That’s without joking exactly what they do. Now if that one millennial voter is a different one in each cohort of participants you get huge swings in the survey that are not very predictive of election outcomes, and that error is poorly represented in the margin of error.

If men only date women below 30 (or 27 apparently??) for their youthful appearance, what incentive do those women have to take dating seriously? Those men won’t stay anyway. This is the main contradiction in incel rhetoric. If you don’t like to look at women past 30, women shouldn’t date you “seriously “ while in their 20s.

I never really get why those types of subsidies should go through the corporate tax. Want to subsidise domestic production? Provide a wage subsidy to companies that employ American workers. The corporate tax code should be as clean and simple as possible.

That’s a very interesting poll because in the end HRC got 48 percent of the vote, or 2 percentage points more than in this poll, while DT got 46 percent, 11 percent more than in the poll. One explanation could be that undecided, Johnson and Stein voters changed their minds and (mostly) voted for Trump.

I don’t believe that, even in the face of a full coup, (gun) violence will solve any issues. There’s just no way that a majority of people support a violent militia taking over power of the government, no matter how illegitimate some think that government is.

As examples, look at the recent coup attempt in Turkey, or the Wagner uprising in Russia. In both cases the violent uprisings were used by the dictator to cement his power. Guns will not help you.

Why?? Every time someone uses political violence the would be dictator becomes more popular and he can make the state more repressive. Even right now, there will be idiot undecided voters that will change their vote to him because some idiot tried to kill him. There are really no upsides to attempting to remove tyrants with guns.

Insane double standards. When was the last time Trump did an interview outside of Fox and Friends?

It’s crazy how much things have changed in 8 years. Before Trump came on the scene, Fox was very biased, but their stories had a basis in fact. 4 years ago they had gone down the drain, but still prevented a coup by calling AZ for Biden. Now they tell lies about as frequently as Trump.

What we have learned from 10 years of Trump is that you lose when you respond to his arguments. His entire jig is to constantly shift the focus of the debate. He wants you to talk about Biden’s age and buttery males, instead of the economy. The best thing Harris could do (and she did) was to stay on topic.

This is not about his looks, but about the misogynistic content he creates. If you are accused of rape, and you openly talk about coercing women into sexual acts I’d say that it checks out.

Yes this article is mostly BS. You can probably cherrypick very small towns with no local Democratic organizers where the Harris campaign has no ground game. However, that’s very clearly not the norm. Also, worth pointing out that driving higher turnout in cities like Philadelphia should remain the top priority over anything you do in rural counties. If Dems lose Pa it is most likely because of low turnout in the cities.

I know my way around the Jolly Roger myself. At the same time using copyrighted materials in a commercial setting (as OpenAI does) shouldn’t be free.

I am also not really getting the argument. If I as a human want to learn a subject from a book I buy it ( or I go to a library who paid for it). If it’s similar to how humans learn, it should cost equally much.

The issue is of course that it’s not at all similar to how humans learn. It needs VASTLY more data to produce something even remotely sensible. Develop AI that’s truly transformative, by making it as efficient as humans are in learning, and the cost of paying for copyright will be negligible.

Oh I mean, I am cynical as well. First about whether she’ll push through. Second, about congress agreeing. Just pointing out that the discussion on the rate is not so important.

Yes, but no. Yes if you sell your asset at a gain you pay taxes. However, if you don’t realize your gain and instead use your asset as a collateral in a loan, you don’t pay taxes. That’s why the rich pay no taxes whatsoever. For instance, Bezos has 2 bln in outstanding loans. As a collateral he uses his 200 bln share in Amazon. He never pays taxes.

The proposal by Harris would fix this and tax gains prior to realization. If she succeeds that is a much bigger deal than whether the rate is 20,30 or 40 percent.

The much bigger question is whether Harris will succeed in taxing unrealized capital gains (as her campaign plans). Currently all the gains of the very rich are unrealised meaning they don’t pay any taxes. It doesn’t even matter if the rate is 22 percent or 40 percent. I actually really like Harris’ proposal of first fixing the system before hiking the rates

Just to add, a healthy democracy has a first and second round where the second round has only 2 candidates.

Absolutely, but also when you consider ethical challenges (copyright, livelihood of artists), sustainability challenges (energy use) etc. The use cases that you describe are not nearly as controversial as LLMs like ChatGPT.

The current generation of data hungry AI models with energy requirements of a small country should be replaced ASAP, so if copyright laws spur innovation in that direction I am all for it.

Things will yet change, and they’ll change for the worse. All of the media prefer a close race. There will be October surprises and even if they’re complete BS, the few swing voters that will finally start tuning in, will once again conclude that both parties are the same. Anyway, what I am trying to say is, don’t believe the polls. Vote