Dems need to learn how to take the W quietly instead of rubbing it into R's faces.

Dems didn't campaign on LGBTQ+, GOP did! Dems barely mentioned it during the campaign. GOP knows how to mouth wedge issues loud and wide, it's how we ended up with Moutholini.

how numerous friends of his became Trump supporters due to the LGBTQ discussions happening in their children's schools... just not popular and it was a major reason that dickbag was re-elected. Even if it seems like the correct moral decision, the unpopularity of it led to a far worse situation.

GOP successfully spooked parents with LGBTQ+ bullshit. They cherry-picked a few bad apples and painted it as common-place. Plus, school content is controlled at the state level, not national, and was thus moot for the election.*

Stupidficial gimmicks worked on US's gullible population, just like 1930's Germany; Don pulled Jedi Clown Tricks. The parents ALSO need more education in critical thinking. Stupidity snowballs. Maybe America is just too dumb to hold a democracy, as too many want a theocracy. Perhaps we can negotiate an amiable split before they drag blue states into their cave.

* An exception may be firing or jailing teachers for merely mentioning LGBTQ+ in the classroom, which should be protected under 1st Amendment and separation clause, but the GOP SCOTUS seems overly bribed by rich evangelicals handing out grift-wrapped RV's. The idea that a non-transgender student will become transgendered by mere mention is dumber than rocks. Idiots!

I dunno. China is a "market socialist" system -- which is a contradiction in terms. If China is socialist, then for practical purposes Norway and Sweden have to be even *more* socialist because they have a comprehensive public welfare system which China lacks. And those Nordic countries are rated quite high on global measures of political and personal freedom, and very low on corruption. In general they outperform the US on most of those measures, although the US is better on measures of business deregulation.

Every time I see a story like this, I think about Daniel Suarez's book Daemon.

It isn't a great book - fairly disposable scifi that requires TV-style disbelief-suspension and eventually devolves into weird techno-utopianism. But has great bits of scene-setting mind candy that is frighteningly believable.

Like the fleets of robot cars used as weapons.

You are subsidizing billionaires.

It makes no sense to claim Chinese courts have a lot of power, although it may seem that way â" itâ(TM)s supposed to seem that way. One of the foundational principles of Chinese jurisprudence is party supremacy. Every judge is supervised by a PLC â" party legal committee â" which oversees budgets, discipline and assignments in the judiciary. They consult with the judges in sensitive trials to ensure a politically acceptable outcome.

So it would be more accurate to characterize the courts as an instrument of party power rather than an independent power center.

From time to time Chinese court decisions become politically inconvenient, either through the supervisors in the PLC missing something or through changing circumstances. In those cases there is no formal process for the party to make the courts revisit the decision. Instead the normal procedure is for the inconvenient decision to quietly disappear from the legal databases, as if it never happened. When there is party supremacy, the party can simply rewrite judicial history to its current needs.

An independent judiciary seems like such a minor point; and frankly it is often an impediment to common sense. But without an independent judiciary you canâ(TM)t have rule of law, just rule by law.

I'm not saying cloud is necessarily riskier than on-premises*, but cloud failures can easily make headlines due to the scope, and such could set the likes of MS into a financial tailspin. While that is perhaps a good thing, they'll hurt a lot of customers in desperation for cash during their spiral to Hell.

* The average org didn't manage on-premises well either.

If you are transgender then you pretty much need to avoid red states, as frothy evangelicals would be happy to hang you or lock you in a "correctional facility". And they are growing ever more medieval.

That's the secret to the Chinese government's success - they give a shit about the citizens

Good one. Most leaders, including Xi, don't have a flying fuck about their citizens and one should never assume they do. They care about personal glory and power. If helping citizens HAPPENS to help them reach their personal goals, that's great, but it doesn't always align.

Hereâ(TM)s the problem with that scenario: court rulings donâ(TM)t mean much in a state ruled by one party. China has plenty of progressive looking laws that donâ(TM)t get enforced if it is inconvenient to the party. There are emission standards for trucks and cars that should help with their pollution problems, but there are no enforcement mechanisms and officials have no interest in creating any if it would interfere with their economic targets or their private interests.

China is a country of strict rules and lax enforcement, which suits authoritarian rulers very well. It means laws are flouted routinely by virtually everyone, which gives the party leverage. Displease the party, and they have plenty of material to punish you, under color of enforcing laws. It sounds so benign, at least theyâ(TM)re enforcing the law part of the time, right? Wrong. Laws selectively enforced donâ(TM)t serve any public purpose; theyâ(TM)re just instruments of personal power.

Americans often donâ(TM)t seem to understand the difference between rule of law and rule *by* law. Itâ(TM)s ironic because the American Revolution and constitution were historically important in establishing the practicality of rule of law, in which political leaders were not only expected to obey the laws themselves, but had a duty to enforce the law impartially regardless of their personal opinions or interests.

Rule *by* law isnâ(TM)t a Chinese innovation, it was the operating principle for every government before 1789. A government that rules *by* law is only as good as the men wielding power, and since power corrupts, itâ(TM)s never very good for long.

Ranting about Teams is our best social gathering.

The Clippy Army. Clippernators?

..."non bold" bets before this? HyperboleGPT?

I was pointing to the vacuousness of the claim.

I've already run an LLM natively on my phone. That did "not require a data center at all", and also did not require DS.

I realize that half is the focus of the article, but it misses a huge piece of the perniciousness.

They demand exclusivity with venues.

Which means you either hand over all your booking and ticket sales (for a fee, of course) to them, or not be able to book any Ticketmaster artists. If you haven't considered the question, you may not recognize that artist-choice and ticketing are two of the biggest levers a club owner has to manage their business. Most of the other costs of business are pretty inflexible - about your only other cost-control options are fucking over your workers and watering the beer.

This does a couple things - clubs become more like farmers - they get to soak up all the risk with none of the control. It also gives TM more control over artists - I've seen less info on how TM squeezes them, but don't think that isn't there. If an artist doesn't like their terms, they don't get to play their venues.

And of course they wet their beak at every single touch point along the way.