Forbes just published an article today about how how nuh uh it totally isn’t a bubble, so uh guess we’ll see how it plays out.

Ooh, haven’t heard about that.

“AOC, the captain has ordered full steam ahead toward the iceberg. Do you support the first mate’s plan to instead slow down and steer away from it?”

“I certainly don’t think a primary challenge to the leader is a good idea right now.”

She didn’t get into this for socialism or ideology, she got into this with a vague idea that she could do something to make things better for people after seeing that others were not

Did she, though? I’m increasingly convinced that Joe Crowley was deliberately sacrificed as part of an effort to capture and divert the populist energy that was in the air. She definitely has connections from her internships and fell in line after a single milquetoast protest

“It’s okay when it benefits me” as a journalistic ethos.

I’m not really seeing any purpose other than trying to paint him as some sort of aberrant freak, and I don’t see any purpose in that beyond trying to absolve the greater social milieu (which included a great many Brits!) in what happened.

The results, which are now under peer review, are indeed fascinating.

It is the first time Hitler’s DNA has been identified, and over the course of four years, scientists were able to sequence it to see the genetic makeup of one of the world’s most horrific tyrants.

What is certain, experts say, is that Hitler did not have Jewish ancestry - a rumour that had been circulating since the 1920s.

Another key finding is that he had Kallmann syndrome, a genetic disorder that, among other things, can affect puberty and the development of sexual organs. In particular, it can lead to a micropenis and undescended testes - which, if you know the British war-time song, had been another rumour flying around about Hitler.

Kallmann syndrome can also affect the libido, which is particularly interesting, said historian and Potsdam University lecturer Dr Alex Kay, who is featured in the documentary.

“It tells us a lot about his private life - or more accurately, that he didn’t have a private life,” he explains.

Hi, yes, question from the back of the room here: why is Hitler’s right to privacy the main controversy and not the fact that this work in no way shape or form represents an advancement in scientific knowledge? What’s “fascinating” about findings that he “might have” had a micropenis or the possibilities that entails for his sex life? Why is this how supposedly intelligent people are choosing to spend their time?

I haven’t really read up on the topic since the early days of the human genome project - has there been any attempt to round up and remove all of the sequencing data obtained from indigenous people under dubious consent or disclosure conditions or is the intent of these policies more “going forward we’ll keep things above board”?

Legacy media appears to have settled on keeping itself afloat by cornering the market on unintentionally self-revealing personal essays by wealthy cultural cyphers.

“Disruptive technology” has always been a funny term, but it’s especially hilarious applied to LLMs because they are currently destroying way more value than they’re creating. Like describing a gunshot victim as someone “suffering from technology-related disruption to their lungs”

Based on the wording you can emit all the CO2 you want so long as global warming isn’t your main objective.

It is simply human nature to not press the switch.

I’ve read a couple blurbs about conjoint analysis and I am not yet totally clear on how it works, but the general idea is to provide different products (or in this case candidates) and ask respondents to rank them. So one might have compared a veteran former Obama staffer who wants to get rid of the tariffs vs a farmer that created private sector jobs who wants to make food more affordable (etc), and the scores come out of a bunch of rankings.

I speculated up thread that the poll respondents might be ranking the candidates more on what they believe the general public wants or who will most likely win an election regardless of personal preferences (which feels like a hazard in accurate interpretation and it depends on the exact question wording), or they might’ve just had a sample that skewed older (as Chana observed).

It might be an example of a Keynesian beauty contest in that the typical democratic voter saw all the chatter around Trump’s anti-LGBTQ ads in the general and are assuming that candidates that go too hard toward inclusion stand less of a chance with the mythical moderates.

Or they might just not care.

Evidently, among Democrats, the only thing that scores worse than “advocating for Palestine” is “advocating for Israel”

I guess the takeaway is “we don’t want to hear about sad things for which our government is directly culpable”?

We warned you to shut up about the space lasers, Marjorie.

It’s a strategic loophole, clearly

Mad respect for your commitment to innovating new ways to appreciate suffering visited upon the deserving.

Senate Bill 2691/House Bill 2063 would prohibit the “intentional injection, release or dispersion, by any means” of chemicals into the atmosphere with the purpose of affecting temperature, weather or sunlight intensity,

It’s actually a ban on geoengineering via aerosol injection, which would be a bit more reasonable. Of course, it wouldn’t stop anyone who wanted to do it because you can do it anywhere on Earth and it’s probably still rooted in conspiracy theories so w/e.

A society that rewards ability…

…provided you’re born with sufficient access to capital

…meets need…

…except for the hundreds of thousands of unhoused and millions of chronically food insecure despite society-level production of both sufficient housing and sufficient food

…and leaves room for human ambition…

Such ambition currently including genociding your neighbors, amassing more wealth than you can possibly spend in a lifetime, and paving over or otherwise exterminating all life that doesn’t provide an immediate economic return at the expense of biospheric stability. Carpe diem!