Watched about a minute of it - starts with an anecdote about a guy with a no-show job, then moves to big tech layoffs and "these companies ran exactly the same" afterwards, implying that everyone who was laid off was 100% dead weight. Turned it off immediately.
Or perhaps this guy perceived normal, appropriate management that he would have been perfectly fine with had it come from a man as “bossy” when it came from a woman.
or perhaps she was just a toxic colleague, with tons of experience in a narrow field that he did not have and making colleagues leave was just her thing.
Vote me down all you want, women are just as capable as men in every way, including the wrong, toxic ones
> The paper was “remarkable in many ways,” said Emmanuel Breuillard, a mathematician at the University of Oxford, with a method that built on old theories (some dating to Dr. Birman’s Ph.D) but with new ideas. Dr. Breuillard had been leading an effort to solve the question with the help of an A.I. chatbot. That humans appear to have sorted it out first — and these three particular humans — “almost feels like a blessing,” he said.
Hasn't succeeded yet, probably because he doesn't have the money, also too publicly associated with the Democratic Party. I wouldn't be shocked if Trump does it in the end because his empathy seems to be reserved for high-profile scammers.
That is not how any of this works. He was convicted of fraud, and fraud was committed the moment he transferred the funds to Alameda. That he placed some bets that worked out, like his Anthropic investment, doesn't negate the crime any more than if I robbed a bank, placed a winning bet with it and returned the funds with interest.
I'm saying a Fraud conviction is not the same a stealing. I'm completely ok with a conviction for fraud, provided that the conviction and sentencing is based upon that fraud.
I would characterise robbing a bank, placing a bet and returning the funds as theft.
However if you entrusted me with $500 and I gambled and paid you back when you wanted the $500, I would not say that is theft. If I had promised not to gamble, then it would have been fraudulent.
You can characterize things however you want. But "theft" and "fraud" are extensively defined concepts in caselaw. Fraud, specifically, is legally defined quite differently than what most people think the word means in common usage and your example here does not have much relationship to it.
Well I have only seen media reports alleging theft, such as the article linked, they don't necessarily have to conform to legal definitions. A cynical person might suggest that perhaps media coverage deliberately chooses between colloquial, legal, and scientific definitions at will depending on the narrative they would like to create.
Was there ever a charge of theft in the legal sense filed in court?
Except SBF didn't gamble away the money (still a criminal offence if he did); he spent it on lavish goods and apartments, with a lot of political donations. The very definition of fraud is deception, misappropriation, and loss to the users, all of which did happen.
In between placing a bet and returning the funds, the customer's funds were totally non-existent hence the loss to the user. That things later worked out after some years does not take away the misappropriation and that there was no actual money where it was meant to be at that moment, hence a fraud.
It's hardly even that-- he dumped the remaining customer assets to briefly crash the price of Bitcoin... causing an understatement in what he took from people.
Clarify? I don't understand how whether or not I pay someone to manage my money makes a difference as to whether what they did was commit fraud. People paid Bernie Madoff to manage their money and early investors got promised returns but he still went to jail because he was running an illegal ponzi scheme.
They have far greater latitude to move it and do what they deem smartest with it. And take fees for themselves. And put you in deals that benefits other clients they prefer.
And on and on. And on.
Dumping, swapping, bag holding, fee based investments that are crap. All legal.
I wouldn't assume that this is about cost cutting. If the goal were saving money, the cheapest option by far would be to leave the hardware in the water and just stop funding the monitoring. Instead the plan is an expensive operation to send ships out to extract 900+ instruments from under two miles of ocean.
It's clear that this is driven by performative climate denialism and a pro fossil fuel stance. The Trump administration made a billion dollar deal with an energy company to stop construction of offshore wind farms and redirect the investment into fossil fuel projects. Trump constantly talks about the "green new scam" and "climate alarmism". And on top of signaling to his base, Trump met with oil executives at Mar-a-Lago before the 2024 election and pitched them on rolling back climate regulation in exchange for $1B in campaign cash. Destroying the instruments that would document the consequences and might spark alarm and activism is one way to hold up his end of the deal.
But… why? Climate change is very much real and even stubborn deep-right voters like my father now ‘believe’ in it. Ok, some people make some cash. But wouldn’t they anyway? I don’t understand this need to keep pandering to a minority and to destroy ecosystems.
It's the very definition of a culture war and in addition sadly evidence of limited intelligence. Even the most red blooded oil man wouldn't do this because this data is also useful for petroleum drilling and logistics - it's a whole other kind of person driving this.
Science is antithetical to rule-by-decree or other forms of despotism, since it strives to disprove any and all claims. The powers that be simply don't like to be told "you're wrong", and that is the core of what science does. It's as simple as that.
I don't think Trump or any of his appointed lieutenants think any of this through. It's the result of decisions made by emotion, not logic. "Vibe-governing" in other words.
Climate change, and science in general, is associated with nerds, boring reality, obstacles to immediate gratification, and effects on poor people.
Fossil fuels are associated with large wads of cash, action films, and sticking it to the libs.
Decisions might have terrible consequences. Who cares? Thinking things through is boring, and the people making the decisions are rich enough to be insulated from anything that might happen and old enough to not be around when it does.
I doubt that people in government, along the entire chain of command, that get paid to analyse policy, that pay consultants to analyse policy, that produce reports on the many facets of the world… that all of that is put together to NOT think things through.
I’d honestly prefer the explanation to be that they’re just that evil, at least that aligns with my worldview.
He sees the consequences, he’s a hobby farmer. He watches the news talk about how weather patterns got aggressive and disruptive, how crops now fail, etc. He fixes the roofs destroyed by giant hail. He gets it.
Now, you’re right in some ways. He doesn’t care for the science or the electric cars and so on; but after a lifetime of exposure to the situation, it’s hard to keep dismissing it. He grew up in a very different country, weather-wise, and made the connection between climate change and why his potato harvest failed.
I believe, without proof, that most people understand that the world’s climate is changing and creating Big Problems. They might not admit it or understand the science, but can see the consequences. And no, they don’t agree with how to solve this.
The government knows it's real, these are generally well-educated people who went to decent schools. But, I would challenge that most right-wing voters know whether it is real. Where I live in rural America the vast majority are pro-fossil fuel, anti-EV. EVs are seen as "gay" or "feminine" by the folks out here. So the choice to use fossil fuels might just be some performative machismo, allowing their pick-ups to output black smoke, make a loud noise and look "tough."
Those are the majority of the Republican voters at this stage. To make them happy you do things like spend millions to tear up infrastructure which challenges their worldview. This should result in increased votes for the current administration at the mid-terms. So even if climate change is a real and current threat, you need to say it isn't to get re-elected.
I don't believe they do any of this for votes. I think somebody within the administration has a personal grudge against science, especially anything related to climate change.
I think that attitude may change if there is ever an EV that could be competitive in a NASCAR event. For now, the closest we are likely to see is a hybrid, because EVs don't have enough range.
NASCAR has a tendency to fight changes to the drivetrain technology, so a hybrid might take a while still. The regulations banned fuel injection up until 2012, required transmissions to be 4 speed manuals until 2021 and will probably keep the 2 valve pushrod valvetrain and 90° V8 layout til the end of time. If they ever get around to implementing hybrid powertrains (they've been grumbling about the issue since 2024), they aren't going to be there to save gas. Racing hybrids are designed primarily to recover kinetic energy in deceleration, store it for short term and use it to boost acceleration. There are designs for race hybrids that don' t even use batteries or utilize electrical energy for the hybrid part; instead storing it mechanically in flywheels to avoid the inefficiency of converting from mechanical to chemical energy and back.
> So the choice to use fossil fuels might just be some performative machismo, allowing their pick-ups to output black smoke, make a loud noise and look "tough."
Might be linked to petrol cars being cheaper to buy for the same amount of car? That seems like an easier explanation. There is a masculine element in that men want to be seen to own big things to show off, but I doubt it has anything to do with liking black smoke. If they wanted loud noises they'd go a motorbike or get an obnoxious horn.
I was in the gas station recently and heard a girl talking to her friend. She said she'd never date a guy who didn't drive a pick-up and would definitely never date a guy who paid with a [credit/debit] card. She said "cards are for girls."
There are still a ton of cash transactions out here in the sticks. When I ask why they say they don't want the government knowing their business. But I guess from that conversation it also helps you get a date?
No, it’s tribalism of sorts. For men they’ll often paint something they don’t understand with words like that. I grew up in a culture that did that and won’t go back. Many many humans lack basic curiosity about the world.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about if you don't know anything about rolling coal and you don't realize people like to drive loud cars.
I've had several friends tell me they just couldn't drive an EV because it just doesn't have a soul, meaning it doesn't have that roar for its performance. It being nearly silent as it accelerates hard is missing half the point. It's a common thing among car enthusiasts.
I can attest that a lot of “car culture” and “motorcycle culture” people want the car or motorcycle to be as loud as possible. Where I live they’re frequently interrupting conversations and waking children up. It’s a major nuisance.
1) I see multiple people doing it every day and my commute is <5mi.
2) These people hate fake engine noises even more. Making it blow fake smoke and make fake noises would be even more of a turn off. Once again, not knowing that really shows you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
> The major factor for people buying a petrol-powered car is almost certainly the cost.
If the main reason was the cost they wouldn't be spending almost $100k on SUVs and pickups that get like 14mpg to go get groceries and pickup the kids from school.
You are, I see, a member of the "reality-based community" as Karl Rove presciently put it back in 2004. You live in a mental space where you critically evaluate facts and make decisions aimed at maximizing your outcome in life.
You would do well to explore this great nation of ours and realize that a wild and terrifyingly large number of its inhabitants travel in an almost unimaginably different headspace.
The men who roll coal are not doing it in cheap beater cars. A Ram or F-150 Super Duty is a $40-80,000 vehicle which requires $200-$5,000 in modifications so they can pull up next to a Prius ($28-36,000) and belch out thick black lib-ownin' ball-crushin' smoke, damaging their own engine in the process. You may ask them why, to which they'd spit a wad of brown tobacco in your face and scream in primal rage into the air: because f*k you, that's why.
> belch out thick black lib-ownin' ball-crushin' smoke, damaging their own engine in the process.
The black smoke belching is caused by a fuel rich air mixture that leads to incomplete combustion and is pumped out of the engine as a burning cloud of smog. While this can cause problems with carbon build-up in the combustion chambers, it's not especially difficult to clean that out before the engine suffers permanent damage. Most often the worst case is fouled spark plugs, which are wear items meant to be replaced at regular intervals.
The real damage occurs in the exhaust plumbing, typically rendering the oxygen sensors inoperative and cooking the catalytic converter. However, a common way to induce black smoke is by hardwiring the oxygen sensors to report the engine needs more fuel, so it's not like the oxygen sensors were typically working anyway.
Likewise, in many parts of the country where this sort of "coal rolling" is common, it's also common for the catalytic converter to be forcibly removed from the vehicle and pawned off for the platinum mesh inside by a couple meth heads looking for their next fix, which has the side effect of preventing it from being damaged. The missing portion of the exhaust pipe is frequently repaired by welding in a straight pipe, allowing the black smoke to flow more freely while also making the exhaust notably louder and adding the scent of immediate global warming (note: this is pretty much super illegal in most states).
>Most often the worst case is fouled spark plugs, which are wear items meant to be replaced at regular intervals.
You do realize we are talking about diesel's here, they don't use spark plugs. They use Glow plugs because diesel engines don't rely on spark to cause combustion, its just heat and pressure.
Nor do they rely on downstream oxygen sensors like a gasoline powered car. They just use tuning software to up the turbo boost pressures and adjust the fuel mapping. Some guys literally just have a button to hit to briefly swap to an alternative fuel map that maxes out those fuel injectors briefly.
The main problem with rolling coal is damage caused by the extra exhaust temperatures from dumping extra fuel into the combustion process. Plus the fouling up of entire exhaust system over time. Sometimes causing fires within the exhaust system (see Ford's 6.0L Power Stroke meltdowns on youtube)
It's the deep desire for a sort of restorative authoritarianism: someone who can reduce the complex state of the world into "the way it should be".
The resentment is not versus fate or calamity but against those people who study and give voice to complexity. If someone can just shut those people up and make them go away, we will be restored to a simpler and more moral world. Where tragedy can rightly live in the realms of Gods and Mystery.
I would gently remind those that prefer such simplicity that not all nations do. We are not alone in the world. The nation that better understands the complexities of the natural world will, all else being equal, utterly trounce the nation that persists in fictionalizing existence. Unless you want to re-write your national anthem in Mandarin, you will someday need to (re-?)grapple with the complexities of the universe.
It all makes sense when you realize QAnon basically runs the white house now. There’s a very insulated type of American who lives in their own world, that unfortunately lots of voters are apparently sympathetic to. It’s probably seen as a victory against the climate change hoax or something along those lines.
I have seen some chatter where 2nd-term Trumpism has been (very imperfectly) compared to Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Obviously there are many differences, no question. But it's actions like this where a bit of the comparison seems apt -- fervent, nonsensical anti-intellectualism / anti-science actions done purely in the name of ideology.
Why else would one actually go out of the way to dismantle a working ocean observation system, which provides a rich amount of data for multiple purposes?
The only action that seems to make sense is that:
A) Some of that data can be used to observe climate change issues.
B) In Trumpism, it is not enough anymore to propagandize that climate change is not happening. One must also actively suppress anything that could suggest climate change is happening, no matter how much the cost, no matter how much it hurts other non-related things.
It’s seen in Crusader terms. A bunch of things which are not Christian, for example controlling social order at all costs, are adornments on nationalism. The apocalyptic parts of QAnon slot into their belief system. So many other religious movements rely on salvation. Another commenter mentioned ancient China. Big political upheavals swept ancient China based on very slight new ideas about salvation.
Eradicating species, destroying economies, and eliminating entire ways to enjoy nature's bounty here on earth –– a small price to pay to hurr hur hurrr... own the libs ;)
The DSM needs to be updated soon for this type of sociopathic cynicism. It can't be kept with the rest of society.
People are going to give you all sorts of answers that are based on strategy or negotiation or interests, but I think it basically all boils down to "to own the libs." We have to remember that before this all started, he was registered as a Democrat. He doesn't (or didn't) give a shit about any of this, but people that said no to him do, so he's going to do his level best to break it all. It's just spite, and glee at being able to make people bewildered, angry, and sad. That's all so much of this is.
Because once shit hits the fan, those responsible for destroying the ecosystem will take a one-way flight for a fully air-conditioned bunkerized apartment lot in Dubai with any Epstein island-level luxury you can think of and fuck the consequences for everyone else, that's why.
Because we have actual retards in office. People keep looking for a deeper explanation. There isn't one. They are actual stupid people. They do stupid things.
The entire motivation of Trump and the MAGA movement is "fuck you, libs." The left likes green energy and scientific research performed on the environment so the right hates that stuff even if their actions also hurt themselves.
I don't believe Trump himself makes any of these decisions, and as for deals I don't think he remembers what happened yesterday let alone a deal made on the campaign trail. Parties in his administration are actively trying to destroy science and cripple any kind of climate research or green energy development, even if it costs nothing. Whoever they are, they make these plans and then get him to sign while he's awake.
Of course. Trump isn't aware of "details" like this. But he's very much on board with the "own the libs" project, the project of helping fossil fuel, and he appointed the people who are making it happen.
Although with Trump, it's more specific than "owning the libs": a clear motivating force is undoing anything Obama did or that was around on his watch. Pulling out of the JPOA agreement Obama made with Iran, then launching a war at the price of tanking the global economy which best case will result in a pale imitation of the JPOA (along with a much stronger and richer Iran), is only the latest example.
The post boxes were more about crippling mail-in votes. In Washington Bill De Joy had at one point dismantled several of the sorting machines which dramatically slowed how fast mail gets dispatched. The result was that you could no longer mail your vote the day before election day and have it arrive on election day.
The crazy thing is that the oil companies confessed to a misinformation campaign and at least publicly talked about change/reform (of course, they're still oil exploration/refinement companies so not abandoning that). But they did discuss responsible use of fossil fuels in transition towards renewables.
But Trump was fooled and is more committed than ever to the since-abandoned misinformation campaign. It took on a bigger life than Exxon ever could've imagined.
The snowflakiest of them all - they can't handle unbiased readings from instruments that survey our planet.
The Mauna Loa CO2 data is still up.[1] Trump tried to kill off the CO2 measuring, but that doesn't seem to have happened. The Mauna Loa data goes back to 1958, measured at the same point, far from any CO2 sources. 315ppm in 1958, 441ppm today, and almost a noise free curve with mild seasonal variations. Clearest trend in global warming.
I don't think Trump was "fooled" by anything. His policy positions reflect what makes him and his cronies money, and what keeps him in power. That's it. He doesn't care about truth or correctness. Just money and power.
I submit that the "is malice or incompetence" heuristic can be broken by pathological inputs which result in an indefinite runtime, and that we've encountered some of them in the last decade.
The correct response when that happens is to say "both" until/unless the perpetrators want to plead just one or the other.
In the context of Claude Code, "honest" usually means that the agent took a shortcut, skipped requirements, etc. It's the model giving itself credit for admitting to failing rather than actually doing what was requested.
Are you arguing that because the authors knew the pattern they were documenting was unflattering, the piece is somehow compromised? That they clearly had an agenda? That's called reporting. They called a hundred-plus named sources and the picture those sources independently painted was damning. Altman has a history of telling repeated, easily-checked lies, followed by fresh lies when caught in the first ones.
Are you suggesting that they should have "both sides"-ed by reporting company PR and Sam-friendly sources and giving them equal weight? Sometimes the facts point in one direction.
> Are you arguing that because the authors knew the pattern they were documenting was unflattering, the piece is somehow compromised?
Uh, no? Lol, I'm on your side, bud. Put away the pitchfork. I thought it was a really good and fair article. I am not the adversary you're looking for.
> my personal stance is that the critical tone was both intended by the authors
You may think we are on the same side. You don't understand what side I'm on. "Lol".
Your "personal stance" is that you can get inside the heads of the reporters? Obviously not. So you're going by the idea that an article that leads to critical conclusions is inherently slanted. This is an insidious and damaging idea. It has led to the belief by journalists and editors that they need to twist themselves into pretzels to present "both sides", which is easily exploited by people of bad faith to launder outright lies. There's a direct line between this and authoritarianism. I'm quite serious about this. The fact that you agree with the authors in this case is completely orthogonal.
Every article is inherently biased due to the fact that there are inclusions and omissions. This is just a fact.
You're injecting your own personal view into GP's statement by adding a lot of weight into the distinction between the words "critical" and "incendiary" and "neutral", when GP made a very neutral and not as charged statement.
I love reading stuff like “Critical, slanted, and compromised mean the same thing. They are interchangeable words.”
Given that, it looks like your position on davesque’s posts is slanted. Your take is critical of those posts, which means your assessment is compromised, and as such should not be taken as valid.
And I love seeing sentiments attributed to me, in quotes even, that I didn't state or imply, and certainly don't believe. "Critical" by itself is not a synonym for "slanted". However the post I was commenting on was:
> Right, but the picture those statements painted collectively was not flattering. And that was certainly intended by the authors. Thus, critical, but not at all "incendiary."
The key there is "certainly intended by the authors". The full sentiment here IS equivalent to "slanted".
If you would expect a typical Trump political appointee, as Colby is, to have even basic historical knowledge, then you may not be paying close attention.
reply