You keep calling it “rage bait” to quote him, but I think that’s missing a big aspect of this. The man was very intentionally phrasing these things in ways that he knew would upset people who didn’t agree with him. There’s a whole culture around that on the far right, where you’re supposed to say things that would enrage “the left” because that’s how people know you’re “based” and not “woke.” And obviously he’s not worried about people being offended because anyone who would be offended isn’t his target audience, while people who are his target audience will get a dopamine hit from hearing him offend those other people. It’s win-win for him. So with the thing about the pilots, he knows full well that the standards are the same, but he also knows that his audience are going to be sympathetic to the idea of being uncomfortable around black people, so the facts be damned, he’s gonna pretend that’s a rational argument against DEI.

So I don’t think it’s the clip videos that are the “rage bait” here. I think that’s part and parcel of the whole Charlie Kirk idiom.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/your-password-must-contain-the-following

I made a neural net from scratch with my own neural net library and trained it on generating the next move in a game of Go, based on thousands of games from an online Go forum.

It never even got close to learning the rules.

In retrospect, “thousands of games” was nowhere near enough training data for such a complex task, and if we had had enough training data, we never could have processed all of it, since all we were using was a ca. 2004 laptop machine with no GPU. So we just really overreached with that project. But still, it was a really pathetic showing.

Edit: I switched from “I” to “we” here because I was working with a classmate, but we did use my code. She did a lot of the heavy lifting in getting the games parsed into a form where the network could train on it, though.

This suggests a whole new kind of D&D alignment chart.

Maybe punished for incitement, on the grounds that it was “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”? Tough to prove in court but as a bystander I’m frustratingly unsurprised the one thing followed the other.

Don’t forget that he paid for and directed a music video specifically to make fun of Kapoor. It’s called “Bean Boy.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8XOQ6DbXXOo

What I think is that to learn someone has attempted a deadly attack, then learn that their voter registration is with a particular party, and conclude that this tells you everything you could possibly need to know about the motivation of the attack is bizarrely reductive. I asked if you thought fascism was the motivation for the attempted Trump shooter’s actions because your previous reply had shifted the conversation to fascism and I was trying to understand what you perceived as its relevance to the conversation. I was not, in any way, attempting to defend fascism, and I’m kinda troubled to have given anyone that impression.

In any case I think this conversation is getting unproductive. I’m sorry I got you riled.

Are you saying that you think being fascist was his motivation for shooting at Trump?

It’s because, for the most part, it doesn’t actually have access to the text itself. Before the data gets to the “thinking” part of the network, the words and letters have been stripped out and replaced with vectors. The vectors capture a lot of aspects of the meaning of words, but not much of their actual text structure.

What I said was that he didn’t appear to have much identifiable political motivation for the shooting, which is largely supported by that article. The person I was replying to asked if he was MAGA, which it does not appear he was. I mean, I suppose you could assume that every registered Republican at this point must be MAGA, but I feel like the fact that this guy took a shot at Trump kind of calls that assumption into question.

Basically I don’t think “he was a registered republican!” says anything more about his motivation than “he donated to a progressive get-out-the-vote program in 2021!” which was a big talking point on the right-wing news at the time. People are complicated and he wasn’t disinterested in politics, but it seems like the main reason he tried to kill Trump is that he wanted there to be more political assassination attempts in general and decided to be the change he wanted to see in the world.

The one who clipped his ear didn’t seem to have much identifiable political motivation. He googled a bunch of politicians from both parties and found Trump was closest.

The one who shot at him on the golf course appears to have been motivated by the war in Ukraine, maybe?

Neither had any big democratic manifesto or anything.

I don’t think we actually know the motivation of Kirk’s shooter either. I think these folks are just assuming a Democrat did it because that’s who they already wanted an excuse to start killing.

Yeah, it’s a total fascist shitshow here right now.

Yeah, drinking from the hose was a lot less problematic than just breathing the air, which was full of tetraethyl lead.

I’m pretty sure gnutrino was making a different, second joke. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoonerism

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/02/nx-s1-5525984/venezuela-trump-drugs-caribbean

M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead

Introducing the new Amazon Ring Defender–the only doorbell with a live video feed and live ammunition! Don’t like what you see happening on your doorstep? Now you don’t have to be home to defend your castle!

Yeah, I can’t help reading about the Chicago Police Department (CPD) being instructed not to go along with Tom Homan without thinking of the stories about the Homan Square facility in Chicago where CPD would detain people for days without charging them, without giving them access to their lawyers, etc. If we’re thinking CPD are supposed to be some kind of bulwark against fascism, we’re SO fucked.

Edit: To be clear, as far as I know, the shared name is a total coincidence, but it really makes it hard not to think about the history of the department.

I also use way too many em dashes (usually as double hyphens), but I also overuse parentheses and commas and just overly long sentence structures. I would like to think that my style remains pretty distinct from LLM output style at the moment.

The thing that really worries me is that as they stop using weird identifiable quirks like em dashes and emoji, it could be that the identifiable trait that remains is eerily consistent grammar. It used to be that people unconsciously treated extremely grammatical text as authoritative, regardless of its actual merit; as such, teachers spent literal decades drilling into me the habit of avoiding grammatical errors. Now that could end up instead just making folks think I’m a robot, and thus to be ignored.

I guess the actual robots will probably talk less about their neurotic concerns, though, so I’ve got that going for me, which is nice.

Oh, I only minored in math, I’m no expert either! Yeah, your explanation was really fine, I just thought the “sum of a geometric series” thing might ring a bell for some readers.