Trump administration: Hold my beer.
- 3 Posts
- 700 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: July 14th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Maybe if we called it “breast milk” it might cause milk drinkers to pause and think.
Is it more or less weird that they drink breast milk, but only from other species?
Switch to a credit union. If your bank is publicly traded then a portion of their profits are being syphoned away to rich douchbags, instead of services to customers.
12·2 months ago“The company later clarified that, ‘It hurt someone’s fee-fees.’”
At least the bot is not judging anyone!
16·2 months agoit’s investing more in promotions and tweaking package sizes to make its snacks feel like a better deal for shoppers.
Basically, their one takeaway action item is fiddle with packaging, to fool people into thinking they are getting a good value.
Lawful Evil behavior.
2·2 months agoDid they have a non-smoking section?
/s
You mean, people might have to look at legumes for protein instead of killing animals? Yikes!
5·2 months agoThe word “claims” in the headlines probably could use some scare quotes.
Why is the couch-fucker even in Hungary posing with Orban? Orban is the first domino to fall if/when the world lunches towards anti-authoritarianism.
This made my Gen-X heart glow.
It’s impossible to get the tech-bro incel funk out of them.
“Rich Christians are allowed a little pedophilia, as a treat.”
Free actions? In this economy?
I think it’s going to be hard for a 3d cowboy to hit a 2d one, especially if Slim turns sideways.
2·2 months agoYes, but… Have you heard of Eleventy? Feed it some Markdown, and it spits out stylish HTML. Then you can transfer.
It’s an example of “kettle logic”. Trump and the GOP use it all the time.
Maybe there’s a battery somewhere in there?
Investors were briefly spooked last July when an M.I.T. study suggested that almost none of this is useful to businesses. Corporations had poured tens of billions of dollars into A.I., yet only one in 20 projects had succeeded, the study reported. But a Wharton study in October delivered the opposite verdict. After interviewing 801 leaders at U.S. companies, Wharton concluded that three-quarters of the businesses were getting a positive return on their A.I. investments.
So, the MIT study is based on actual projects succeeding or failing. Trump’s alma mater’s study is based on interviewing CXOs. I wonder which would give more reliable data? /sarc
This is a really good point, and it’s making me rethink my own idea about the subject.
Interesting that the steering wheel is on the right.