For what its worth, a month ago I was watching video that made clear it was an amount in the high 80K that was 'unsold'. One of reckless ben's stunts was to split the unsold inventory 10 ways to get into small claims court, and that would not have worked with a 200K valuation. I am unsure how much of the framing coffeezilla uses that the claim was of 200K being stolen was from the collection owners & the original store owners (value from actual claims of theft), how much was BAM framing the claims in a misleading light to make their resistance more clear, and how much was the media/social media telephone sandblasting details off a case for brevity or drama. Where that shift happens really impacts how shady people look. I'm really intersted how the theft was described to coffeezilla, because it being 200k Legos was not the impression I got.
Given the amount I heard originally is in line with Coffeezilla's comparison of the spreadsheet, I think this further supports the idea that the store owners, while having bad bookkeeping and questionable business decisions, were being above board. I've watched too many local businesses take on value-add services to compete and not consider the time and paperwork and drown despite having a successful model.
You've heard the phrase 'too busy questioning whether they can to question whether they should'? Thats you right here. Too busy questioning whether he can to question whether he should.
(using illustrator over artist to avoid conflation bewteen 'art' broadly and 'art' to mean visual works of art.
Steven Soderbergh is a director and that matters.
Brandon Sanderson, an author, gives a very great perspective. Because his books include pictures. Beyond the covers a publisher often handles. The Stormlight Archive series includes pages of in universe notes on the various fantastical creatures, including sketches from first hand observation. Brandon is not an illustrator.
Brandon is an Art director. He has over iterations coached an illustrator to create an image as he wants it. That's what an "AI artist" is. An art director.
Most of the film making 'art' to him is simply telling people what he wants, and seeing that want unfold in front of him. For his role, AI replicates his experience. In doing so, he dismisses that the actors are making choices that influence the work. That the film is a collaboration.
Not to say I don't see potential value in AI as a tool in real art in the abstract. Just that I don't find it surprising that the director isn't worried about the machine that takes direction and its long term impact on the collaborative art of filmmaking when you take away the collaborators.
If we assume no one will ever change their vote, abandon democracy. It can not work.
IN the real world, what we saw with elections this year is a lot of voters that were thought to be solid GOP flip toward the Democrats. This is the crowd the parties actually fight over. Whether they be a rotating crop of voters that vote consistently but only vote occationally, or voters flipping parties based on vibes, the premise of your claim is contradicted by elections less than 60 days old.
Trump and the GOP assumed they could simply wait out the dems, like they have in evey other shutdown in my lifetime.
They assumed that because Senate dems always find a sacrifical lamb to take the bullet and capitulate. Unfortunately for Schumer , they've used this line way too many times at this point.
Governments of any type, hell any organization of any sort can be called a regime, if you just wanna talk facts. There is no objective line that defines 'a 'regime' from an 'administration'. A regime still administrates. Any administration is a regime. Its a performative demand that Tim signal his virtuous alignment with RightThink by adopting some arbitrary language choices.
In response to the request to update his language, Tim has provided the subjective line that he will use. If you feel there is an authoritative source as to an objective definition, I would love to hear it.
I began asking this question in February when the USAID case was heading toward contempt, and it only eats me further every day.
For his NYE address, Roberts issued what was viewed as a plainly partisan screed against progresives questioning the courts and court orders and SCOTUS in particular. He couched his words in non-partisan terms, but few viewed his words as targeting, say, Rudy Giuliani's defiance of court orders in the Freeman/Moss cases.
What person, with such a deep concern for his legacy and the legitimacy of the courts, would possibly have issued such a message knowing Donald J Trump, whose last administration was famous for playing legal games and dancing just outside outright contempt, who had spent previous 4 years defying courts at every turn, was going to go into office less than a month later and would at least provoke the very animous against judges that Trump is currently provoking?
Roberts either doesn't care about reputation, or hes too dumb for that concern to matter.
If i want to confront a musk-bro, i’ll assume malice. Because assuming ignorance traps me in a cycle of explaining things to trolls acting in bad faith, and never addresses the harm they are doing.
When talking generically online, i’ll assume ignorance unless i have a reason to make a malice arguement. Because there is no better insult than just assuming their 5-d chess moves are the result of childish flailing. i’ll leave intent to a prosecutor.
No, you just accept the industry bounding of the word security to just the security of the drive.
Privacy is a security concern. As someone who needed security briefings in the military, The ability of bad actors to track your vehicle in real time presents a serious personal security concern, as well as national security concerns for persons whose safety is a national security concern.
But ignoring that....You haven't paid attention. The 'privacy' concerns extend to the ability to shut down your engine remotely, control much of the accessory load, Control any components such as steering used in Level 2 driver assist or auto park, ect.
The terrible wireless security of cars isn't just a privacy failure. It has been shown to affect "how much guarantee you’ve got for your car reliability when driving."
I was watching a video on the more perfect union youtube channel about crypto. An impactful line for me was proceeded by Crypto lobbiests saying CFPB never gave them clear rules to work within.
It then cuts to a former admin with the CFPB saying they gave clear rules, the problem was the rules interfered with what crypto wants to do.
As always, the venn diagram what corporations consider 'burdensome' and 'confusing' regulation and what most americans would consider common sense, is mostly a circle.
As someone how cashes in on these free years, I am not required to provide a payment method to sign up for my free year. This is not a scam to sneak in subscription revenue. Hell, my last free year of experian ended and the account was closed without me noticing. (The score and data offered was presented better by credit Karma, and any premium features weren't useful to me).
However, while there is no subscription grift, there is a grift. They offer add-on services, referral services, and want you to manually add to their honey pot of data on you for the next time they are breached. They are absolutely profiting on that 'free year'.
Making a child unhirable for the rest of their life and be shunned and cast out of every social group he ever has unless they are the worst in humanity is "being an asshole to a kid". FYI.
I would honestly love if everyone knew this kid’s name like we know Nicholas Sandmann’s name, to make him unhirable and a pariah anywhere he goes.
I really struggle to square the "making fun of this child is abuse" Stehpen and the "everyone should shun this child and make him sorry for ever believing a word his parents said" Stephen.
Not giving the next authoritarian, regardless of what label they apply to their politics, or which side of the isle they claim it comes from, the congressional mandate to decide Truth.
If that wasn't clear, could you let me know where I lost you? If claims were accurate and somehow shutting down vaccine misinfo was a deathblow to a second Trump term, its a stupid and absurd belief to think there would not be someone willing to abuse the power to criminalize speech that doesn't fit the party line in the administration, or the next. A return to the party of Bush and Reagan after the death of trumpism is still a party that was known for lying about the health impacts of drugs and was alraedy supporting vaccine skepticism.
Socialist revolutions often are captured by authoritarians. This is because so many on the left believe that authoritarian power is okay so long as the good guys start in power and the good guys can keep the bad authoritarians out of power and with strong enough control, we can finally convince everyone how right we are once we silence the misinformation of the right.
As we saw with trump, investigations and convictions did nothing to impact voter support. Claims that if we had instead done this prosecution or that prosecution or just done them earlier and Trump wouldn't be in power and therefore its okay to give power to define truth to whomever is in the white house seem to ignore the reality that
A) SCOTUS was in the end batting for trump
B) SCTOUS would have been unlikely to bless strict scrutiny of such a law that worked to Trump's detriment
C) Convictions, indictments, and civil judgements completely failed to reduce the power of the GOP ticket.
The problem is what an anti-vaxxer would do with the power to define truth and lies, and the idea that had we just used the authoritarianism we wouldn't have bad people in power is fantasy wishcasting disconnected from historical assessment.
You appear to be agreeing with me. Communism, as it is, is not a threat. Its a threat when paired with a dictator and centralized power. My point was that the issues with the USSR reflected in 1984 were derived not from the economic system, but the power of the government, and the unifying feature of Facism and the USSR - authoritarian control - is what 1984 is warning you about.
1984 was about the soviet union. The AC you replied to rightly points out similarities between the levers of authoritarian control employed by fascism, and the levers of authoritarian control employed by Stalin's USSR. That he mistakenly blames the economics of Communism and not the dictatorial control which exploded under Stalin is not a false equivalence between what we call fascism and the government of the USSR.
For what its worth, a month ago I was watching video that made clear it was an amount in the high 80K that was 'unsold'. One of reckless ben's stunts was to split the unsold inventory 10 ways to get into small claims court, and that would not have worked with a 200K valuation. I am unsure how much of the framing coffeezilla uses that the claim was of 200K being stolen was from the collection owners & the original store owners (value from actual claims of theft), how much was BAM framing the claims in a misleading light to make their resistance more clear, and how much was the media/social media telephone sandblasting details off a case for brevity or drama. Where that shift happens really impacts how shady people look. I'm really intersted how the theft was described to coffeezilla, because it being 200k Legos was not the impression I got. Given the amount I heard originally is in line with Coffeezilla's comparison of the spreadsheet, I think this further supports the idea that the store owners, while having bad bookkeeping and questionable business decisions, were being above board. I've watched too many local businesses take on value-add services to compete and not consider the time and paperwork and drown despite having a successful model.
You've heard the phrase 'too busy questioning whether they can to question whether they should'? Thats you right here. Too busy questioning whether he can to question whether he should.
(using illustrator over artist to avoid conflation bewteen 'art' broadly and 'art' to mean visual works of art. Steven Soderbergh is a director and that matters. Brandon Sanderson, an author, gives a very great perspective. Because his books include pictures. Beyond the covers a publisher often handles. The Stormlight Archive series includes pages of in universe notes on the various fantastical creatures, including sketches from first hand observation. Brandon is not an illustrator. Brandon is an Art director. He has over iterations coached an illustrator to create an image as he wants it. That's what an "AI artist" is. An art director. Most of the film making 'art' to him is simply telling people what he wants, and seeing that want unfold in front of him. For his role, AI replicates his experience. In doing so, he dismisses that the actors are making choices that influence the work. That the film is a collaboration. Not to say I don't see potential value in AI as a tool in real art in the abstract. Just that I don't find it surprising that the director isn't worried about the machine that takes direction and its long term impact on the collaborative art of filmmaking when you take away the collaborators.
If we assume no one will ever change their vote, abandon democracy. It can not work. IN the real world, what we saw with elections this year is a lot of voters that were thought to be solid GOP flip toward the Democrats. This is the crowd the parties actually fight over. Whether they be a rotating crop of voters that vote consistently but only vote occationally, or voters flipping parties based on vibes, the premise of your claim is contradicted by elections less than 60 days old.
Trump and the GOP assumed they could simply wait out the dems, like they have in evey other shutdown in my lifetime. They assumed that because Senate dems always find a sacrifical lamb to take the bullet and capitulate. Unfortunately for Schumer , they've used this line way too many times at this point.
Governments of any type, hell any organization of any sort can be called a regime, if you just wanna talk facts. There is no objective line that defines 'a 'regime' from an 'administration'. A regime still administrates. Any administration is a regime. Its a performative demand that Tim signal his virtuous alignment with RightThink by adopting some arbitrary language choices. In response to the request to update his language, Tim has provided the subjective line that he will use. If you feel there is an authoritative source as to an objective definition, I would love to hear it.
I began asking this question in February when the USAID case was heading toward contempt, and it only eats me further every day. For his NYE address, Roberts issued what was viewed as a plainly partisan screed against progresives questioning the courts and court orders and SCOTUS in particular. He couched his words in non-partisan terms, but few viewed his words as targeting, say, Rudy Giuliani's defiance of court orders in the Freeman/Moss cases. What person, with such a deep concern for his legacy and the legitimacy of the courts, would possibly have issued such a message knowing Donald J Trump, whose last administration was famous for playing legal games and dancing just outside outright contempt, who had spent previous 4 years defying courts at every turn, was going to go into office less than a month later and would at least provoke the very animous against judges that Trump is currently provoking? Roberts either doesn't care about reputation, or hes too dumb for that concern to matter.
I’m now considering using grok to try to fake a “tesla model Xir” ad campaign and try to go viral and really fuck the brand.
If i want to confront a musk-bro, i’ll assume malice. Because assuming ignorance traps me in a cycle of explaining things to trolls acting in bad faith, and never addresses the harm they are doing. When talking generically online, i’ll assume ignorance unless i have a reason to make a malice arguement. Because there is no better insult than just assuming their 5-d chess moves are the result of childish flailing. i’ll leave intent to a prosecutor.
No, you just accept the industry bounding of the word security to just the security of the drive. Privacy is a security concern. As someone who needed security briefings in the military, The ability of bad actors to track your vehicle in real time presents a serious personal security concern, as well as national security concerns for persons whose safety is a national security concern. But ignoring that....You haven't paid attention. The 'privacy' concerns extend to the ability to shut down your engine remotely, control much of the accessory load, Control any components such as steering used in Level 2 driver assist or auto park, ect. The terrible wireless security of cars isn't just a privacy failure. It has been shown to affect "how much guarantee you’ve got for your car reliability when driving."
I was watching a video on the more perfect union youtube channel about crypto. An impactful line for me was proceeded by Crypto lobbiests saying CFPB never gave them clear rules to work within. It then cuts to a former admin with the CFPB saying they gave clear rules, the problem was the rules interfered with what crypto wants to do. As always, the venn diagram what corporations consider 'burdensome' and 'confusing' regulation and what most americans would consider common sense, is mostly a circle.
Source?
Thats the Joke (McBain.gif)
As someone how cashes in on these free years, I am not required to provide a payment method to sign up for my free year. This is not a scam to sneak in subscription revenue. Hell, my last free year of experian ended and the account was closed without me noticing. (The score and data offered was presented better by credit Karma, and any premium features weren't useful to me). However, while there is no subscription grift, there is a grift. They offer add-on services, referral services, and want you to manually add to their honey pot of data on you for the next time they are breached. They are absolutely profiting on that 'free year'.
Making a child unhirable for the rest of their life and be shunned and cast out of every social group he ever has unless they are the worst in humanity is "being an asshole to a kid". FYI.
Not giving the next authoritarian, regardless of what label they apply to their politics, or which side of the isle they claim it comes from, the congressional mandate to decide Truth. If that wasn't clear, could you let me know where I lost you? If claims were accurate and somehow shutting down vaccine misinfo was a deathblow to a second Trump term, its a stupid and absurd belief to think there would not be someone willing to abuse the power to criminalize speech that doesn't fit the party line in the administration, or the next. A return to the party of Bush and Reagan after the death of trumpism is still a party that was known for lying about the health impacts of drugs and was alraedy supporting vaccine skepticism.
Socialist revolutions often are captured by authoritarians. This is because so many on the left believe that authoritarian power is okay so long as the good guys start in power and the good guys can keep the bad authoritarians out of power and with strong enough control, we can finally convince everyone how right we are once we silence the misinformation of the right. As we saw with trump, investigations and convictions did nothing to impact voter support. Claims that if we had instead done this prosecution or that prosecution or just done them earlier and Trump wouldn't be in power and therefore its okay to give power to define truth to whomever is in the white house seem to ignore the reality that A) SCOTUS was in the end batting for trump B) SCTOUS would have been unlikely to bless strict scrutiny of such a law that worked to Trump's detriment C) Convictions, indictments, and civil judgements completely failed to reduce the power of the GOP ticket. The problem is what an anti-vaxxer would do with the power to define truth and lies, and the idea that had we just used the authoritarianism we wouldn't have bad people in power is fantasy wishcasting disconnected from historical assessment.
You appear to be agreeing with me. Communism, as it is, is not a threat. Its a threat when paired with a dictator and centralized power. My point was that the issues with the USSR reflected in 1984 were derived not from the economic system, but the power of the government, and the unifying feature of Facism and the USSR - authoritarian control - is what 1984 is warning you about.
1984 was about the soviet union. The AC you replied to rightly points out similarities between the levers of authoritarian control employed by fascism, and the levers of authoritarian control employed by Stalin's USSR. That he mistakenly blames the economics of Communism and not the dictatorial control which exploded under Stalin is not a false equivalence between what we call fascism and the government of the USSR.