[ConfusedMathLady.gif]

It was. The problem Democracy was not designed to address is a completely different one. To trust Democracy, you have to feel you benefit of it. For a long time, living in a democratic country meant improving your standard of living, slowly but steadily. Respect for the current system of government comes from the system of government benefiting you. It's aligned with the Golden Rule: Don't do unto others what you don't want to be done to you. The system of government sets boundaries of things you can do, and you respect them because you don't want the same things happening to you. You respect Democracy, because if the current government does something you don't want, you can always publicly complain, elect different officials or run for office until your grievances are addressed.

Several decades without real improvement of the standard of living for the average citizen has shaken the support for Democracy, because people feel Democracy has failed them. They no longer insists on upholding the rule of Law, because there is the impression that the Law benefits the wrong people. Decades of sentiment, reiterated in countless movies, novels, documentations and opinion pieces, have consolidated to the general view that government officials and politicians are either incompetent, grifters or blocked by countless laws and regulations to do something for you -- and this view is now so ingrained that people don't expect anything anymore from Democracy and are ready to try something else. The U.S. has broken the promise of your pursuit of happiness, and the pundits explain to you it's your fault. Throw out the rule of Law, throw out the balances of power, throw out elections in general when all they apparently do is benefiting the wrong persons.

Actually, it was. The whole point of a democracy is to have non-bloody rules to get rid of an unpopular government. The more hoops you have to go through, the less democratic a system is. At the end of Dashiell Hammett's "Glass Key" (the novel, not the movies), Paul Madvig comments that this time, the other side will win the election, and he will lie low for four years until the next vote. And yes, Paul Madvig is a self-serving grifter.

Ed Zitron is a moron who has predicted the past nine out of zero AI crashes, who simultaneously gets paid to hate on AI while also getting paid to promote AI (DoNotPay).

The funny thing is that he openly acknowledges that inference is very profitable (~40% margins) for all parties - he just argues that you should count training. But that argument makes no sense, because if capital tightens across the AI industry, then everyone will cut back on training and scaleup, and... then what? Where's the implosion? Everyone is profitable then. You may lose certain players in competition against others (their as-mentioned profitable assets being gobbled up by others), but the industry remains healthy.

There are more dramatic types of possible contagion risk, but they all end up with *someone* holding onto the high-profit-generating inference assets, even if it's high-seniority investors, leaving the the low seniority investoors high and dry.

The enshittification of Cursor continues.

Maybe this will force them to support more open models.

I guess, it's the first one. It's the strong man he is posing at. "We'll take your precious Lake Ontario as punishment!" And many of his voters like the strong man punching holes in the walls the establishment has erected - even if it is only an established name. And his voters like symbol politics, so he gives them symbolism.

Apparently not. Otherwise, consumers would not buy all those additional features. Some people calling themselves car guys have claimed for a long time that too much technology in a car is a bad thing. But that's not what consumer demand tells the car companies. And if you look at statistics, car break downs per mile driven are in a constant decline. A 1970ies car at 100,000 miles was ridden down. A 2020ies car at 100,000 miles is just well driven in. Yes, people could fix the 1970ies car themselves. Just buy the manual and the spare part, and off you go. But that was a necessity, not a feature. Today, people want their Apple Carplay and their Android Auto. And that means you need a computer as your head unit. People want cruise control and good mileage, and that means electronic injection. Lambda catalysts have reduced car emissions, and unleaded fuel has severally brought down violent crime numbers 20 years later. This also required electronic injection. People don't want to crank down their windows, and that means electric window controls. People like their stability control, so the car does not go off the road uncontrolled if you make a steering mistake. People like anti lock brakes. Airbags and pretensioners have brought down road fatalities from their heights in the 1970ies.

Yes, you now need to be a learned car specialist to service a car. But you need service far less often, and your car is a better car in all other aspects.

Meanwhile, what those evil liberals think should happen to YOU is... that you be given healthcare and a general social safety net.

They've been launching dummysats from Starship for a number of launches now, so I'm not sure why you think they're "forever away". The only reasons they've been using dummysats and not actual satellites is 1) Not wanting to risk more valuable payloads thusfar, and 2) wanting to keep Starship suborbital (e.g. trajectory that reintersects the atmosphere) at just under orbital velocity until they can verify deorbit reliability (failure to do so would leave that massive ship falling onto a random point on Earth).

If they were to choose to, they could start launching payloads on all subsequent Starship missions, even if they're not yet ready for reliable recovery or quick reuse. In fact, given the killing off of Falcon 9 in Florida, one can presume that's the plan (if not immediately, then soon).

Um... no they're not?

Further reading: Musk's other unstated reasons for shutting down Falcon 9 in Florida (Behind The Black)

TL/DR, the author thinks that SpaceX shutting down Falcon 9 launches from Florida was secretly a magnanimous gesture by a charitable Elon Musk to boost the competition:

I therefore honestly believe that SpaceX’s decision was not entirely based on its own internal needs. Those needs certainly were the main motive, but based on Elon Musk’s passionate dream of making the human race multi-planetary, as well as his repeated willingness to help his competitors when they needed SpaceX to launch their satellites, I believe he recognized that SpaceX’s dominance could be hurting the rest of the rocket industry, and that the instant it made business sense to clear the field for these competitors, he was quite willing to do so.

LOL.

Yes, I remember way back when Mike Pence had nearly absolute unchecked authoritarian power.

CAIS: Male or female?

Swyer Syndrome: Male or female?

What is "sex" (let alone gender)? Of the numerous axes, each with their subaxes:

1. Genetic:

* Karyotype (including mosaicism and chimericism)
* SRY presence / absence
* Gene presence, expression, and functionality (SOX9, RSPO1, WNT4, DMRT1, FOXL2, WT1, SF1, DHH, CBX2, AR, SRD5A2, HSD17B3, CYP19A1, etc)
* Müllerian inhibiting factor (AMH/AMHR2) expression and reception
* Epigenetic regulation (imprinting, methylation, chromatin remodeling)
* Androgen expression and reception

2. Gonadal

* Gonadal Type (ovaries, testes, ovotestes, streak gonads, dysgenetic gonads)
* Gonadal Function (steroidogenic capacity, gametogenic potential)
* Gonadal Position (abdominal, inguinal, scrotal/labial, absent)
* Germ Cell Presence/Absence (oocytes, spermatogonia, none)
* Gonadal Hormone Secretion (androgens, estrogens, AMH, inhibin)

3. Hormonal Axes

* Androgen levels (testosterone, DHT, androstenedione)
* Estrogen levels (estradiol, estrone)
* Progestogen levels (progesterone)
* Gonadotropin levels (LH, FSH)
* AMH levels (high in males, low in females)
* Adrenal androgens (DHEA, DHEAS in CAH)
* Hormone sensitivity (AR mutations, ER mutations)

4. Internal Reproductive Structures

* Vaginal Canal (depth, presence of cervix)
* Ejaculatory Ducts (patent, atretic)
* Wolffian Duct Derivatives (epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicles) - present, absent, or partially developed
* Müllerian Duct Derivatives (uterus, fallopian tubes, upper vagina) - present, absent, or partially regressed
* Prostate/Skene’s glands (size, functionality)

5. External Genitalia Axes

* Phallus structure (clitoris, penis, or intermediate)
* Size (micropenis, clitoromegaly)
* Urethral position (hypospadias, normal)
* Labioscrotal folding (labia majora, scrotum, bifid scrotum, fused labia)
* Vaginal opening (present, absent, urogenital sinus)
* Perineal configuration (distance from anus, midline fusion)

6. Secondary Sex Characteristics (e.g. post-pubertal)

* Breast development (Tanner stages, gynecomastia, absent)
* Body hair distribution (androgenic vs. non-androgenic patterns)
* Voice pitch (androgen-dependent deepening)
* Muscle/fat distribution (male vs. female typical)
* Bone structure (pelvic width, shoulder breadth)
* Larynx size (Adam’s apple prominence)

7. Reproductive Functional Axes

* Fertility status (fertile, subfertile, infertile)
* Gamete production (spermatozoa, ova, none)
* Menstrual status (eumenorrheic, amenorrheic, dysmenorrheic)
* Spermatogenic capacity (azoospermia, oligospermia, normal)
* Ovarian reserve (normal, diminished, premature failure)

8. Neurological & Behavioral Axes

* Brain sexual dimorphism (SDN-POA, BSTc, corpus callosum)
* Gender identity (congruent or incongruent with anatomy)
* Sexual orientation (androphilic, gynephilic, bisexual, asexual)
* Prenatal androgen exposure effects (CAH-related behavioral shifts)

There is no "single thing called sex". It is a vastly multidimensional space. The parameters in this space are *correlated* but not inherently causal. If you define purely based on any one factor, you come up with ludicrous consequences like pregnant women being classed as men or whatnot.

Furthermore, each subaxis has varying degrees of (A) malleability, and (B) impact on daily life. Some are highly malleable, others not at all with current technology. But it just so happens that the subaxes that impact daily life the most tend to be the most malleable, while the ones that impact it the least tend to be the least malleable. For example, the presence of SRY is not at all malleable, and yet it's also entirely irrelevant to a person's daily life. Yet curiously, "sex essentialists" always try to come up with their definitions based on subaxes that fall into the latter category, not the former category.

For the concept of "other sexes" (your words) to exist, you have to be able to have an essentialist definition of what one's immutable sex is (otherwise, the concept of there being some immutable "other sex" is incoherent). So what is your balance of the above axes, how did you reach that as being the most logical conclusion, and how would you respond to someone raising the case of someone who fits one sex within your definition but is flipped on most / all of the other axes?

You realize that you don't "import" immigrants, right?

People flee horrific situations in their homeland - war, violence, inability to feed themselves and/or their children, etc. You don't "import" them, they come to you.

The political debate is over whether to show them sympathy or to send them back to be killed and starve. Over whether diversity is a strength or a weakness. Over, on the sale of zero assimilation to spending every day driving a monster truck and eating a diet of corn dogs and beef jerky, how much assimilation is to be expected. Over whether their kids grow up just as American as anyone else or whether they're fundamentally Othered.

There are no "importation conspiracies". There are debates over how to react to a situation that already exists: with sympathy and hope, or fear and hostility.

It was a pretty ignorant comment, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on their behalf. I'm very much in the Ezra Klein school on this. People like Seven Spirals need help, but their experience with the US government's provision of help has been with a system that doesn't work. That makes you jump through hoops, waste time, and demeans you to get scraps of assistance and tries to get people to fall through the cracks - often those who need it the most (those with mental health problems, health issues, the most overloaded, etc, who can't manage to navigate the bureaucracy. And if any of these people in need screw up on a form, throwing the book at them as if it's all some massive fraud scheme. You made these systems to help people? Well, then help them, damn it. Stop treating them like leeches and automatically-suspected fraudsters.

And one can say, well, Republicans deliberately try to cause this, because they don't want government to work for people, because then they'll vote for Democrats. And there's a lot of truth to that. But there's also a lot of truth to the fact that Democrats have become far more obsessed with process than actually delivering results, that they tend to forget that results are the whole bloody point. A good example is the Rural Broadband bill. Democrats crafted that. Democrats signed it into office. They could have structured it however they wanted, and what did they make? A gigantic bureaucratic mess involving 56 jurisdictions, a sequential 14-step process (each with its own protracted review and comment periods), the creation of 50+ new bureaucracies, fragmented feeral programs, shifting priorities, all loaded with labour mandates, environmental mandates, buy-American mandates, and on and on, that stalled out year after year. The money was available. The people who could connect rural areas were available. But the pursuit of bureaucratic perfection distracted from the fact that voters want you to actually deliver. That doesn't mean, "The bill is passed, let's now dump a bunch of cash on a no-bid contract to whatever offer arrives first and bulldoze any environmental issues that stand in the way". But don't draft policies that take so long to deliver that you're basically pushing them off into another administration, who may well just kill them so that they never deliver.

People like Seven Spirals have a right to feel like the government has let them down. Yes, you should - accurately - point out that Republicans deliberately want it this way, and seek to undermine such programmes at every turn. But at the same time, Democrats need to step up and focus on actually providing good service to the people they're nominally trying to help. It's not a procedure-contest, it's a results-contest.