TehPers

Does this mean the SCOTUS is giving Biden free reign to free up some seats?

I felt like neither side really answered the question about how they planned to address addictions in the US. They both talked about the US-Mexico border and trying to catch more imported drugs, but failed to address domestic production, and more importantly, failed to answer how they plan to address addiction in the US (as in current and future addicts).

Also, the whole question about physical ability diverted so off topic that I lost what they were even talking about. Biden seemed to try to answer it, but then it took a sharp turn towards weight and golfing skills?

Edit: I should also add that yes, Biden tended to stay on topic more. Trump always seemed to be answering a different/previous question instead.

The debate covered important questions of national significance, including whether Trump had intercourse with a porn star, who was better at golf, each of their physical health conditions (including Trump’s height and weight and apparently cognitive ability), and even featured a modern use of the word “malarchy”. They might as well make a short, catchy intro for it, break it up into episodes, and advertise it as a sitcom.

The debate was completely useless. The only thing I got from it was that Biden’s brain still works but his body doesn’t, and Trump’s body still works but his brain doesn’t. There were some slight mentions of hot topics and each of their positions on the subject, but there was so much jumping around and avoiding questions that it was not very helpful.

Honestly, I think one of the things Biden said should just be applied to both candidates when determining who to vote for: “Just take a look at what he says he is, and take a look at what he is.” (I believe this was used in context of Trump’s weight… lol) Both of them have served 4 years in office, and both have done stuff outside of the oval office. It’s easy to see how each of them would spend their terms based on what they already have done.

I’m sure Lockheed Martin wouldn’t mind it too much, but I can’t see Washington being interested in actually entering a conflict (given the situation with Ukraine), and I’m sure even the suits at Lockheed are hesitant about that major of a war.

I haven’t had issues with Delta (aside from their website not working at all for me sometimes), but the tickets can be a little expensive compared to alternatives, so always good to shop around.

Feels like we could have both by ditching tenure and allowing professors to express their opinions (so long as it doesn’t interfere with teaching, of course).

Anecdotally, my business ethics professor in college was a very open libertarian. I’ll never agree with his politics, but despite that, he was an excellent teacher, and one of the better ones I had at the school overall. On the other hand, none of the classes I had that were run by tenured professors were any good, with one professor even giving us the wrong exam once and having us complete it anyway, even though it had material we weren’t even expected to know.

Genuine question, but is this bill even constitutional? Article says no, but doesn’t explain why. Still, a similar bill could easily say that people are not allowed to join any other kind of organization (except presumably a religious one), right?

If the ICC has no jurisdiction, why are they all worried about the investigation? Let them do their thing, then just nod and say “OK” afterwards.

Also, I love how the US refuses to allow itself or certain close allies to be held responsible for war crimes. At least we can criticize our own government though, could be a lot worse I suppose. Still, maybe don’t do those? That’d be great.

“Thieves break into a car in SF” is somehow less surprising than “the grass is green in SF”.

You’re not wrong. All religious extremists are, in fact, air breathers. They’re also generally water drinkers.

As someone who doesn’t drink, this has reinforced my preference to wait until things improve (hopefully they will eventually…) before considering a trip there.

See, it’s democratic as long as people vote for their candidate of choice. Only one candidate? Well, you voted for them at least.

Also, I’m curious why this hasn’t been an issue in the past. Is it Ohio changing the deadline, or the DNC being moved later in the year?

Free federal? Even if your state doesn’t have income tax? Now that sounds quite nice.

Building off your last point, with AI models, bias can come in ways you might not expect. For example, I once saw a model that was trained with diversity in mind, but then only ever output Asian people with a high bias towards women. It seems to me like diversity is something that is difficult to train into a model since it’d be really difficult not to overfit it on a specific demographic.

It might be interesting to see if a random input into the model could be used to increase the diversity of the model outputs. This doesn’t really help with resume screening tools though (which are probably classifiers), only really generative models.

Automated resume screening tools have always been harmful, and have been employed for years now in a lot of companies. The issue comes down to how to filter applications in a scalable manner, but this seems paradoxical since those same companies then complain about a lack of qualified candidates after rejecting them all, leading those candidates to then apply elsewhere. If these companies hired less-than-perfect candidates instead of being so trigger happy with their rejections, there’d probably be far fewer applications to review in the first place, making these automated screening tools less necessary.

The bias question is more relevant now that companies are using more complex AIs. I’m glad the article brought it up since it’s difficult to quantify how biased a model is towards some groups and against others, and where in the model that bias comes from.

Anecdotally, I’ve been hearing from someone who works there that they’ve been doing some blatently illegal things with regards to RTO enforcement and reasons for dismissal in general, including threatening employees who take time off for not “badgeing in” while on vacation. I’m hoping we see some huge fines in the near future on them, as employees raise complaints and even sue them for their practices.

So what they’re saying is the law only applies to Christians? Satanists are plenty happy with abortions and contraceptives, surely they’d get a pass if their religious texts encourage it.

I think the biggest issue here is the corporations purchasing these homes in bulk. Had these been owned as, say, someone’s second home, they would naturally care more for the property as the property would be a lot more personal to the owner. Individual owners with only one or two properties for rent also have significantly less power in controlling the market as they would be forced to compete with each other. Corporations owning sizable percentages of the homes in an area can essentially set their own prices, especially since they can afford to buy properties well above market rate from individual owners looking to sell.

As someone who knows people who are small landlords in the area, it has become a very toxic place for both renters and individual landlords. At least one of the people I know is at the point of packing up and leaving the state because of how bad it is to own and rent there. While giving renters these additional rights is a step in the right direction against corporate landlords, I think it would honestly be better to find a way to disincentivize people/companies from owning so many properties in the first place so that more individual ownership can happen. Imagine if people in the city actually owned their homes.

Every single partner I’ve had as well, which is only one, but it happened twice on separate occasions (once outside the US though)…

Seems to be about governments fighting over who did more genocide. It’d be nice if we could all just agree “genocide is bad”, stop doing it, pay reparations, and move on :/

half of the members of the state Senate who are midway through their four-year terms.

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that just one person? Wording it as half of the state’s senators seems a bit dramatic. (This wording was also in the article from what I could see)