This is really cool, but it would have been cooler if they’d named their scouting missions Hugin and Mugin, since they’re Odin’s ravens that scour the earth for secrets to give to Odin.

GET ROTATED

Let it never be said that California isn’t sunny. I moved here over a decade ago, and still by month eight of unbroken cloudless blue sky, I start to lose my shit a little. But it does make it a good state for solar.

Sure, I’d welcome Biden changing my mind on this.

I think it’s a little alarming that his last international travel was almost two weeks pre-debate and that left him tired enough to perform badly. And by badly, I mean the worst debate performance I’ve seen ever, and I’ve been watching since Bush/Kerry. I also don’t think it bodes well that he hasn’t yet done any big interviews or press conferences to show that it really was just a fluke, which seems like a fairly easy thing to do if he really is actually fine. I would feel much better about his odds of beating Trump if he could start reliably doing public speaking at a similar quality to what he displayed in 2020, which remains to be seen a whole week later.

The difference is that Biden has markedly declined from previous performances. He spent most of that night stumbling, mumbling, and struggling to speak clearly, none of which is his stutter, because a stutter is a very specific speech impediment. He was downright difficult to understand on average, and flat out unintelligible at worst. Even when he got riled up, like with the losers and suckers remark, it sounded like he was having trouble forming word sounds accurately, like he has dysarthria. Even in carefully curated campaign material, like asking for donations, he sounds out of breath and like he’s struggling to speak clearly.

I think the part where he finally beat medicare is the best example.

https://youtu.be/i3eYmc1AkMs?si=RJkeAb7gwN_TJOSG

I would gladly have Trump drop out. It won’t happen. Trump is running to save his own ass. For my part, I have grave doubts about Biden’s ability to win that have been building for a few months but came sharply into focus during the first minute of that debate.

I keep seeing this sentiment, and it boggles me. Last season’s winning horse just debuted this season with a huge limp, and the response from some people has been “it’s fine, stop panicking, we’ll win if we just keep betting on it.”

Hey, thanks for the advice. If I have some free time and spare gumption, I’ll definitely give it a go. If that happens, I’ll let you know what comes of it.

Not op, I got a free Ender 3 from a frustrated co-worker, and am now the frustrated co-worker. I’ve tried getting a new glass print surface, tried using glue sticks, tried changing print temps and speeds, tried levelling and re-levelling and re-levelling the bed, but I just can’t get the print to stick for love or money. It’s now been re-homed to the garage, as a parking obstacle for my bicycle.

Okay?

Look, it makes them happy, it’s free, and it doesn’t cost you anything. It just kinda doesn’t seem like a big deal.

Thanks for this. I wasn’t aware of that. All of my experience around Roe was seeing republicans wanting it dealt with in the legislature/executive.

Gotta love Pelosi, just when the Democrats are in danger of not spilling the spaghetti, she reliably shows up to make a disaster of it. She’s got, like, the anti-McConnel*.

*McConnel is, imo, one of the most talented statesmen of my lifetime. It’s a goddamn shame he’s used his talents for evil. It’s a little bewildering to imagine how different a place the US could be if he’d been on the side of the people. It’s also a powerful statement of what a wreck the GOP has become that Mitch couldn’t control the MAGA/freedom caucus members anymore. I hope the whole thing just implodes on itself and we get something new and less horrible.

This is it. Trump didn’t give a flying shit at all if anything he did was legal, he just went for it, and it worked.

So, I don’t think there’s a good single answer to this question.

Obama isn’t and wasn’t as progressive as he was (and sometimes is, mostly by Republicans) framed. The democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for a few months, and even then, Joe Lieberman gummed up the works big time on getting the ACA through. Somebody mentioned that they wasted a lot of time trying to get bipartisan support for the ACA, and it’s true. They spent months negotiating against themselves with the republicans, whose answer was always “no”, and by the time they were done, the ACA was a shell of what it could have been. After the ACA, which I must add is basically comprised of all the non-insane (read: mostly pointless) reforms the Republicans were proposing as well as some more rational reforms, the right-wing hype machine started red-lining (as in tachometers, not the racist housing policy, though I guess that could also work since they really didn’t want that black man living in that house) and you’d have thought we had an actual communist overthrow of the government on our hands. The democrats absolutely bungled the PR (the more things change, the more they stay the same, huh) and pissed off everyone outside the party and made everyone inside the party facepalm. After the supermajority disappeared, the republicans started cynically abusing the filibuster and turned the rest of Obama’s presidency into anything from a lame duck to just one (republican caused) crisis after another.

Tl;Dr a lot of the democrats aren’t progressives, and we had a lot more of the old cold war blue dog crowd that Biden is from than we do now, mixed with absolutely bunglefucking both the political strategy and PR around the ACA and not being able to get past the filibuster once the supermajority disappeared.

P.S. it’s worth noting that, at the time, Roe was considered settled law. From what I recall, nobody was too anxious about the SCOTUS citing 400 year old witch hunters and overturning pretty well settled and accepted case law. The republicans were generally seeking to overturn Roe via the federal legislature/executive at the time.

Still going to poison the results and be embarrassing when the LLM starts putting creative commons licensing in its output.

I’ve really been waiting for gas stations to jump in on this. Tying it to vehicle manufacturers just doesn’t make that much sense to me, not nearly as much sense as using the companies whose mission is already to deliver energy to vehicles. You need a tiny fraction of the infra for electric charging that you need to supply gas. Shell or Chevron could EASILY ink deals with, say, Starbucks, to put one or two chargers in every Starbucks parking lot in the country and just sit back and laugh as the money rolls in. And yet, they just keep pushing for exclusively fossil fuels.

AFAICT, the charger network is a huge part of Tesla’s value proposition. Laying off the entire 500 person team like this is going to be a massive, massive disruption no matter what anyone says, you can’t just patch it with [checks notes] an entirely different team. It’s going to take that new team months to get up to date, put out fires, find their bearings, etc. and by that point, issues are already snowballing. The rapport and contacts problem is also going to be enormous; basically shit canning all of the company’s industry/logistics ambassadors is what, in any other light, would be called a disaster. This is going to be a clusterfuck, and that’s before any competitors interested in starting their own charger network start scooping these newly available specialists up.

It’s incredible to see this man still idolized, even by bosses and other execs, as he tanks not just one but two household name businesses AT THE SAME TIME.

I’m not trying to be the grammar police, just thought you might like to know that it’s “onus”.

If you compare the population densities of mid-sized American cities, they’re not really all that different from Dutch cities that are famed for their bike, public transit, and pedestrian infrastructure. In fact, a lot of cities in the Netherlands as recently as the 70s looked like any old town USA with a bunch of mid-rises choked with cars going down the street. It was, AFAIK, about 20 years of consistent policy choices that changed it to the public transit mothership it is today.

What I mean to say is that our urban design is terrible. It didn’t used to be, and it’s an issue that impacts a lot of aspects of life in even smaller cities, not least of which is that it makes it far more expensive both for you and the city. We’ve arrived here by decades of consistent policy choices prioritizing cars over people, and we can get out of it through policy choices, too.

Here’s a really good primer on it from a really good channel if you’re interested: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa&si=RPLl3xnLSaFujsld