So ignorance is bliss?

You don’t say. That kind of seemed obvious from the very fucking start. Trump is absurdly incompetent or he is actively working to destroy the country. I honestly can’t tell which it is.

How exactly does Iowa have standing for such a claim? In 2009 the Iowa Supreme court affirmed that the right to marry (gay or otherwise) was enshrined in the state constitution. Even if SCOTUS made such a ruling at the federal level, it wouldn’t change the state constitution.

Would you feel the same way if his stroke destroyed his ability to drive a car but he insisted on continuing to do so anyway and kept putting lives at risk? It would be great if if can make a full recovery, and I certainly hope he can, but he needs to get the fuck out of the driver’s seat until he does so.

Yes, but I dont think that’s relevant. Whether gross or net, they are still ruining lives to achieve a pointless profit motive.

Edit: relevant, not irrelevant

You don’t need $10 billion in revenue. You could just coast along and only hit, what, $9.8 billion? And then you wouldn’t have to ruin 500 people’s lives. I’m betting the CEO has a bonus scheduled if he hits this goal.

Oh look, another court order to ignore.

It was indeed hubris, but 9/11 wasn’t expected. Anyone at the time with half a brain and access to the intelligence apparatus knew an attack was coming. Sadly, that left out then President George W. Bush due to his grey matter deficiency. Two months before 9/11, Gee Dubya was handed a Presidential Daily Brief with a clear warning about it and that wasn’t the first warning he ignored.

“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, has always been Exhibit A in the case that his administration shrugged off warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. But months earlier, starting in the spring of 2001, the CIA repeatedly and urgently began to warn the White House that an attack was coming.

They knew that the World Trade Center towers were a prime target for terrorists because of the last attack on them. Fortunately the 1993 terrorist attack failed to knock the towers down and the law enforcement was able to track down the attackers before they could try again.

We later learned from Yousef that his Trade Center plot was far more sinister. He wanted the bomb to topple one tower, with the collapsing debris knocking down the second. The attack turned out to be something of a deadly dress rehearsal for 9/11; with the help of Yousef’s uncle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al Qaeda would later return to realize Yousef’s nightmarish vision.

We knew that Yousef’s uncle was working with Al Qaeda and we knew they wanted to knock down the towers. Bush was warned but he, as you say, could not imagine anyone attacking here. That is indeed hubris because everyone else in a position to do anything about it knew an attack was coming in some form or another.

Don’t give them ideas. Really. Just don’t.

The bill passed the Senate Committee on Commerce and Tourism 5-4, with one Republican lawmaker, Sarasota Sen. Joe Gruters, joining Democrats in voting against it.

“I think we need to let kids be kids,” Gruters said.

Uh oh, somebody’s gonna get primaried. How dare he show moral fortitude in public.

If they used illegal means to find him, Im pretty sure that taints any evidence found on him.

Possibly. It’s called The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. If the police obtained evidence illegally, or derived evidence from other evidence that was illegally obtained, it can be ruled inadmissible by the judge. There are exceptions shown in the link. One of the big exceptions is the first listed. If it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity it can be allowed.

Police are aware of the risks of tainted evidence so they will sometimes cover for it with a parallel construction investigation.

Parallel construction occurs when the federal government learns of criminal activity through one source but then gives the information to federal law enforcement agencies to “reconstruct” the criminal investigation so that the source of that second investigation differs from the original source.

So, let’s say the police arrest a suspect and find compelling evidence against the suspect at the location. That evidence might be suppressed if it turns out that, for example, the police found out where the suspect was going to be via an illegal wire tap. If it weren’t for the illegally obtained location information, the police would not have obtained that other evidence. Rather than admitting in court that this is how they found the suspect, one of the investigators might call in, or arrange for someone else to call in an anonymous tip about the suspect’s location to other investigators that don’t know about the illegal wire tap. The police then exclude the real origin of the knowledge of the suspects location from court filings.

Illegal, very possibly. Likely, also very possible.

Of course it won’t. It would take years to move manufacturing to the USA. Building factories, hiring and training workers, none of that can happen over months. It’s also a huge expenditure for the business which, along with higher payroll costs, would be passed on to consumers. Costs are going to go up weather they move manufacturing here or not so why not take the path of least resistance and just pass on the tariff costs?

This is more of an indictment about people not being safe while preparing food. Wash the eggs before you crack them into the pan, or whatever. Wash your hands properly any time you touch the shells, yolks or whites. Wash all surfaces that come in contact with the shells, yolks or whites. Cook thoroughly. Do the same when cooking or handling meats or even vegetables that could be contaminated.

Typical Republican: either scared of their own shadow or indifferent to the grievous damage they inflict on others.

I think scared and indifferent to the damage they do is more accurate. Though I’m not even sure it’s indifference. I think they actually delight in causing harm to people they believe deserve that harm.

Yikes!

In that sense, Westgate explains, the bot dialogues are not unlike talk therapy, “which we know to be quite effective at helping people reframe their stories.” Critically, though, AI, “unlike a therapist, does not have the person’s best interests in mind, or a moral grounding or compass in what a ‘good story’ looks like,” she says. “A good therapist would not encourage a client to make sense of difficulties in their life by encouraging them to believe they have supernatural powers. Instead, they try to steer clients away from unhealthy narratives, and toward healthier ones. ChatGPT has no such constraints or concerns.”

This is a rather terrifying take. Particularly when combined with the earlier passage about the man who claimed that “AI helped him recover a repressed memory of a babysitter trying to drown him as a toddler.” Therapists have to be very careful because human memory is very plastic. It’s very easy to alter a memory, in fact, every time you remember something, you alter it just a little bit. Under questioning by an authority figure, such as a therapist or a policeman if you were a witness to a crime, these alterations can be dramatic. This was a really big problem in the '80s and '90s.

Kaitlin Luna: Can you take us back to the early 1990s and you talk about the memory wars, so what was that time like and what was happening?

Elizabeth Loftus: Oh gee, well in the 1990s and even in maybe the late 80s we began to see an altogether more extreme kind of memory problem. Some patients were going into therapy maybe they had anxiety, or maybe they had an eating disorder, maybe they were depressed, and they would end up with a therapist who said something like well many people I’ve seen with your symptoms were sexually abused as a child. And they would begin these activities that would lead these patients to start to think they remembered years of brutalization that they had allegedly banished into the unconscious until this therapy made them aware of it. And in many instances these people sued their parents or got their former neighbors or doctors or teachers whatever prosecuted based on these claims of repressed memory. So the wars were really about whether people can take years of brutalization, banish it into the unconscious, be completely unaware that these things happen and then reliably recover all this information later, and that was what was so controversial and disputed.

Kaitlin Luna: And your work essentially refuted that, that it’s not necessarily possible or maybe brought up to light that this isn’t so.

Elizabeth Loftus: My work actually provided an alternative explanation. Where could these merit reports be coming from if this didn’t happen? So my work showed that you could plant very rich, detailed false memories in the minds of people. It didn’t mean that repressed memories did not exist, and repressed memories could still exist and false memories could still exist. But there really wasn’t any strong credible scientific support for this idea of massive repression, and yet so many families were destroyed by this, what I would say unsupported, claim.

The idea that ChatBots are not only capable of this, but that they are currently manipulating people into believing they have recovered repressed memories of brutalization is actually at least as terrifying to me as it convincing people that they are holy prophets.

Edited for clarity

Your wiki page appears to be based solely on the presence of the word in the OED (which includes archaic forms as well as new words that have found common usage) and dictionary.com. I note that five examples of the use of the word starting in 1795 but none more recent than 20 years ago. So I stand corrected, I suppose. I guess it’s an archaic form that has resurrected a handful of times in the last 20-50 years.

Btw, I’m not sure why they include the Dictionary.com reference on the wiki page since Dictionary.com does not include the word sensical. Neither do Merriam-Webster or Cambridge online dictionaries.

Dictionary.com - No results found for sensical

Merriam-Webster.com - “sensical” The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

dictionary.cambridge.org - Search suggestions for sensical. We have these words with similar spellings or pronunciations: …

Who fucking cares? He’s an ESPN host that Trump thinks should run for president. Is this the token black the GOP is going to put up in 2028 if they pretend to have primaries?

“I think the kind of impact that I could have as a centrist, as a moderate, as somebody who believes in being sensical and engaging in common sense."

Dear gods, save us from centrists. Sure, you’re the guy that can unite the Democrats and Republicans and get them to work together for the betterment of all people. Right.

By the way, “sensical” is not a word you nitwit.

Pressed whether his administration is following the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which says no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” Trump said he wasn’t sure.

“I don’t know. It seems – it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” he said. “We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.”

It might say that? Might? This isn’t something that is debatable you hippopotamic dung heap. That’s what it fucking says.

I don’t think that it’s really that strange at all.

• The uneducated are easy to frighten and coerce. The educated can be dangerous in part because they will likely be resistant to the rest of the methods of control that you listed.
• People instinctively trust people in authority, like a child believing their parents. Denying basic facts and reality lets the authoritarian create a new reality in the eyes of their subjects and keeps the people in blinders about what’s really happening.
• Religions have always been used to control the masses.
• People who are poor have few options open to them. People with lots of children will almost certainly be poor under an authoritarian regime. Such people also cannot effectively resist the authoritarian since doing so would put their family at risk. In essence, it gets people to forge their own chains.
• Like religion, sex in general has long been used to control people. In fact, sex habits is one of the common tools religions use to control their devotees.