spit-evil-olive-tips's recent activity
-
Comment on US President Joe Biden announces that he will not run for re-election in ~news
-
Comment on US President Joe Biden announces that he will not run for re-election in ~news
spit-evil-olive-tips Linkwell, better late than never. December 2019: Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term Feb 2024 op-ed from Ezra Klein: Democrats have a better option than Biden (archive link)...- Exemplary
well, better late than never.
December 2019: Biden signals to aides that he would serve only a single term
While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.
According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.
“If Biden is elected,” a prominent adviser to the campaign said, “he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.”
Feb 2024 op-ed from Ezra Klein: Democrats have a better option than Biden (archive link)
I posted that article when it came out, and highlighted a passage of Klein's that I found particularly chilling:
I have this nightmare that Trump wins in 2024. And then in 2025 and 2026, out come the campaign tell-all books, and they’re full of emails and WhatsApp messages between Biden staffers and Democratic leaders, where they’re all saying to each other, this is a disaster, he’s not going to win this, I can’t bear to watch this speech, we’re going to lose. But they didn’t say any of it publicly, they didn’t do anything, because it was too dangerous for their careers, or too uncomfortable given their loyalty to Biden.
I was reminded of that after Biden's disastrous debate performance against Trump. the tell-all books from staffers were going to full of terrible anecdotes about this period of the campaign.
at the time, the pushback to Klein's piece was that it was already February, the election was only 9 months away, so obviously it was too late to try to change candidates.
I think this is one of those "the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the 2nd best time is now" things.
it appears that people are coalescing around Kamala as the obvious successor, which seems good. for example, my congresswoman here in Seattle, Pramila Jayapal, has endorsed Kamala, and she leads the Democratic Progressive Caucus.
there had been speculation and fantasizing about holding some sort of "micro-primary" at the DNC convention in order to select a different candidate. I'd seen this referred to dismissively as a "Squid Game primary", which I think is apt. if there was going to be any sort of competition for someone else to be at the top of the ticket, the way to do that was through a real primary process, and that would have needed to happen months ago. the VP has almost no other job in our modern political system other than to exist as "backup President", it would be absurd to try to bypass Kamala and nominate someone else through backroom dealing at the convention. it would also be a huge turn-off to the Democratic party base, especially black women, to see Kamala shunted aside for a different, likely white and/or male, candidate.
a lesson I hope Democrats learn from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Dianne Feinstein, and now Biden, is the importance of handing off the reins of power before death or old age forces your hand. a podcast I listen to about SCOTUS, 5-4, recently brought up the need for Sonia Sotomayor to retire soon-ish, ideally the next time Democrats hold both the Presidency and the Senate. I like her work on the court a lot, but she is 70 years old and has type 1 diabetes. if she dies during a Republican presidency, or even a Democratic presidency where Republicans control the Senate, we could potentially have a sequel to RBG's seat being taken by Amy Coney Barrett, which would give us a ludicrous 7-2 conservative majority on the court.
for a light-hearted palate cleanser:
Wolf Blitzer at 12:47pm Washington DC local time: "Enjoying a Wolf Spritzer at El Presidente restaurant here in DC." (imgur screenshot)
Wolf Blitzer at 3pm Washington DC local time: this face (imgur screenshot)
-
Comment on Rapper BG ordered to have all future songs approved by US government in ~music
spit-evil-olive-tips Link Parentthis is one of the biggest "correlation is not causation" errors I've ever seen.It seems reasonable, given that murder accounts for 51% of deaths of rap musicians, versus 6.0% for all musicians.
this is one of the biggest "correlation is not causation" errors I've ever seen.
-
Comment on What have we liberals done to the US west coast? in ~misc
spit-evil-olive-tips Link Parentto expand on this - imagine you're a legislator in a state that's considering a law like this one in Oregon. you're broadly supportive of it, but then you read this Kristof op-ed and think he...there is a thought process behind mandating them in all bathrooms
to expand on this - imagine you're a legislator in a state that's considering a law like this one in Oregon. you're broadly supportive of it, but then you read this Kristof op-ed and think he makes a valid point about them not being necessary in bathrooms for kindergartners.
how would you actually amend the law to satisfy that criticism?
first, the law would need to somehow define the "proper" age of menstruation. after that age, schools must provide menstrual products to students, but before that age they should not.
but as discussed elsewhere in this thread, the age of menarche is both a) earlier than a lot of people realize, and b) decreasing over time for not-entirely-understood reasons.
which means...you'd want to write into the law a provision that it should be revisited every few years, in case the "official age of menarche" that schools use needs to change?
but anyways, you come up with this official age. below N years, you decide menstruation is rare enough that you're fine with not providing tampons and pads to students; above N years, it's common enough that schools need to provide those products.
so you make an amendment to the law to say that instead of all school restrooms, it's only required in restrooms used by students N years and older.
but as you said, bathrooms in schools aren't segregated by grade level. which means you also need to add to the law some sort of formula for determining the average age of students who use a given restroom.
that formula would need to take into account the floor plan of the school - where the restroom is located, what classrooms are nearby, what age range of students use that classroom, and so on.
it would need to be detailed enough to account for all the edge cases and idiosyncrasies of every single school building in the state, as well as every single school building the state may build or operate in the future.
but, it also needs to be simple enough that the vice principal could figure it out with a tape measure and a notepad, rather than requiring the architectural drawings of the school cross-referenced against the current classroom grade assignments.
there's a classroom used for 1st graders, and a restroom in the hallway just outside it. OK, that restroom is fine, it doesn't need tampons and pads, according to this updated law.
but then, halfway through the school year, a pipe bursts and floods the room where the high school band practices, which forces them to relocate to that 1st grade classroom temporarily. but, only for band practice, which is after-school...does that cross a threshold that means the school is required to start putting period products in that restroom? hmm...I'll get my slide rule, you conference call the superintendent and the school district's lawyer...
it is so. much. simpler. to just make it a blanket rule, that applies to all restrooms.
and of course, even if you did all of this...you'd still have op-eds criticizing the law. because it turns out that all along, people didn't actually give a shit about the age of students involved. what that actually objected to was the period products being in boys' restrooms, because they didn't like being reminded about the existence of trans men.
-
Comment on What have we liberals done to the US west coast? in ~misc
spit-evil-olive-tips Link ParentI hadn't heard of the law in Maryland you're referencing. so I typed "Maryland libraries" into Google News. and literally the very first result was a news article that says the problem they're...Another example could be a blue state enacting a law to solve a problem it doesn't have, in response to actions in red states. E.g., Maryland enacting a law protecting librarians based in reaction to laws passed in Florida. Is it bad? No. But was it the best use of legislative time if Maryland isn't having the problem? I don't think so.
I hadn't heard of the law in Maryland you're referencing. so I typed "Maryland libraries" into Google News. and literally the very first result was a news article that says the problem they're trying to address is indeed happening in Maryland:
In Maryland, there have been several instances of parents and community members requesting the removal of certain books from library shelves and catalogs. In Aug. 2023, Carroll County Public Schools (CCPS) parents and the parental rights group, Moms for Liberty, challenged 58 books in CCPS catalogs, resulting in their temporary removal from shelves until a decision was reached. Additionally, the Carroll County Board of Education voted unanimously to prohibit sexually explicit content in instructional and supplemental materials, including library books. As of Feb. 20, CCPS has pulled 25 of the 58 challenged books from shelves, including “It Ends With Us” by Colleen Hoover and “A Court of Mist and Fury” by Sarah J. Maas.
Also in Aug. 2023, Maryland Judge Deborah Boardman denied an injunction in a parent lawsuit against MCPS regarding a policy preventing students from opting out of LGBTQ+ themed books. Families claimed the policy violates parents’ due process rights under Maryland law’s 14th Amendment and their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
-
Comment on Seattle's LGBTQ-inclusive Pull-a-Palooza Pride Deadlift Party continues on, despite trolls in ~lgbt
spit-evil-olive-tips Linkarchive linkPeople of every gender identity tested their strength. Trans men lifted while shirtless, showing off their gender-affirming top-surgery scars. Creating that safe, inclusive space for all competitors was one of RCF’s goals, especially in the heat of political debates about trans rights.
“We wanted to be able to cultivate an event that celebrates all bodies, and specifically queer, trans, [Black, Indigenous and people of color] and other LGBTQIA+ bodies,” Carr said. “But, even further, one that allows trans people to lift as they are, to not be misgendered and to not be apologetic [for] being themselves.”
The “stark attack” against trans people inspired Carr and Koenigsberg to “go big” with the gym’s 2023 dead lift party, Carr explained.
They made the Pull-a-Palooza feel more like a block party than a weightlifting competition. The event raised about $43,000, which directly supported local social causes. This year, they aim to raise $50,000 and will direct funds to five local nonprofits supporting LGBTQ+ people: GenCare, Lavender Rights Project, UTOPIA Washington, Trans Women of Color Solidarity Network and Cheer Seattle. A portion of the funds will also benefit Palestine Red Crescent Society, an international humanitarian group.
-
Seattle's LGBTQ-inclusive Pull-a-Palooza Pride Deadlift Party continues on, despite trolls
25 votes -
Recommendations for leakproof, TSA-approved (100ml / 3.4oz) toiletry bottles
currently sitting in an airport lounge waiting for a flight. while rummaging in my carry-on to grab a charging cable, I discovered that one of the little plastic bottles I have for travel...
currently sitting in an airport lounge waiting for a flight. while rummaging in my carry-on to grab a charging cable, I discovered that one of the little plastic bottles I have for travel toiletries broke open and leaked body wash all over. didn't do any permanent damage to any electronics or anything, luckily. but this is very annoying and I'm going to replace all of these bottles so this doesn't happen again.
the current ones I have are just generic little plastic bottles I bought from Bez-Mart. suppose I wanted to splurge on a fancy version of them - is there a "buy it for life" sort of equivalent?
metal might not be an option because it might look weird on security scanners, but something like the polycarbonate plastics they use to make Nalgene bottles, maybe? having them be squeezable would be nice but isn't a strict requirement.
for people unfamiliar with the incredibly stupid US TSA rules about this, anything "liquid" (including toothpaste etc) needs to be in a container no larger than 100ml / 3.4 fl oz, and then all of those bottles need to fit into a quart (about 1 liter) sized clear plastic bag. so not just any containers will do, they'll need to be small enough to be "TSA approved".
5 votes -
Comment on Opinions or experiences on Corsair build kits in ~comp
spit-evil-olive-tips Linklooking at the parts list for the least expensive option, what sticks out to me is that you get a Corsair case, SSD, power supply, RAM, and CPU air cooler...but they only give you the model number...looking at the parts list for the least expensive option, what sticks out to me is that you get a Corsair case, SSD, power supply, RAM, and CPU air cooler...but they only give you the model number of the case.
so in practice, for those other parts, they're most likely going to be giving you the bottom of the barrel, or a SKU they have trouble selling on its own. slowest SSD, RAM with the worst clock speed and timings, power supply with a Bronze efficiency rating, etc.
now, that's not necessarily a problem - the parts will still all be compatible, and even a low-end NVMe drive is quite fast, especially compared to whatever you're rocking in that 10 year old PC. but it's a factor to be aware of when comparison shopping.
personally, I'd buy individual parts myself, rather than a kit like this, but I've been building custom PCs for 20ish years, and enjoy the process.
if you decide to go the individual component route, I second the recommendations for PC Part Picker, and going with AMD over Intel because you get much more bang for the buck. AMD committing to the longevity of the AM5 socket also gives you a bit better upgradeability in terms of being able to upgrade the CPU later on, without a motherboard upgrade, if that's a factor you care about (like if you're planning on running this new PC for another 10 years)
I've never been into building custom PC, particular the planning and research portion on what parts to get.
if you post your desired budget (which of those kits you were looking at, basically) and any special requirements you have (storage space, a game you really want to make sure you can play on high settings, etc) I bet several people, including myself, would be happy to plan out a parts list for you that'll be as compatible as the Corsair kit, and probably less expensive for higher quality components (including quality beyond strictly performance - things like the lifetime of the components, efficiency of the power supply, and so on). the main benefit the Corsair kits would still have is that they preinstall Windows, if that's a factor that's important to you.
-
Comment on Seattle’s law mandating higher pay for food delivery workers is a case study in backfire economics in ~finance
spit-evil-olive-tips Linkthis law took effect in January, this talk about how it's "backfiring" has been covered nearly non-stop by our local news. in hindsight I'm a bit surprised it took 4 months before a national...- Exemplary
this law took effect in January, this talk about how it's "backfiring" has been covered nearly non-stop by our local news. in hindsight I'm a bit surprised it took 4 months before a national think-tank like FEE jumped on the bandwagon.
some background info - the law was passed in May 2022 by a unanimous City Council.
This legislation was created after a year of intensive stakeholder meetings and public hearings. It comes as a new report reviewing hundreds of records found 92 percent of jobs from app-based companies pay Seattle workers less than the minimum wage.
in November 2023, we had a local election, which swung the City Council in a significantly more conservative direction. entirely by coincidence, that election also saw large campaign contributions from conservative interests: Outside interests spend more than $1M on Seattle City Council races
More than $883,000 of that outside money has come primarily from business and real estate interests spending in support of conservative and centrist candidates in the seven district Council races. Labor unions and other progressive groups have marshaled nearly $192,000 in spending so far, primarily in support of progressive candidates but with some spending on centrists.
that new City Council was seated in January, right as the law came into effect. because of the change in the political lean of the council, I think companies like DoorDash saw an opportunity to lobby for a rollback of the law. and hoo boy, lobby they have. this is just from the official DoorDash blog:
Jan 13: How We’re Responding to Seattle’s New Delivery Laws
Feb 20: One Month Later: Evaluating the Harmful Impacts of Seattle’s New Delivery Laws
April 23: New Data Shows Seattle’s Untested Law has Dire Consequences for Local Businesses and Dashers
(if you want a fun game, draw a Venn diagram and see how much these official DoorDash press releases overlap with this blog post from the conservative/libertarian "Foundation for Economic Education")
our new council president is Sara Nelson, who has proposed an updated law that would roll back pretty much all of these labor protections that were passed unanimously in 2022. here is the actual text of the bill; this has a good summary:
In addition to eliminating the minimum wage for drivers, which worked out to about $26 an hour before expenses, Nelson’s proposal would:
• Cut drivers’ base per-mile payment from 64 to 35 cents a mile, less than half the federal rate for tax deductions;
• Eliminate a $5 minimum payment for each delivery offer;
• Eliminate penalties (currently double pay plus $5,755) imposed on companies that fail to pay drivers;
• Deny workers the right to file a civil suit against delivery companies that withhold their wages or violate other rights guaranteed by the law;
• Remove transparency requirements that help workers decide whether to accept a delivery offer, including whether the delivery requires climbing stairs, what’s in the delivery, and the amount of any tips provided in advance;
• Reduce the amount of time workers have to decide whether to accept an order or lose it from two minutes to 45 seconds;
• Extend the amount of time companies have to inform workers how much they made on a delivery from 24 hours to 48;
• Prohibit the city’s Office of Labor Standards—the only city agency that enforces local labor laws—from asking delivery companies for “the production of any record,” including information that would help workers make informed decisions about which apps to work for, unless it’s part of an enforcement action against a company;
• Bar OLS from adopting rules that “impose additional requirements” of any kind on delivery companies, in perpetuity;
• Require OLS to give the app companies 30 days (with an option for extensions) to correct most “non-willful” violations before taking any enforcement action;
• Remove a section prohibiting “adverse actions” by delivery companies that was intended to stop the companies from deactivating, threatening, penalizing, reducing or garnishing pay, or discriminating against workers because they won’t take certain jobs or aren’t available when the companies want them to be on the clock;
• Allow delivery companies to charge workers a $5 fee (adjusted by the rate of inflation every year) every time they take out their earnings before the end of the company’s “pay period”—an ironic twist, given that the rest of the law insists drivers aren’t employees.
Sara Nelson is listed as the sponsor of the bill, but somewhat strangely she has also tried to distance herself from it. here's a tweet with a video clip from a city council meeting (or you can go here for the full video and fast-forward to 2h45m25s). she said:
In public comment this was referred to as "Sara Nelson's proposal" - yes I did advance this legislation but I want to make sure that people recognize this was...an agreement that was forged between Drive Forward and the network companies. whatever people are going to say about Drive Forward, they are an advocacy organization for drivers.
quick fact check from the pro-labor group Working Washington: Drive Forward Seattle is an Uber-funded business organization whose board is controlled by Uber corporate executives (posted in July 2021, so this was not in response to the current controversy)
Drive Forward Seattle is classified as a 501c6 business association, a type of organization which exists to advance business interests; this is the same type of organization as the Association of Washington Business, the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, and other business lobbying groups.
so she's proposing it, but also saying it's not her proposal, that she's just forwarding it along from the companies themselves plus an astroturf lobbying group they set up.
if you surveyed people across the US and asked them to name what they thought were the top 5 most liberal/progressive cities in the US, I think Seattle would almost certainly make the list. in many ways we are, especially on things like support for LGBT rights. and yet...here is our local politics.
oh, and as a bonus, while I was googling for the sources above, I came across this story from August 2023 that I had forgotten about: DoorDash to pay $1.6M to its workers for violating Seattle sick time policy
-
Comment on US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana in a historic shift, AP sources say in ~news
spit-evil-olive-tips Link Parentyou say this in a sort of authoritative tone, like it's a fact. but it's not. it's an opinion. it's never been actually tested in court, this is entirely based on memos from the White House Office...Legalization (or even decriminalization) can only be done with an act of Congress. Rescheduling can be done within the Executive Branch.
you say this in a sort of authoritative tone, like it's a fact. but it's not. it's an opinion. it's never been actually tested in court, this is entirely based on memos from the White House Office of Legal Counsel and other lawyers about what they think the President can do that a court wouldn't issue an injunction against.
but for the moment, let's say it was true, that Biden can only reschedule marijuana, he can't deschedule it entirely.
the Controlled Substances Act has 5 schedules.
Biden's rescheduling it into Schedule III, the middle of the pack. he's saying marijuana is more dangerous and prone to abuse than Xanax, Ambien, or Rohypnol aka "roofies" in Schedule IV, or cough syrup with codeine in Schedule V.
if he actually wanted to decriminalize it, but his hands were tied because of Congress, wouldn't it make sense to schedule it into the lowest category available?
this is an example of one of my perennial problems with Democrats, especially at the national level - the pre-compromise. people are very broadly supportive of legalization/decriminalization. in the poll I linked above, it's supported by 87% of Democrats, 70% of everyone, and 55% of Republicans. this is the rare issue that energizes your base, converts "swing" voters, and drives a wedge into your opposition, all at the same time.
if Biden proposed moving marijuana into Schedule V, he'd definitely get pushback from Republicans. from Schedule I to Schedule V is way too big a jump, they'd say. so Biden pre-compromises and they propose Schedule III.
(I don't know what sort of nukeman you are...but in the cold war this strategy was referred to dismissively as "unilateral disarmament")
but anyways, that's a tangent, let's focus on the real point, which is that obviously Biden can't decriminalize marijuana himself (even though he listed it as a campaign promise). only Congress can do that, and when Biden said on his campaign website that he would do something, he just assumed everyone understood he meant he would pressure Congress to do it, and then Congress wouldn't do it because everyone knows Congress is completely dysfunctional.
(now is a good time for a reminder that if young people are dissatisfied with the political system in the US and think their vote doesn't matter, it is their fault for not understanding all the nuances of it, rather than the fault of the people who constructed the system for constructing a ridiculously broken and anti-democratic system)
as the article says, there is legislation in Congress that would go even further than Biden's executive action, and remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances entirely. emphasis added:
“While this rescheduling announcement is a historic step forward, I remain strongly committed to continuing to work on legislation like the SAFER Banking Act as well as the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, which federally deschedules cannabis by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act,” Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said in a statement. “Congress must do everything we can to end the federal prohibition on cannabis and address longstanding harms caused by the War on Drugs.”
Senator Schumer is referring to S. 4591, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act.
Sponsor: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ] (Introduced 07/21/2022)
Committees: Senate - Finance
Latest Action: Senate - 07/21/2022 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
so...it was introduced almost 2 years ago, they read it, referred it to a committee the same day, and it's sat there ever since? huh. that's interesting.
it was referred to the Senate Finance Committee, which is...chaired by a Democrat. and Democrats hold a majority of the seats in the committee.
again with the incredibly low bar - Democrats control the Senate, Presidency, and at the time this bill was introduced, the House. there's a bill that will do something that 87% of Democrats support. and they won't even vote it out of committee??? like, WTF is wrong with these dumbasses? a model UN delegation could out-maneuver them.
of course, if they passed it out of committee, it would just get filibustered on the Senate floor, right? OK, good. give me a news cycle that is "Democrats are trying to legalize weed, and Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to stop it". get Republicans on the record about their opposition to it. force them to give speeches on C-SPAN about the dangers of the devil's lettuce.
-
Comment on US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana in a historic shift, AP sources say in ~news
spit-evil-olive-tips Linkon one hand: yay. this is good. on the other hand: from Biden campaign's website in 2020, emphasis added: (as far as I know, this campaign promise was only ever mentioned on the "Biden's plan for...on one hand: yay. this is good.
on the other hand:
from Biden campaign's website in 2020, emphasis added:
Biden will work with Congress to reform federal sentencing and provide incentives to state and local systems to do the same. He will end, once and for all, the federal crack and powder cocaine disparity, decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior cannabis use convictions, and end all incarceration for drug use alone and instead divert individuals to drug courts and treatment. He will work to eliminate mandatory minimums and the death penalty.
(as far as I know, this campaign promise was only ever mentioned on the "Biden's plan for Black America" page...)
in October 2022 (in what I'm sure was a complete coincidence, one month before the midterms): Statement from President Biden on Marijuana Reform
First, I am announcing a pardon of all prior Federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana.
...
Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses.
...
Third, I am asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. Federal law currently classifies marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the classification meant for the most dangerous substances. This is the same schedule as for heroin and LSD, and even higher than the classification of fentanyl and methamphetamine – the drugs that are driving our overdose epidemic.
as reported at the time, the pardon was an extremely symbolic act, because the number of people who get federal charges for simple possession of marijuana is essentially zero: Don’t Expect Mass Prison Releases From Biden’s Marijuana Clemency
As far as bold acts of mass clemency go, it won’t lead to many people getting out of prison. In fact, it will lead to none. According to the White House and a report this week from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) there is no one currently in federal custody for simple possession of marijuana.
almost a year later, September 2023: What rescheduling to Schedule III would mean for the cannabis industry
Last month, Bloomberg reported that it had obtained a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommending that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reclassify cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. The report includes confirmation from a DEA spokesperson that the letter with the recommendation was received, but as of the writing of this article, the letter has not been made public.
The letter comes some 10 months after President Biden called on the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General to "expeditiously" review the scheduling of cannabis under federal law and, if adopted, would represent the biggest change in federal cannabis policy in 40 years.
a few months later, December 2023: A Proclamation on Granting Pardon for the Offense of Simple Possession of Marijuana, Attempted Simple Possession of Marijuana, or Use of Marijuana
a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who, on or before the date of this proclamation, committed or were convicted of the offense of simple possession of marijuana, attempted simple possession of marijuana, or use of marijuana
the original pardon only covered simple possession, this expanded it to include "attempted simple possession" as well as "use of marijuana". that seemed to me like a pretty simple change, I don't know why they didn't just include it in the original. but congrats to the half-dozen people or whatever who had been convicted of federal charges for attempting to buy marijuana.
and apparently the criticism of the first pardon made an impact, because along with this second pardon, he also granted clemency to...11 people. though none of the reporting I saw mentioned if those 11 people were in jail for marijuana-related charges, or for other drug charges (such as the infamous crack vs. powder cocaine disparity) and the announcements were just made at the same time.
anyways, now you're caught up on the history. it's been a long road, but finally Biden is fulfilling his campaign promise from 4 years ago, and doing something which 8 months ago a leaked memo said his administration was ready to do.
well...not exactly. from today's article:
The proposal, which still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget...
...
Once OMB signs off, the DEA will take public comment on the plan to move marijuana from its current classification as a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and LSD. It moves pot to Schedule III, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids, following a recommendation from the federal Health and Human Services Department. After the public comment period and a review by an administrative judge, the agency would eventually publish the final rule.
the comment period is most likely to be 60 days. add on the OMB review and administrative law judge review, this seems like it'll probably take 3-4 months before it actually goes into effect.
I'm sort of doubtful this rule will have any meaningful effect at all. marijuana will be in the same schedule as ketamine...if you think schedule III is the same as legalization, go try getting a small business loan to open up a recreational ketamine dispensary.
but to the extent that it does have an impact, it'll probably be smack in the middle of election season. which, maybe I'm too cynical, but that seems fairly likely to be deliberate:
The election year announcement could help Biden, a Democrat, boost flagging support, particularly among younger voters.
it's hard not to view this announcement in the context of Israel's genocide in Gaza, Biden's support for it, and the backlash that's caused especially among younger voters. there's a wave of protests across universities happening right now. Biden's disapproval rating is at 69% among 18-29 year olds.
back to today's article:
A Gallup poll last fall found 70% of adults support legalization, the highest level yet recorded by the polling firm and more than double the roughly 30% who backed it in 2000.
from that poll, the question they asked was a simple "Do you think the use of marijuana should be legal, or not?" - they're not asking "do you think marijuana should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III", they're asking about actual legalization.
As of today, support for legal marijuana use is highest among self-identified liberals (91%) and Democrats (87%) and lowest among conservatives (52%) and Republicans (55%). Support is inversely correlated with age, reaching 79% among 18- to 34-year-olds. However, even among the oldest age group, nearly two-thirds (64%) are in favor.
I think it's important to reflect on just how incredibly low the bar is. 70% of Americans and 87% of Democrats support legalization. Biden campaigned in 2020 on decriminalization (there are important differences between legalization and decriminalization, but I think they're mostly irrelevant for the purposes of campaign promises & opinion polls)
4 years later, he is not delivering on that campaign promise of decriminalization, but instead on a lesser achievement of moving marijuana to a lower tier of controlled substance.
so Biden is doing something that is definitely a step in the right direction...but falling short of doing what he campaigned on and that 70% of all Americans support. and that...is supposedly going to boost his popularity among disaffected young people?
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of April 22 in ~news
spit-evil-olive-tips LinkThe Kids The Guns Are For (from Kelly Weill, author of a really good book about flat-earth conspiracies)The Kids The Guns Are For (from Kelly Weill, author of a really good book about flat-earth conspiracies)
The same police force that failed Uvalde children is arresting peaceful student protesters at UT Austin. It's not about safety. It's about order.
...
These escalations against students are a choice. Police can be patient, even passive. The Texas DPS proved that when they loitered outside the ongoing slaughter of grade-schoolers. Indeed, data shows that police are not primarily crime-fighters, devoting a small percentage of their stops to suspected crimes and a much greater percentage to things like racially biased traffic stops. Their work, by the numbers, is foremost the enforcement of order and inequality along race and class lines.
It’s why the proliferation of campus police has not stopped the upward trend of school shootings, but has led to disproportionate arrests and police assaults on students of color. And it’s why college students’ demonstration against a U.S.-backed war that has seen the mass death of children commands a more urgent police crackdown than an active shooting.
-
Comment on Need help planning a pseudo-upgrade for my computer tower in ~comp
spit-evil-olive-tips Link Parentthe CPU cooler you have, since it came with a ~10 year old case (or perhaps included with your old CPU? cases with bundled CPU coolers are relatively uncommon), almost certainly won't be...Couldn't find the cpu cooler that came with the tower, but subbed in another.
the CPU cooler you have, since it came with a ~10 year old case (or perhaps included with your old CPU? cases with bundled CPU coolers are relatively uncommon), almost certainly won't be compatible with the mounting holes on AM5 motherboards. and the Ryzen 7700X is just a bare CPU with no fan included, so make sure to buy that or another CPU cooler as well.
the Cooler Master one you linked is perfectly cromulent. I'm a big fan (ha) of Noctua coolers, if it's in your budget the U12S is excellent. Noctua has a very good compatibility checker to make sure that the cooler fits physically with all your other parts, as well as providing enough cooling to actually cool the CPU. you can see here that several of Noctua's smaller coolers wouldn't be able to keep up with the 7700X at max load. your RAM is only 33mm high, which is good...tall RAM modules can often cause problems with CPU coolers. your case is an absolute unit so it looks like there shouldn't be any problem there.
-
Comment on Need help planning a pseudo-upgrade for my computer tower in ~comp
spit-evil-olive-tips Linkyou've got a ~10 year old Haswell-era CPU, so your motherboard has an older CPU socket that isn't in use anymore. buying new parts that will work with it isn't really an option. also, I'm not...might it be cheaper to keep them for the framework and get older (still compatible) parts that would fit right in to the system as it stands?
you've got a ~10 year old Haswell-era CPU, so your motherboard has an older CPU socket that isn't in use anymore. buying new parts that will work with it isn't really an option.
also, I'm not super familiar with Framework laptops, but the newer parts you have is a desktop-class CPU plus full-size DIMMs of RAM meant for a desktop case, so it's unlikely they would fit into a laptop (and if they did, the power draw would be extremely high, and battery life terrible). on the other hand, the NVMe drive should almost certainly fit, assuming the Framework accepts standard 2280 (22mm x 80mm) sized drives.
the bare minimum you'll need for the upgrade will be an AM5-compatible motherboard, see here for a list of options.
since it sounds like you want to do this on a tight budget, the least expensive option I think would be to upgrade the motherboard now, swapping in the new CPU and RAM and keeping all the other parts (upgrading from the SATA SSD to the NVMe one is an option, but not a requirement). then look for deals on a used graphics card, since a previous-gen card would still be a significant upgrade from your current 970.
you can use the system builder that site has to fill in your other parts (CPU and RAM) to get an estimate of the power draw of the entire system. the 650w PSU is probably fine until you upgrade the GPU, and then it may or may not be sufficient, depending on the wattage the new GPU draws.
-
Comment on ‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza in ~tech
spit-evil-olive-tips Link Parentif the headline of the article was changed to "Lavender: The positive-unlabeled learning algorithms directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza" would that satisfy your objection? if it's such a...it seems like from the lecture the IDF was using fairly bog-standard PU algorithms
if the headline of the article was changed to "Lavender: The positive-unlabeled learning algorithms directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza" would that satisfy your objection?
it's such a nebulous, undefined term in the common conscious now that talking about "AI" means almost nothing.
if it's such a meaningless term, why did this guy include it in the title of his book?
In 2021, a book titled “The Human-Machine Team: How to Create Synergy Between Human and Artificial Intelligence That Will Revolutionize Our World” was released in English under the pen name “Brigadier General Y.S.”
and why does Tel Aviv University host an event called "AI Week" where the system was talked about? (they even registered https://ai-week.com/ for the event...)
+972 and Local Call have obtained footage of a private lecture given by the commander of Unit 8200’s secretive Data Science and AI center, “Col. Yoav,” at Tel Aviv University’s AI week in 2023, which was reported on at the time in the Israeli media.
it seems like it does have meaning...but, like probably every other term in English or any other language, the meaning is dependent on the context?
I do think there is a kernel of truth to what you're saying - that when news articles intended for non-technical consumption mention AI, they rarely mention which specific algorithms or methods are used. and...OK? I don't understand how that's particularly different from any other journalism.
when I read an article critical of Shotspotter, to pick an unrelated example, it doesn't go into the details of the digital signal processing algorithms they use to supposedly tell the difference between gunshots and cars backfiring. or if I read an article about a breakthrough in treatment of some form of cancer, the article typically doesn't talk about the specific lab techniques that were used to develop the new cancer drug.
and likewise, when I read an article about the real-world effects of AI, it usually doesn't mention whether the system in question is based on spline-reticulation learning or non-Euclidean hyperparameter optimization or partially-hidden Markov jungles.
but I would say that "AI" does have a fairly well-established meaning in the context of this type of journalism. AI is the siren song of the idea that "there's just too much data that it's infeasible for humans to sort through and understand, so we have no choice but to feed all the data into a computer and trust that The Algorithm will produce the right outputs":
In “The Human-Machine Team,” the book referenced at the beginning of this article, the current commander of Unit 8200 advocates for such a system without referencing Lavender by name. (The commander himself also isn’t named, but five sources in 8200 confirmed that the commander is the author, as reported also by Haaretz.) Describing human personnel as a “bottleneck” that limits the army’s capacity during a military operation, the commander laments: “We [humans] cannot process so much information. It doesn’t matter how many people you have tasked to produce targets during the war — you still cannot produce enough targets per day.”
...
“The more information, and the more variety, the better,” the commander writes. “Visual information, cellular information, social media connections, battlefield information, phone contacts, photos.” While humans select these features at first, the commander continues, over time the machine will come to identify features on its own. This, he says, can enable militaries to create “tens of thousands of targets,” while the actual decision as to whether or not to attack them will remain a human one.
of course, that thing about the decision to attack remaining in human hands seems to have...not held up particularly well:
From that moment, sources said that if Lavender decided an individual was a militant in Hamas, they were essentially asked to treat that as an order, with no requirement to independently check why the machine made that choice or to examine the raw intelligence data on which it is based.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of March 18 in ~news
spit-evil-olive-tips LinkDecember 2023: Michigan recording further reveals Trump’s efforts to overturn 2020 election today: NBC hires former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel, who has demonized the press and refused to acknowledge...December 2023: Michigan recording further reveals Trump’s efforts to overturn 2020 election
A report from Michigan further peels back the curtain on Trump’s efforts to nullify the results of the 2020 election. The Detroit News listened to a partial recording of Trump and RNC chair Ronna McDaniel reportedly pressuring the Republican chair and another member of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to certify the results there despite no evidence of fraud.
...
One former prosecutor that I talked to today did suggest that Ronna McDaniel could become a co-conspirator in the federal case in one count of that case if it could be proven that she knew that there was, in fact, no voter fraud, but yet was urging these elections officials to not certify alleging that fraud existed, so still waiting to see on that.
“It couldn’t be a more important moment to have a voice like Ronna’s on the team,” Carrie Budoff Brown, senior vice president of politics at NBC News, said in a memo to staff.
for some historical parallels, from Robert Evans in March 2023: Why legacy media institutions, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, fail historically at confronting fascism
This thing you’re about to read was written by me, initially, for a speech I was asked to give at the Oxford Union over in England. The broad topic they asked me to speak on was ‘how fascist movements arise within democratic society’. That is a broad topic, and given my limited time I chose to focus on the response of legacy liberal newspapers to fascist movements in history.
NBC, which gets dismissed as "liberal" news by people on the right-wing, is now employing someone who was actively involved in Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election.
those who forget history are condemned to...something something.
-
Comment on Tell US Congress: Stop the TikTok ban in ~tech
spit-evil-olive-tips Link Parenthere's the full text of the bill if you would like to read it. the question of whether "foreign organizations" have rights under the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with anything. this law is a...because foreign organizations do not have first amendment rights.
here's the full text of the bill if you would like to read it.
(1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:
(A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
the question of whether "foreign organizations" have rights under the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with anything.
this law is a restriction on app stores, such as those run by Apple and Google. it would prevent them from hosting the TikTok app for download. last I checked, their convoluted tax-avoidance schemes notwithstanding, they are US companies.
-
Comment on Weekly Israel-Hamas war megathread - week of March 18 in ~news
spit-evil-olive-tips Linkthere's a famous quote about journalism that apparently goes back to 1974 (if not earlier) in various forms: published by CNN today: Netanyahu says he’s trying everything to get more aid to Gaza....there's a famous quote about journalism that apparently goes back to 1974 (if not earlier) in various forms:
“Our job is not to report both sides. One side says it’s raining and the other side says it is not raining. Our job is to look out the window.”
published by CNN today:
Netanyahu says he’s trying everything to get more aid to Gaza. Aid groups say that’s not true
the article, to its credit, does a half-decent job debunking the lies and mistruths Netanyahu told, but of course keeping up the veneer of journalistic objectivity:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told CNN in an interview on Sunday that his country’s policy is to let as much humanitarian aid into Gaza as is necessary, a claim that has been disputed by aid agencies and even contradicts his own statements.
...
The Israeli leader’s claim contradicts statements he made previously, in which he boasted about permitting “minimal humanitarian aid” to enter Gaza.
“We provide minimal humanitarian aid,” Netanyahu said at a press conference in January. “If we want to achieve our war goals, we give the minimal aid.”
...
Netanyahu said that Israel has created “alternative routes” to deliver aid, including through airdrops, shipments by sea, and “land routes.”
Only two land crossings have been used to deliver aid to Gaza – the Rafah crossing with Egypt, and the Kerem Shalom crossing with Israel. But volumes are insufficient compared to the scale of suffering.
Israel has however tested a pilot program to deliver desperately needed aid to northern Gaza through another border gate, but only six trucks had crossed it as of last Wednesday.
...
“The problem is not the number of trucks going in, although we’re increasing it on a daily basis,” Netanyahu said.
Aid groups and the UN have said that the main problem hampering humanitarian aid in Gaza is the small number of trucks entering the enclave due to Israeli restrictions.
An average of 95 aid trucks per day entered Gaza between October 10 and February 1, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent, down from 500 trucks a day before the war through the Rafah crossing alone.
...
Netanyahu told CNN Sunday that Hamas is the main obstacle to aid deliveries and is looting incoming aid. Israel hasn’t provided any evidence to back that claim.
I think the context of the interview is important here:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told CNN in an interview on Sunday
which links to this video, "Watch Dana Bash press Netanyahu over Gaza humanitarian crisis". Netanyahu was interviewed on "State of the Union", which is CNN's entry in the Sunday morning news talk show field.
the video of the interview is 14 minutes long, and if you look at the episode transcript it was the very first thing they covered in the episode, in the "A block".
so Netanyahu gets 14 minutes of extremely valuable airtime, the A block of CNN's Sunday news show.
interviewing Netanyahu is a choice that CNN made. they could have interviewed someone else, such as someone who works for Doctors Without Borders, or a Palestinian who's had their entire family killed. but interviewing Netanyahu is apparently more "newsworthy", even if he lies during the interview.
then this article about how Netanyahu lied gets published on Monday, and the headline doesn't mention he lied, just does some "opinions differ as to whether it's raining" bullshit. if you want a fun challenge, go to the CNN homepage and see how far "below the fold" that article is - see if you can find that article at all without a direct link to it.
-
Comment on Tell US Congress: Stop the TikTok ban in ~tech
spit-evil-olive-tips Link ParentI don't think the evidence (in the comment you linked to at the top of the thread) supports this claim. there's evidence that TikTok moderation aligns with what the Chinese government wants, but...There's explicit evidence that the platform itself colludes with the Chinese government
I don't think the evidence (in the comment you linked to at the top of the thread) supports this claim.
there's evidence that TikTok moderation aligns with what the Chinese government wants, but there's a classic correlation vs. causation problem. there's no evidence that I see for a causal link.
the people who run ByteDance live in China, which means they've been exposed to propaganda from the Chinese government their whole lives. it's possible that they're making what they view as just normal moderation decisions, but that are influenced by propaganda they've been exposed to in a "fish don't realize they're wet" way.
if you're going to claim that collusion is taking place, you should have actual evidence of collusion, and all you have is "there's smoke so there must be fire".
but, let's assume for the sake of argument that there actually is a causal link, that there is collusion - that executives at ByteDance meet in a smoke-filled room with people from the Chinese government, and agree to remove some topics and promote others in a way that the government wants.
even if that were true...so what? Congress banning an app because they dislike the content it removes or promotes is clearly viewpoint discrimination which is sort of the textbook example of a 1st Amendment violation.
thought experiment: I (a US citizen & resident) start a new social media company, called ChiComTok. we're based 100% in the United States, but our app makes a promise that we will censor or promote content in the way we think the Chinese government would want. maybe we even email
Xi.Jinping@gov.cnor whatever and say "hey, let us know if there's any other topics you want removed or promoted".Congress banning my ChiComTok app would very clearly be viewpoint discrimination and not allowed under the 1st Amendment. this would include if they try to insist it's not a "ban" because the law just says "it's only banned as long as @spit-evil-olive-tips owns it, if he sells it to someone else who promises to change its moderation policies it's not banned".
but obviously my ChiComTok app would have trouble getting its initial userbase. so, for a somewhat more realistic thought experiment, say there was an existing US-based social media platform that I bought, maybe for $44 billion, and I turned it into an outlet for Chinese communist propaganda. would Congress be justified in passing a law requiring me to sell it, and banning it if I didn't?
can you be more specific about exactly what policies or messages you consider "identity politics" that the left should de-prioritize?
because isn't "middle America"...also an identity?
it sounds like you just want to swap out one kind of "identity politics" for a different kind. and I'm curious which identities you think should be de-emphasized, and which ones should be emphasized instead.