ProfessorPeregrine

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Proud to say that in Colorado, ranked choice voting is on the ballot this year! It's even supported by the big political names here, including the governor.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Which is why I am happy to be a metallurgical engineer who can blacksmith...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Silly, now you've broken the law in Florida because you've talked about climate change. That and signing petitions will get you a visit from the police! Totally normal state governmental functions.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Widdershins. It means counter to the sun's direction , and was seen as inauspicious. Counter-clockwise, before clocks.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

Proud to be a supporter of CPR...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think that was in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, iirc

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

I think this is why LLMs work, and some research backs this up. Humans actually don't create new phrases for unique situations very frequently. Much or even most of what we say is existing word chunks stuck together.

For example, look at this sentence. It communicated what I intended, but it is just a small idea conveyed with a standard text requiring no thought to generate. It could have easily been "Peregrine, with self reflection," or something. Memes are a more obvious example of this.

At some point in that imaginary culture maybe they just abandoned the original language since they could adequately communicate using only shared story references. Whether that part is realistic for an advanced technology culture maybe requires suspension of disbelief.

For a more sophisticated take on this, there is a similar story inside of the Citadel of the Autarch by Gene Wolfe that asks some interesting questions. In that case, the language is specifically limited to ideologically-approved tracts in order to limit what the populace can think about, so as to be easier to control. However, the story told might be subversive.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Did you even read Sotomayor' dissent? I did.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

You are not considering the part where we can't use relevant testimony or documents to prove that what the President does is illegal in the first place. The President can just say whatever illegal things they did were official acts, and all the evidence that might prove otherwise is off-limits. It relies on other people in the administration to not follow the illegal order, but of course that is a weak protection and the President can fire them or do something illegal to them without consequence too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

The right to arm bears...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Dhalgren by Samuel Delaney is exactly what you are looking for.

 

Internal emails highlight how an advertising company can use its in-house resources to oppose public policy proposals.

One of the world’s largest advertising firms is crafting a campaign to thwart a California bill intended to enhance people’s control over the data that companies collect on them.

According to emails obtained by POLITICO, the Interpublic Group is coordinating an effort against a bill that would make it easier for people to request that data brokers — firms that collect and sell personal information — delete their dossiers.

 

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan said that she plans to put serious limits over how sensitive evidence is handled in the Donald Trump 2020 election interference case, in a dramatic hearing Friday in Washington, DC, that could set the tone for the upcoming trial.

The former president has a right to free speech, but that right is “not absolute,” Chutkan said. “Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute. In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules.”

view more: next ›