It’s always projection. They pre-empt criticism by taking whatever words are (rightly) being directed at them or could be used against them in the future and just flipping them around, making them lose their original meaning in the eyes of their adherents.

If you’re actually serious, literally just google voter turnout numbers in texas. Also look at how close some races were and compare that to the nonvoting registered voter population. I’ve seen several analyses of that recently

Here is the TX government record of voter turnout: https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml

Here is the TX government reporting of election results: https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/presidential.shtml

2020 Presidential: 66% turnout, 52% of the VAP (voting age population) voted. Trump won by 600k votes, 4.5M of VAP was not registered.

2018 Senatorial: 53% turnout, 42% of VAP turned out. Ted “I posted incest porn on twitter on 9/11” Cruz won by 215k, 4.1M of VAP was not registered.

2018 Gubernatorial: 53% turnout, 42% of VAP turned out. Abbott won by 1.1M, 4.1M of VAP was not registered.

2016 Presidential: 59% turnout, 46% of VAP turned out. Trump won by 800k votes, 4.2M of VAP was not registered.

2012 Presidential: 59% turnout, 44% of VAP turned out. Romney won by 1.2M, 4.6M of VAP was not registered.

2008 Presidential: 60% turnout, 46% of VAP turned out. McCain won by 900k, 4.2M of VAP was not registered.

2004 Presidential: 56% turnout, 47% of VAP turned out. Bush won by 1.7M, 3M of VAP was not registered

2000 Presidential: total blowout for Bush, no two ways about it. He might have plunged us in to a 20 year long war and completely ravished innocent civilians in the middle east, but dont you just want to have a beer with the guy?

44% do not care, 27% intended to register but didn’t, 11% are paranoid about voter roles, 9% say it isn’t convenient (and Republicans sure have made it inconvenient), and 6% literally don’t know how to register. From that same article and polling data, 35% of unregistered voters do not believe their vote will affect the political process, and 30% don’t think it’ll change election results. AND 40% of these care who wins political races, but don’t vote.

These races are not close compared to the number of non-registered VAP. Young people are more left-leaning and show up to the polls at shockingly low rates. Minorities are typically more likely to vote Dem, but turn out at lower rates (partially due to disenfranchisement). If the non-voters voted, many races of the past 30+ years would’ve been close or Dem.

Not everyone with sense. The question was if Harris is electable, if the dems would rally behind her instead of infighting, and if there was enough time to spin up a campaign. Biden was previously electable, had the majority of dems supporting him, and didn’t need to spin up a campaign.

Now, in hindsight, Kamala was the right choice. She’s been great and people have responded well. But that was by no means a sure thing

Nah. It means you are forced into things without your consent. The world isn’t always going to ask if you want something or not. It’d be unreasonable to expect it to. But you should ask for consent before surgically removing part of someone’s dick

In home ec class in middle school we watched a food network video about making stuffed hotdogs where they took a straw and cored a hotdog out and then filled it with white, melted cheese from a piping bag. They squeezed too hard and it jetted out the other end and the camera was perfectly positioned to catch the hotdog’s thick ropes. Then they played it back in slo motion. The class was very amused.

Really well argued and explained, I hope people read and don’t just reflexively downvote.

They’re only worth that if people buy the shares

I definitely recommend it! Have to be very careful about staying safe, though. People don’t take injuries seriously enough. But it’s great exercise and very rewarding

Guitar: as a kid I just thought it’d be awesome to shred. Now I mostly play acoustic fingerstyle, but shred some. Interest has ebbed and flowed over the years, but been playing forever.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: I wanted a challenge and to get good at something new. It’s hard, but I like it and just keep coming back. Been doing it for a couple years and am a blue belt.

Hiking: did it as a kid, now I do it with my wife who pushes me to hike more than I would otherwise which is good

Tech stuff: coding, piracy, stuff like that. Dad was in IT and taught me to look for solutions with tech. Never stopped. I’m not a fantastic coder, but use it for work and also to solve personal challenges, enter piracy.

/*grabs a screwdriver and a flash drive and runs to nearest korean tank */

That would be a fantastic political ad campaign. Picture of republican politician, “your body my choice”, and maybe a bad quote or bill they sponsored. Dems need to step it up with impactful ads

Yeah it looks nothing like her except sorta similar skin color and hair.

It’s genuinely crazy to me that people don’t use the OC. Not using it creates such a huge amount of needless ambiguity

First you have to ask what gender is. Gender is a set of behaviors expected of people of a given sex.

Then, you have to ask what it means to belong to a given gender. You don’t have to, and can’t, meet all the behavioral expectations of a given gender. Those expected behaviors change over time. People of all sexes have interests that cross gendered lines because gender is not perfectly correlated to specific behaviors - instead it is a broad notion of behaviors that are considered to correlate with a given sex.

Additionally, there exist people who are not really male or female due to genetic differences. But, society typically treats them as the gender typically assigned to the sex they most resemble. So, since they do not have the “correct” sex and may not participate in the “correct” behaviors to belong to a given gender, their assigned gender is arbitrarily determined.

Those 3 things establish that gender is: not biological, not behaviorally determined, and somewhat arbitrary.

Since gender isn’t biological, woman =/= female person

Since gender isn’t behaviorally determined, woman =/= someone who engages in typically feminine behaviors

Since gender is at least partially arbitrary, woman =/= a factual category that can be determined by material features of a person

If women don’t have to be female or engage in typically feminine activities and can’t be defined by physical or genetic characteristics, then what is left? Someone who identifies as a woman - who wants to be treated as a woman by others.

“But that’s circular!!!” It actually isn’t. “Woman” as a category confers societal roles and expected behaviors onto a person, “woman” as a person just means someone who belongs to the category “Woman”. The only determining factor is being a member of the category. It’d be like asking “what is a boy scout?”, getting “a member of the boy scouts” as an answer, and then being upset that there isn’t some fundamental universal law being appealed to when classifying people as boy scouts.

Nah. Obviously, you’d talk beforehand, and no one would be forced to use it. It’s no different than arranged dates through a matchmaker. Now, there’d be valid privacy and ethics concerns - especially if your ML model is racist. But that’s a whole different thing. People are often quite bad at picking good matches for themselves, and computers are great at pattern ID and so potentially good at finding matches.

I’ve seen many more coffee folks who have opinions ranging from “it doesn’t taste different than the local coffee” to “it tastes downright bad”. James Hoffmann has a good video on it: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pkbuFwHnJQY

Primary thing seems to be the quality of the coffee cherries the civet eats. So if it’s just force-fed coffee cherries, it’ll be no better than normal coffee. If it gets to choose on it’s own, naturally, then it may pick better coffee cherries and the coffee may be better - but not because of the digestive process, most likely.

The problem is that it doesn’t actually taste good. It’s the labor-intensive and “exotic” manufacturing process that makes the coffee so expensive, not its quality.

I mean… maybe in this case? I feel like profile/picture based matchmaking is something an ML model could be pretty good at in theory. Match people based on physical preferences and attractiveness (get head scans and frontal & profile full body shots), basic demographic/location/financial info, fill out a questionnaire with hobbies, political views, sexual preferences, etc.

Do that for groups of satisfied pre-existing couples first to train the model on, then continue training the model on the successful matches from the app. Have it spit out X number of matches that have the highest ratings for all users, limit it to X matches per time period to limit “swiping” behaviors, then let users talk/date and provide feedback to the app about what they did/didn’t like.

Obviously, it would need major privacy protections given how sensitive the info is, but that’d be a way better system than Tinder and the like. Like a super powered robo matchmaker serving up the highest probability matches.

Amazing. You don’t think that a system for individualized pricing would take demographics into account? Brilliant! You should take your thesis on how demographics don’t affect consumers’ willingness to pay to every ad agency on earth. They’ll be riveted. Or is it that you don’t think race and SES are correlated? In that case you should hurry to publish a book on economics before someone steals your idea.

It’d probably be the opposite. I bet they’d charge more to specific demographics - and common convenience store beverage brands would probably cost more for poorer people.

Plus, without controls, they’d probably end up charging different ethnic groups more for specific goods - they’d probably obfuscate it somehow, like to charge white people more for something they’d probably say they were doing it because you’re a model train enthusiast or something. Or like “our consultants have told us that Tejano music fans are willing to pay a premium for coca cola” and so they jack up the price of coca cola for Mexicans without saying it’s because they’re mexican.

But yeah, I bet poorer people who have less free time would be “willing” to pay more for essentials because they often have less choice in where they get groceries. In other words you could force poor people with fewer options to accept jacked up prices whereas non-poor people may have the luxury of shopping around or paying someone else to get their groceries.

Also, if poor people were charged less there’d be a whole industry of personal grocery shoppers who’d get discounted prices for rich people and charge them a service fee in exchange.