PhilipTheBucket

What do you mean? I'm not disagreeing, just asking, how is Erdogan being a piece of shit a big problem for them? I'm sure they don't like it, but he doesn't like them either, so fine.

Honestly that sounds like more work than Trump or the current crew of leadership wants to do. I think what they're planning is more likely to be just to keep blowing up fishing boats and blustering until (a) Venezuela caves or (b) they get distracted and just abandon the effort for some other equally pointless and violent activity.

I also think it's very bizarre their constant complaining that the suspect isn't "cooperating."

What is it that they expect him to do? I have a guess, of course. The way it usually works (after the suspect initially agrees to talk with them without a lawyer, creating all kinds of problems for themselves), is that they build the case, and the lawyer who's now in touch with the client finally has a chance to tell them to shut the fuck up going forward. My guess is that they really want him to "cooperate" with building their case for them, and he's not, and that upsets them because it's giving them real problems.

If we assume this random YouTube man is credible, and I see no reason to doubt him, the DOJ can't even tie suspected Kirk killer to the actual killing of Charlie Kirk.

Some kinds of progressive don’t see electoralism as worth their time.

...

You gotta do that last year, or a little while later, after people have forgotten. Trying to say it doesn't matter who wins elections right now is... not going to be convincing.

It's actually exactly like what happened with vaccines. We had so many years living in a society which didn't have active urgent throw-you-in-the-camps-for-no-reason tyranny that people stopped believing it was really real, and they're still out confidently saying it's not worth taking basic easy steps to prevent.

Yeah, I get it. I don't think it is necessarily bad research or anything. I just feel like maybe it would have been good to go into it as two papers:

1. Look at the funny LLM and how far off the rails it goes if you don't keep it stable and let it kind of "build on itself" over time iteratively and don't put the right boundaries on
2. How should we actually wrap up an LLM into a sensible model so that it can pursue an "agent" type of task, what leads it off the rails and what doesn't, what are some various ideas to keep it grounded and which ones work and don't work

And yeah obviously they can get confused or output counterfactuals or nonsense as a failure mode, what I meant to say was just that they don't really do that as a response to an overload / "DDOS" situation specifically. They might do it as a result of too much context or a badly set up framework around them sure.

I had a feeling that all the blowing up fishing vessels might be rooted back in Trump wanting Venezuela to accept "deported" migrants.

More or less as soon as I typed it I realized, you know what, that's a stupid question, I would be very very surprised if they don't get paid.

I still feel like the fact that it impacts their workplace directly, is the reason they freak the fuck out about it and start actually trying, in a way they usually don't when someone else is getting kidnapped to an ICE facility or losing their workplace or home or family or life.

Does congress still get paid during a shutdown?

I genuinely don't know the answer to that question, but if the answer is "no," then I think we've uncovered a significant clue. Personally I feel like a huge part of the top Democrats' horrifying fecklessness on all of these type of issues is that, at the end of the day, they'll be fine, and you can sometime divine their priorities by seeing what does make them start sweating and working hard to avoid.

Yeah. The aftermath was pretty telling too, about all kinds of things.

1. NATO didn't back up Türkiye on the issue, which kind of put Türkiye in a fuckin' rough spot. This led to a little bit of a falling out, and is indicative that NATO is full of old ministers in safe offices who don't have a real strong concept of loyalty among a few other things.
2. Erdogan turned on the pilots involved and made them the scapegoat shortly after, which is indicative that Erdogan's a piece of shit.
3. Russia didn't mind at all. After Erdogan made some performative gestures of making-nice, they turned right back around and started doing thriving business with Türkiye, they're still smuggling oil out through them to this day. This is indicative of how Putin perceives power and respect. All those aforementioned NATO ministers who are doing careful "escalation management," he perceives as a massive bunch of limp wankers, whereas if someone just shoots down his planes with their expendable pilots, he's like "Jolly good nice to know you've got some backbone in a scrap" and he's fine with you. There was nothing of how Türkiye is trying to start World War 3 by shoving back against his testing.

I developed a system with one person I was dating that if she was ever just unpleasant for no reason at all, I would stop whatever else was going on and make a priority to feed her right away. She figured it out after a few times (while we were redirecting from what had been happening and into getting food), and she was sort of conflicted between being even more angry "how dare you I am not some kind of Skinner box experiment don't change the subject while I am giving you hell for (whatever)" and admitting that yes okay that is a very good strategy let's eat and I will probably become happy.

Fair point. Human endeavors operate a lot by habits and mental models though. People generally will push back harder against government censorship when it happens if they've already got it firmly in mind that "hate speech" is a bullshit category that needs not to exist. Once you start to say that hate speech shouldn't be allowed for example on Substack (which I think is the majority view now), it becomes a lot easier for the government to ban it (which I think is precisely what's happening, both in the US and in Canada apparently).