Please, some reasonable Trump voter explain how this is acceptable. How can the sitting president still be openly claiming that a previous election was fraudulent after all this time?
I mean, this is very obviously retribution. But nobody's going to reply to you saying "yes, I want those who have wronged my beloved president to be annihilated." So I'm not sure what you're expecting here. There's no good faith explanation for these events save for whatever vague spin Fox News can come up with.
Not a trump voter or supporter by any means, but you can reflect on what made this action possible from the pr perspective (even considering the above quoted unnecessary own goal - they could have done the same thing with even more plausible deniability)
There was indeed a campaign to fight "misinformation", with active cooperation between the previous administration and social media companies. There was an official effort to establish a disinformation fighting team within the government. Some of the stories like Hunter biden's laptop and COVID origin stuff blew up as what looks like potential partisan censorship cases. And frankly while I'd attribute the latter, and most of these efforts, to stupidity, the former looks like malice even to me. So now one sides idiotic authoritarian self own can be used by the other side to justify even more idiotic even more authoritarian "corrective" action.
First of all, I don't especially like Trump. He has many faults. But I truly believe, after all this time, that he wants to be a good president. He is a self-made multi-billionaire who does not need to put up with all the shit he has taken just for some title. All of his problems would have went away, at any time, if he would have dropped out of politics. He was a very popular celebrity until he became a serious contender. Then many of his Hollywood friends and political allies (mostly Democrats) suddenly turned on him.
The margins were extremely thin in 2020, and there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff. Sure, you can point to partisan experts who assert that there was nothing fishy going on, but they are just covering for their team. (Before you say "bipartisan" I want to remind you that many Republicans don't like Trump, and are essentially Democrats under a red banner.) There has been evidence of fraud. One could argue that there is always fraud. But ask yourself: "Which party supports actual election integrity more? The one that insists on US citizens voting in person with valid id (nothing special, just the id that we all need to get by in society), or the one that made a huge deal out of allowing votes with no id and in some cases no US citizenship, voting by mail, an open border, etc.?" I don't think any serious person can look at Democrats and say that what they have advocated for speaks to their competency and sincerity about having legitimate elections.
By the way, Hillary and her cronies never accepted the 2016 election. We actually had a farcical situation on many social media platforms where questioning the 2020 election was banned, and questioning the 2016 election or any other election never was banned or interfered with. If you don't see the media lies, cult mentality, and rank hypocrisy around the Trump pearl clutching, it is unlikely that anyone can convince you with a few HN comments.
> But ask yourself: "Which party supports actual election integrity more? The one that insists on US citizens voting in person with valid id (nothing special, just the id that we all need to get by in society),
You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles covering this, many of which contain extensive links to sources [1].
It is cute how some people can simultaneously believe that (1) you need the type of ID that Republican voter ID laws require for voting in order to get by in society (and so everyone already has the ID they need), and (2) there are tens of millions of illegal aliens who have been living in this country long term (and hence are obviously getting by).
This implies either that you don't actually need such ID to get by or that illegal aliens can easily obtain such ID (which makes the ID law ineffective at preventing fraud).
>You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles covering this, many of which contain extensive links to sources [1].
That is all a bunch of hogwash. Most people can get ID for like $20 from their state. Even if I accept it, the answer is not to lower standards. It is to actually help these people get the ID that they need. Anything else permits rampant fraud. This is so obvious that I have to assume people like you are malicious actors, with all due respect.
>you need the type of ID that Republican voter ID laws require for voting in order to get by in society (and so everyone already has the ID they need),
Is there any case where a state ID such as a driver's license is not adequate? I don't even care. Go try to open a bank account or cash a check without ID. Everyone will tell you GTFO if you don't have the same type of ID needed to vote.
>there are tens of millions of illegal aliens who have been living in this country long term (and hence are obviously getting by)
These people are issued ID, and besides that they often work for cash or in other ways that dodge the law.
>This implies either that you don't actually need such ID to get by or that illegal aliens can easily obtain such ID (which makes the ID law ineffective at preventing fraud).
If there is simply a field on your ID that says if you are a citizen, and that shit is verified at the time you register to vote or at the time you actually vote, it would be as effective as the enforcement. We have Democrat precincts where poll workers have been forbidden from asking for ID. It is pure insanity, so egregious that it seems engineered to outrage everyone with a shred of common sense. I keep having to mention all of these things on this site amid a flurry of downvotes because too many "hackers" have drank the Kool-Aid.
> That is all a bunch of hogwash. Most people can get ID for like $20 from their state
There's also the cost of finding and getting copies of supporting documents, which are often in another state (e.g., the state you were born in, not the state you now live in). Records for many older Americans have not been digitized or even centralized so if your family moved when you were very young you may have to search the physical records in multiple counties to find yours.
> Even if I accept it, the answer is not to lower standards. It is to actually help these people get the ID that they need.
Obviously, but the same people passing voter ID laws are also making it harder for people to get ID. They reduce the number of offices that issue IDs, with the reductions disproportionately being in districts that tend to not vote for the people who are passing those laws. They say it is because those districts have much lower drivers per capita so don't need as many DMVs (which are usually the offices that deal with ID).
In the offices that remain they'll reduce the hours in which IDs are issued, getting rid of evening and weekend hours. For many poor people that can mean a full day of lost work to go try to get an ID, and many cannot afford that. Besides the loss of a day's pay these places often have terrible public transit so they are looking at an expensive ride on commercial transportation.
For people in low income jobs these barriers can be huge.
> Anything else permits rampant fraud
Then how come no one has been able to actually find evidence of such fraud? No matter how well funded the search they all come up empty.
> Go try to open a bank account or cash a check without ID. Everyone will tell you GTFO if you don't have the same type of ID needed to vote
23% of people earning under $25k/year do not have bank accounts but manage just fine. On that comment I gave you early with all the links to research that you ignored, someone asked how people live without ID and I posted a response there covering some of the ways they get buy.
Look, I don't like waiting at the DMV either but doing it for a few hours every four to eight years is part of life. I don't believe anyone with a job is actually disenfranchised by this requirement. If they won't do that, then they won't register to vote either. In many cases, you can simultaneously get ID and register to vote too. By the way you can't get a job legally without providing ID, unless you are working gig jobs for cash. The elderly are often given IDs that don't expire.
I might be biased but I don't want people who can't manage to get or keep an ID telling us how to run the country. If you can't manage such a basic task, then you can't run your own life and have no business having a say in how other people live or die. That said, the real solution that would make everyone happy is to subsidize the issuance of ID somehow and to make employers accommodate the required absences. We do that for jury duty, more or less, so we can do it for ID and voting too. The solution is definitely never going to be to get stupid and have zero requirements for ID at the polls.
> don't believe anyone with a job is actually disenfranchised by this requirement.
You are betraying your own ignorance. You clearly have never associated with people from a ghetto if you are saying that.
> If you can't manage such a basic task, then you can't run your own life and have no business having a say in how other people live or die.
There's probably some merit to that but I think it would really depend on why. If you can't in the sense that you just don't follow through that's one thing. Whereas working the same hours that the ID office is open, not having PTO, being unable to afford taking unpaid time off, not being able to afford a personal vehicle; if you can't simply because you are poor that hardly seems a reasonable basis to disenfranchise someone.
If nothing else, it certainly isn't consistent with either the word or the spirit of the current law. If you want to change that then the appropriate course of action is to lobby the general public for it. If you believe you won't manage to convince them then I would like to suggest that it is your views that have no business being imposed on others.
Oh and the kicker? It's a poor filter anyway, at least for the purpose that you stated. Someone who doesn't work will have little issue passing it since he has no scheduling conflict with office hours and what's a multi-hour trip on public transit to him?
> The margins were extremely thin in 2020, and there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff.
These allegations from Trump supporters have been disproved in court many times. What will iy take for you to admit that he's misusing his power to target people who disagree with his election lies?
Considering how ill-treated Trump and his supporters have been and still are by courts, it is no wonder that they don't trust the courts. Regardless of what you or I think, he is going after people he believes are corrupt. The exact same people who targetted him unfairly for years, in some cases. I'm not losing sleep over this.
It's not ill treatment, they're being targeted by courts because they're doing illegal shit.
It's not that libs are avoiding courts because they're favored, it's just that there's nothing to, you know, try them with. They didn't pull an insurrection. They don't constantly make up lies about everything. So...
> there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff.
Just because Fox News repeats false claims over and over doesn't make them true. Do you have sources? 2000 mules was debunked. Fox News settled for their false claims against Dominion. Court awarded damages to that one victim who was accused of smuggling a flash drive of "fraudulent votes" or whatever. Don't fall for the firehose of bullshit. Please share what specifically convinced you of this.
>By the way, Hillary and her cronies never accepted the 2016 election.
She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real.
>She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real.
She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate. Not just her but the entire Democrat media machine that backed Hillary over other plausible candidates. The smearing and denial cancel out any good will she gained by "conceding". Shall we talk about the Russiagate hoax that went on for years, that Hillary herself started by commissioning the Steele Dossier? I suggest you go educate yourself on all of that and how she paid a fine for election interference (and how Trump did not).
Given up being a debunked 2020 election conspiracy apologist?
The Steele Dossier was commissioned in 2016, before the election. Trump is claiming the 2020 election was "stolen" well after. Both bad. But not the same.
Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. (edit to add: Challenging, and getting their day in court, is fine! However,) No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. (edit to add: Despite losing in court, they continued to spread debunked conspiracies, and still claimed it was "stolen" without evidence. And still tried to hold on to power, Trump asked Pence to "do the right thing", and declare Trump the winner despite losing. This is the bad part.) Clinton did not challenge the election results after losing. Not the same. Not even close.
>Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. Clinton did not challenge the election results after losing. Not the same. Not even close.
I think the key here is that not enough was proven to change any results. But the margins were close. Candidates routinely challenge elections (even Kamala was fundraising to challenge her clear defeat), and some (like Hillary and Trump) never accept it all the way. These things are all similar. The media pretends that everything is uniquely bad when Trump happens to do it and they turn a blind eye to Democrats doing the exact same stuff. It is exhausting to argue with people who refuse to understand this hypocrisy happening right before their eyes.
> The media pretends that everything is uniquely bad when Trump happens to do it and they turn a blind eye to Democrats doing the exact same stuff. It is exhausting to argue with people who refuse to understand this hypocrisy happening right before their eyes.
Got it. Did Clinton try to gain the presidency despite losing? Did she ask the vice president to "do the right thing" and throw out electoral votes?
Ok it is not exactly the same but it is quite similar. Clinton and fellow Democrats initiated a years-long legal campaign against Trump using her connections in 2015. They even had his whole campaign wiretapped. Trump did not even prosecute her for her mishandling of classified data. Now that the political persecution chickens are coming home to roost, these people have no actual answer besides to fearmonger about Trump even more.
Acceptance and formal concession are two different things, just like clarification versus moving the goalposts. The real bullshit here is trying to avoid the actual issue at hand by attacking my choice of words when you know damn well what I mean.
Prove that Russians bailed him out, please. I've got to hear this.
He did inherit money, like $10M if I recall correctly. But he made the rest of his money. Even if not literally a rags-to-riches case (I never said he was, either), he does not need money. Compare that to, say, AOC who is suddenly worth millions of dollars after a few years on a salary of $180k. Who is more suspicious?
He inherited money, ran through it, went back and fleeced his dad and siblings of their money. Ran through that. Racked up hundreds of millions of debt, then ran for president. Now he bastardizes public office and exploits his position to generate wealth.
> But Trump eventually made a comeback, and according to several sources with knowledge of Trump’s business, foreign money played a large role in reviving his fortunes, in particular investment by wealthy people from Russia and the former Soviet republics. This conclusion is buttressed by a growing body of evidence amassed by news organizations, as well as what is reportedly being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Southern District of New York. It is a conclusion that even Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has appeared to confirm, saying in 2008—after the Trump Organization was prospering again—that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.”
> According to the most recent disclosure from 2023, Ocasio-Cortez had documented that she had no more than between $1,001 and $15,000 in each of three different bank accounts. The total for these three accounts would land somewhere between $3,003 and $45,000. She also recorded in the disclosure having between $1,001 and $15,000 in additional funds in a fourth account for a 401k plan. Further, she noted in the disclosure that she was still paying off student loans, with an "amount of liability" landing somewhere between $15,001 and $50,000. In other words, Ocasio-Cortez was at least $940,000 short of being a millionaire, with the maximum possible amount of the four accounts totaling $60,000, and that's before even factoring in her student loan debt.
Do you get your information from anywhere other than random twitter posts?
>Why do you speak so confidently around something you clearly know nothing about?
I know about as much as you my man. I could sit here and throw links at you, and neither of us would leave thinking any different.
I am not gonna argue about AOC. I think you might be right as it seems like the top stories now support the theory that she is not rich (despite ostentatious things like showing up in a $12k dress to a charity event) and I don't have time to research it now. But there are many members of congress that are far sketchier than her. Such as the queen of insider trading, Nancy Pelosi.
Trump is definitely rich, and has been at least since the 80s. He has done some sketchy stuff, but it's not even close to what happens routinely in Congress. He is not accepting his salary as POTUS either. Has that ever happened before? But here you are trying to spin it like he has no money, or else he owes it all to Russians who somehow have him on a leash.
Has your friend talked with current bio research students? It’s very common to hear that people are having success writing Python/R/Matlab/bash scripts using these tools when they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to.
Possibly this is just among the smallish group of students I know at MIT, but I would be surprised to hear that a biomedical researcher has no use for them.
Unironically, yes. The industry clearly has more experience, but it’s silly to assume students don’t have novel and useful ideas that can (and will) be integrated
I'm taking a course on computational health laboratory. I do have to say gemini is helping me a lot, but someone who knows what's happening is going to be much better than us. Our professor told us it is of course allowed to make things with llms, since on the field we will be able to do that. However, I found they're much less precise with bio-informatic libraries than others...
I do have to say that we're just approaching the tip of the iceberg and there are huge issues related to standardization, dirty datas... We still need the supervision and the help of one of the two professors to proceed even with llms
I have general one-shot success asking chatgpt to make bash/python scripts and one-liners where otherwise it would take 1hr to a day to figure out on my own (and I'd use one of my main languages maybe) or I might not even bother trying, which is great for productivity but also over 90% of my job doesn't need throw-away scripts and one-liners.
If this tool looks like it would improve your life I think you should consider using Bazel instead of whatever build system you are using. I don’t see much value add here for a project using Bazel.
Their infotaiment uses a customized Debian distro. On a Model S you could easily get a shell into it, because they used a freaking SSH with a password-based authentication over Ethernet to connect from the instrument cluster to the computer in the central console.
This is a gist created 1 hour ago. No proof of the attack vector. What's the point of posting a private key?
Also, so what if they used Debian? Linux is used on everything. Debian has multiple licenses, it also has BSD3 and others to choose from: https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
In case anybody wants it. I can do a more detailed writeup about hacking into my Tesla, but I'm not particularly interested in that. In short, I bought an Tesla instrument cluster on eBay and dumped the NAND chips from it.
They use plenty of GPL software there, including the Linux kernel itself.
Ok, you seem to be implying that just the use of GPL software necessitates the open sourcing of anything you build on it or with it. If that were the case, then all of AWS would be open sourced and all of the server backends built on Ubuntu clusters would have to be open sourced.
As far as I understand, its only "derivative" works that must be open sourced. Not merely building a software program or hardware device on top of a Debian OS. Tesla's control console is hardly a derivative work.
Eh, if they were being compliant and merely building modules ontop of and called by BusyBox, they could get away with Mere Aggregation [0]*, but from a little looking around it looks like they were called out years ago for distributing modified BusyBox binaries without acknowledgement [1] and promised to work with the Software Conservancy to get in compliance. [2]
*but I would argue (a judge would be the only one to say with certainty) that Tesla does not provide an infotainment application "alongside" a linux host to run it on, they deliver a single product to the end user of which Debian/BusyBox/whatever is a significant constituent.
(P.S. to cyberax: if you can demonstrate that Tesla is still shipping modified binaries as in [1] I think it would make a worthwhile update to the saga.)
> I would say it is trust worthy because if it were found to be gamed then Anthropic’s reputation would crater.
But on the other hand, how would we found out that they've gamed the numbers, if they were gamed? Unless you work at Anthropic and have abnormally high ethics/morals, or otherwise private insight into their business, sounds like we wouldn't be able to find out regardless.
I tend to agree that ? looks like "if then" when what we really want is some sort of coalescing, or "if not then".
foo ?? { bar }
foo ?/ { bar }
foo ?: { bar }
foo ?> { bar }
foo ||> { bar }
Im not sure I like the idea at all though. It seems like a hack around a pretty explicit design choice. Although I do tend to agree the error handling boilerplate is kind of annoying.
reply