Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)C
帖子
0
评论
81
加入于
3 yr. ago

  • My "misunderstanding" is having followed this story for more than a single headline.

    Marcy Wheeler has written extensively about it for months now. She's been at the center of the story to the extent that she was one of the journalists that (presumably Iran) attempted to leak hacked Trump campaign documents through. She's very adamantly of the stance that there is a real threat because it's been corroborated by multiple sources who don't have any interest in propping up Trump.

    https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/09/25/dont-make-the-same-mistake-with-iran-that-denialists-made-with-russia/

    I fear that, because of the polarization Trump has deliberately stoked, many lefties are doing the same thing that Trump’s MAGAts did with Russia: treat credible allegations that Iran is targeting him, both for hacking and assassination, as a hoax.

    Regarding the hacking, as happened in 2016, it is not just the Intelligence Community (one, two) attributing the hack in real time. Both Microsoft and Google have described the operation. As I explained repeatedly regarding the 2016 Russian attack, big American tech companies have a similar kind of global reach as the NSA, and when someone uses their infrastructure to target someone, they have both the tools and an independent incentive to get the attribution right. There’s really no reason to doubt the attribution, from three of the entities with the best global reach in the world, that Iran targeted Trump’s campaign.

    Regarding Iran’s attempt to assassinate Trump, there’s also no reason to doubt that. While the case against Asif Merchant, whom DOJ accused of trying to solicit a variety of operations targeting Trump, does rely on undercover FBI employees posing as wannabe hitmen, the underlying tip — from the guy Merchant allegedly asked for help recruiting a hit team — appears to be organic, just someone calling the cops. Plus, the effort bears certain resemblance to the effort to solicit assassins for John Bolton, arising from the same motive of revenge for the Qassem Soleimani killing.

    Trump's a blowhard. He's absolutely going to use the story as a wedge. Don't do his work for him by dismissing the possibility of what appear to be real threats out of hand.

    I'm not saying we know the exact nature of what's going on or that any threat is particularly immediate; what I am saying is that there's enough information available from sources that aren't affiliated with Trump that the possibility should be taken seriously.

  • Court documents do not identify any of the potential targets. But U.S. officials acknowledged in July that a threat on Donald Trump’s life from Iran prompted additional security in the days before a Pennsylvania rally in which Trump was injured by a shooter’s bullet. That July 13 shooting, carried out by a 20-year-old Pennsylvania man, was unrelated to the Iran threat and Merchant’s arrest has no connection to the Trump assassination attempt, a law enforcement official said.

    https://apnews.com/article/iran-pakistan-murderforhire-trump-justice-department-5a3abe0895ae7c2be14f89fc4e49bc53

    This is a story that has been building for a few months. While I'm not particularly convinced that this specific threat was particularly credible, there's been plenty of reporting that the Biden DOJ is taking this seriously.

    It's not really surprising to me that Iran would want Trump dead. I don't think they were anywhere close to actually accomplishing that, but I can certainly believe they'd try.

    Yes, Trump and the rest of the rightwing are going to blow it up into something bigger than what actually happened, but it's important to understand the truth in the lie because the story is potentially consequential in the wider relationship between the US and Iran.

  • The interesting thing is that it's actually Gen X where Trump has disproportionately high support among women.

  • Oh, I don't disagree at all.

    Like I said, Nate's definitely increasingly treaded into questionable territory in the past few years and I don't have a sense for whether it's impacted the model since I've honestly not been paying close attention to the horse race this cycle.

    I was mostly pointing out that while the dude has almost always been a bad take generator, the 2016 model very arguably outperformed its contemporaries despite the popular view that they blew it. I wouldn't be shocked if Nate's sponsors and general ideological drift has impacted the model this cycle (*especially given Peter Thiel's involvement), but I don't have a strong sense for whether that's the case either. I also wouldn't be particularly surprised if he sufficiently separated the stats from the dumb ideas to produce a reasonable model either. I just don't have enough info to have formed an opinion there.

  • That's what makes this exceptionally stupid: ballots in Georgia are fully electronic.

    You make your selections on a touchscreen voting machine. The machine records your selections. "Counting" is literally a matter of taking the output from the machine and telling a server to add up the totals.

    The paper ballot is literally just a laser printer next to the machine that spits out a sheet of paper showing what the voter selected. The paper ballots are supposed to just be a backup in case there are problems with the machines.

  • A lot of other models were saying something ridiculous like Clinton had 95% chance to win or something. Nate Silver’s model seems better than others based on this, if anything.

    The constant attacks on how 538's model performed in 2016 says more about statistics literacy than it does about the model.

    There is plenty to criticize Nate Silver for. Take your pick. Personally, the political nihilism that's increasingly flirted with "anti-woke" sentiment is good enough for me. Some people might prefer taking issue with the degenerate gambling. The guy has pumped out plenty of really dumb hot takes over the years, so you have your options.

    But his models, historically, have performed relatively well if you understand that they're models and not absolute predictors.

  • I really enjoyed Weird West. It mashed up immersive sim elements with Divinity-inspired isometric sandbox combat. Lots of really cool world building.

    Rough around the edges in a few places and probably a little ambitious in scope for the size of their team, but overall a pretty solid and fun title for a new indie studio.

    tl;dr definitely interested in seeing what they do next.

  • Clover is so beneficial that pre-WW2, grass seed mixes almost always explicitly advertised clover content. If you look up 19th or early 20th century catalogs, etc, listings for grass seed will nearly always not only mention that they contain a clover mix, but tout its benefits.

    As you note, it was only post-war with the creation of modern herbicides that clover stopped being the norm. There was more or less a DeBeers-style PR campaign to convince people that clover is a "weed" since it can't survive weed killers.

  • The spots that our dogs have destroyed clover, they had destroyed the grass anyway. And that's under an old magnolia tree where everything struggles anyway. The rest of the back yard is fine.

  • dork enlightenment

    I have no idea how I've never seen this up to now, but good god that's the perfect encapsulation of that particular sect of morons.

  • The entire system is deeply corrupt beyond false positives.

    We know for a fact that Russia was systematically cheating testing and the grand sum of the punishment they faced for it was having to compete as "Olympic Athletes from Russia" for two years.

  • It also helps that their attempts to redirect back mostly serve to highlight their weird preoccupations.

    Things are happening like a former Trump speechwriter posting "Emmett Till was weird" on Twitter because they can't comprehend just how unhinged and generally weird saying something like that is to a normal person.

    Or they think they're being clever flipping the script and ranting about "boys saying they're girls is weird." "Why do you spend so much time obsessing over what children have in their pants? That's really weird."

    It all puts them in a bind. If they try to defend what they're saying as normal, it's very clear that it isn't. If they try to deflect with what they think is weird, it just shows how detached they are from normal reality. It's a surprisingly effective line of attack that largely neutralizes their normal gish galloping.

  • It's less that it's common platform and more that it's literally Toyota designed and built in Toyota factories.

    Similarly, the Toyota GR86 is a Subaru with a Toyota badge. It's built on a Subaru platform out of Subaru parts and every single one of them is built in a Subaru factory in Gunma, Japan. Toyota had more design input into the twins, but it'd still be amusing for someone to comment that the 86 "looks like any other Toyota" because the thing is a Subaru parts bin car.

  • Which is an interesting thing to say because it's a Toyota with a Subaru badge on it.

  • I'd be in favor of more. 26 is just because I think there's a very easy argument to make for "every circuit gets direct representation on SCOTUS" and it's not a huge leap to go to two per circuit from there.

    Increasing throughput is definitely one of the reasons I'd support doing this as well. Thanks for highlighting that since I didn't.

  • The problem is that the process for amending the Constitution is heavily, structurally biased in favor of the Republicans now. The GOP would absolutely rally around this issue because it's one of the primary things allowing them to hang on to power right now.

    I don't believe in engaging in theatrics with a zero percent chance of success when there are real, feasible steps that could be taken to make things better.

  • Article III only lays out there there will be a supreme court and a Chief justice and makes Congress responsible for establishing them. It does not lay out the makeup or structure of that court. The current body of 9 justices is set by federal statute and could be changed by a simple act of Congress.

    Article III also explicitly states that whatever Justices are appointed hold their office as long as they maintain good behavior (I e., as long as they haven't been impeached) and that Congress cannot reduce their pay.

    Term limits are explicitly unconstitutional.

    Setting the number of judges is explicitly within Congress' constitutional powers.

    Randomized panels would probably be challenged just because it's never been tested, but the language in the Constitution re: Congress establishing the Supreme Court is vague. That said, Congress has already established inferior Federal courts that operate in this manner, so there's precedent.

  • I think you're missing the point.

    As things stand now, you get cases that are tailor made to the whims of specific people because there's a 100% chance it ends up in front of those specific people. That's an absolutely massive problem.

    The point is that you're less likely to have cases that are specifically aimed at stroking any given individual's brand of crazy when there's only a ~1 in 3 chance they'll even hear it. A panel of 9 from a pool of 26 means that you go from a 100% chance that, say, Alito and Thomas, hear a case together to around 12%. That's a huge gamble when it takes years and a massive amount of money to get a case in front of SCOTUS.

    No, it doesn't solve all conceivable problems with the court. But it'd help address the fact that SCOTUS justices are entirely too powerful as individuals and it can be done via simple act of Congress.

    Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications

    Not going to happen. SCOTUS terms are life appointments constitutionally. That means you've gotten into amendment territory which just plain is not realistic right now.