Paywalled, but I suspect it’s in relation to a video where the governor started talking about the depth and breadth of the incursion.

Putin cuts him of and says that the military rep on the call will give that update, and that his expectation from the governor is to update on the social aspect of the situation… Something like that.

I wish to return to the time where I could have agreed with you

And could you explain how, for the court, how can you be correct, when I explicitly made you Principal Skinner?

Jury gasps

I know that’s the general sentiment for online discourse. I think it amounts to a rounding error in terms of total population. I’m confident it’ll improve. Maybe never be better than airtags… But I expect better than now.

I have a pebblebee, which uses the FMD network.

It’s pretty obvious that the network isn’t as robust as Apple’s. I expect it’ll improve.

There have always been susceptible idiots.

Nazi’s are just a byproduct of an eroding standard of living. When things are good and getting better, there just isn’t the fertile ground for that kind of ideology, even among the idiots.

When standard of living is on the decline? Anyone who gives a simple answer and a simple solution gets the attention of idiots.

I think my main issue with that use case is that it’s a “solution” to a relatively minor problem (which has a far simpler solution), that actually compounds the problem.

Let’s say I don’t want to write prose for my email, I have a list of bullet points I want to get across. Awesome, I feed it into the chat gippity and boom, my points are (hopefully) property represented in prose.

Now, the recipient doesn’t want to read prose. ESPECIALLY if it’s the fluffy wordy-internet-recipe-preamble that the chat gippity tends to produce. They want a bullet point summary. So they feed it into the chat gippity to get what is (hopefully) a properly condensed bullet point summary.

So, suddenly we have introduced a fallible middle translation layer for actually no reason.

Just write the clear bullet point email in the first place. Save everyone the time. Save everyone from the 2 chances for the chat gippity to fuck it up.

People who are using it to solve problems which require equivalent effort of writing a sufficient prompt and just directly solving it without AI at all for sure are AI folk.

“Oof! Maybe oppressing the working class ISN’T goated no cap”

Too late I’m doing this.

RcRs mechanic of a dialogue area at the bottom for enemies to give a last quip after defeat would be perfect

So you trick your stomach like you’d trick a dog by hiding medicine in their food?

Delegates are bound to support in all good conscience the person for whom their primaries results reflect.

This bizzare turn of phrase has been largely been untested in the courts… But if, in good conscience, the delegates believe that the results of the primary were for the candidate who was best poised to defeat Trump (as in, they’re not supporting Biden specifically as much as they are against Trump, for example) then they could argue that based on events that have occured since the primaries that they are in good conscience representing those wishes.

So, I dunno. I’m very glad Biden took the high road here, but I am unconvinced that this was truely set in stone. This is the exact justification for having delegates choose the nominee in the first place; that in certain critical conditions they can act in good faith.

The truth is still the truth, even if there is no material difference in the implications.

I agree in principle with what you’re saying.

However, a sitting president is not entitled to the nomination. It’s happened before where a sitting president is denied a nomination for a second term, and it’s been given to someone else in the party instead.

If it had gone that way with Biden though, I think the optics would have been so bad that there would be no hopes of salvaging the election though, so it’s still praiseworthy that he dropped.

For transparency, I’m Canadian, but our situation is pretty much the same: Far right candidate projected to win next election, “meh, status quo centrist” in power now, people letting projections deter them from voting, primitive “electoral college” lite making your votes less effective based on where you live, etc etc…

We do trend towards “looking over the fence” politically. If Biden’s step-down gamble pays off, it’s possible we could get a similar thing to happen here which could be good. So, we’re all watching and hoping that we don’t end up neighbouring a country with a fascist leader…

I think the availability of polling is a major reason why people don’t bother to vote. If they’re reasonably sure their person will win, they’re less likely to bother. Or, if it looks like it’s going to be a blowout and they don’t think one vote will matter, same thing.

Voting day should be a federal holiday, there should be a tax incentive to vote like in Australia, and polling reporting should be delayed by 1 month.

Polls are surveys. They answer the question “what do people say they’re going to do?”

Extrapolating results strictly from polling comes with a pretty large caveat: it assumes people are going to do what they say they’re going to do.

Another large caveat is that there are issues with representation, as the group of people who will actually answer their phone is a pretty serious demographic skew.

Oddsmakers use polling results as a COMPONENT of their determination, but they’re free to aggregate against whatever else they see as relevant, things like history. Or to weigh which states polling is most effective. Or how which day of the week affects voter turnout on a per district level. Or how projected road closures could affect transit and therefore turnout rates.

Anyways, I think the entire point of my initial comment was lost:

If you’re excited about the polling, awesome… BUT DON’T GET COMPLACENT AND STILL GO VOTE. Why? Because the people who actually get paid to project outcomes think it’ll be a Hillary re-run, and if you don’t want that, you can NOT get complacent. You can’t let your friends get complacent. Be the reason the oddsmakers lose money in November.

*That’s what people who’s entire profession is establishing likelihood of outcomes think.

Oddsmakers are often wrong, but over the long term, they’re more often right, it’s the entire basis of how they make money.

Polls are just polls. Oddsmakers literally are putting thier money where their mouth is. If you’re confident they’re wrong, take the bet. They WANT you to.

Edit: after reading the great responses, I think I’m sorely underestimating the volume of bets and how keeping both sides betting against eachother in this case is the strongest factor in the current odds.

46 to 47 is basically a wash. 46 was basically Joe’s Ceiling; he is a known quantity. Harris has head room for no other reason than most people know barely anything about her so there is an opportunity to grow her standing.

The Dem candidate isn’t going to add any Trump votes.

It’s only going to establish how many Dems are enthusiastic enough to get off their butts.