that, in Trump's first term.
What changed?

You can't say.
You don't know.

"Well, they can go back to their country and get whatever food they want."

No they can't. They are prisoners. They can't just walk out and buy a plane ticket.

I'm not playing this game.
It's endless and tiresome.
#95 | Posted by BillJohnson

It's not a game.
It's you, refusing to reflect on yourself.

"while many Americans feel the country is not receiving a fair share of the benefits in return."

Those people rejected the benefits.
Because the benefit of all that Pax Americana that Trump is destroying was: Immigration!
Immigration of the smartest and hardest working people from around the world, who actually believe America is the land of opportunity.
Do you know how much richer America is because Jensen Huang is here, and not in some other modern country?
That's an extreme example, but he's one of tens of millions. Historically, hundreds of millions. This nation is 98% immigrants.

The benefits of American foreign policy sold you Slurpees when you were a kid, and their kids are your doctors today.
These immigrants benefit America.

"Many Americans" don't like sharing America with non-white Fresh Off The Boat Americans.
They don't think they should have to.

Do you disagree?