You know that transformer and diffussion models, while both being forms of “GenAI,” are wildly incomparable, yeah?

Reference to the war of 1812, it was still ~50 years before Canada slipped the British leash but there’s some weird nationalist revisionist history surrounding it.

It’s important to remember that science is inherently conservative and doubly so for climate change Erring on the Side of Least Drama.

If you read any of the IPCC reports you’ll note they are very careful to not really provide any death estimates or anything. However, one can attempt to extrapolate a risk model from those descriptions from that we can analyze key takeaways from the WG2 report ¹

The report found that climate impacts are at the high end of previous estimates

3.3 billion people about 40% of the world population, now fall into the most serious category of “highly vulnerable” ___ 1 billion people face flooding.

Based on the existential risk model, that’s 3.3 billion currently facing some level of existential risks. If the impacts remain “at the high end of previous estimates”, which they very likely will, then that’s >3.3 Billion potential deaths.

^1: using Wikipedia summary because the report is 3675 pages long and ain’t nobody got time for that^

She competed in the 2021 Olympics but did not finish. Same as Chris Mossier who you so casually dismissed as a counterexample.

She did win silver in the 2017 World Weightlifting Championships. You do notice how you moved the goalposts we previously established in order to get the answer you desired?

You are continuing to be willfully, and now maliciously, ignorant.

So your advice to people who can’t afford rent, work a fulltime job and have just had their tent and all their possessions thrown in a dumpster for the second time this month is what exactly?

Do you advise someone who is incarcerated that if they simply ignore the bars they will no longer be there?

Society has gotten far, far more unequal and oppressive

By what metrics?

Historically there simply wasn’t physical things with which to have the modern level of inequality. Historically the average lower end was was lower, but the modern high end is incomprehensible orders of magnitude higher.

Historical acts of oppression were often far more brutal and cruel but that’s because it wasn’t physically possible to maintain the constant, but relatively minor oppression that is characteristic of modernity.

They are though, just going through the last 2 Olympics the list of openly trans individuals: Laurel Hubbard, Chelsea Wolfe, Quinn, Ness Murby, Nikki Hiltz, Raven Saunders.

You can look these things up, stop being a willfully ignorant bigot.

It’s axiomatic. The best means the best. Objectively. Fastest, highest, longest, game won.

So your goalpost is a world record? No trans, non-binary, etc. individual I can find has set a world record in any sport.

Participating in the Olympics, only to not even finish isn’t exactly winning though.

If we lower the goalpost to ‘any trans, non-binary, etc. individual winning gold in the Olympics’ again nobody meets that criteria¹. Dropping it to simply medaling? Again nothing.

^1 Quinn the soccer player arguably does meet this criteria, but it’s a team sport. Using that as your sole evidence of ‘loads of examples of the opposite’ seems extremely cherry picked doesn’t it?^

Define your goalposts, what exactly is “winning against the best in competition”?

Chris Mosier seems like someone who consistently does win in those competitions.

If he doesn’t count then who, specifically, does “the other way around”?

alteration that isn’t and can’t be available for everyone

That’s unfortunately how genetics works.

What is then the legal limit for doping of a trans male?

I thought being assigned female at birth made someone inherently and irreversibly weaker and so they would be non-competitive in men’s sports /s.

Seriously though that’s a largely solved problem. While specifics will vary depending on the specific org this set of guidelines outlined by the World Anti-Doping Agency is a decent enough framework and directly answers that.

She was born as a woman and she considers herself a woman

You are conflating sex and gender, she has 5α-reductase deficiency which exclusively effects individuals with an XY karyotype.

Either all women¹, including Semenya, fall under that umbrella or none of them do. Pick one.

If your concern is about “unfair advantages gained via doping” then the majority of trans women competing are being much more fair because they are undergoing HRT to bring the “doping” back to within the typical woman baseline.

Unless your moral outrage is because you’re drawing a distinction between naturally occuring and artificial doping?

^1 I should have to fucking say this, but based on the fact we’re having this conversation: this inherently includes trans women.^

If the doctors had designated her sex “correctly” when she was born would you hold the same opinion?

Why is her situation any different than someone who medically matches her hormonal levels, irregardless of assigned sex at birth?

It gets much, much more skewed after puberty.

Because the primary causitive variable here isn’t the person’s sex chromosomes but their relative hormone levels. It’s highly correlated to the sex chromosomes that one is born with, which is what your data shows, but it isn’t the cause.

Economic conscription is not consent.

And COVID and___

With the way American politics are at the moment I interpreted that as a “only the Republicans are the bad guys” and wanted to make it abundantly clear that is not the case.

My bad, thanks for catching that I was looking at 118th caucus not 119th. I thought I just misremembered which of those pesky other parties were part of which caucus.

We can though, first time was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with funding being released in 2010. D president, D Senate, D house.

By 2012 it became obvious that the commitment lined out in the 2009 bill weren’t going to happen and a meek attempt to claw back the funds was made. D president, D Senate, R house.

2021 sees the access broadband act. D president, D Senate, D house.

By 2025 it became obvious that the commitment lined out in the 2021 bill weren’t going to happen. R president, D R Senate, R house.

The only constant is a Democratic Senat so clearly that’s the problem! Right?

Edit: wrong session for 2025 caucus. It’s all Rs there.

Personally been a fan of shoggoth with a smiley face mask

Don’t underplay a regime and make them seem more reasonable than they are by whitewashing history

That’s a better definition!

But also don’t exaggerate a "regime"¹ to make them seem more extreme than they are by whitewashing, decontextualizing, fabricating, using loaded language[1], etc.

Propoganda often works explicitly via selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception. What your are calling “details” and “minutia” are attempts to try and push back against some of that selectivity bias.