Sure, but it seems weird to program that in. Part of his journey to becoming more human should be developing his own body dysmorphia, not having one assigned to him.

I mean, I think, Occam’s Razor, he’s got a rudimentary, non-functioning facsimile of a digestive tract that takes all the food he mashes up in his mouth and pushes out his poop-shoot when he wants to empty himself. That would allow him to have a mostly human-like eating experience, which would aid him in his quest to be more human. I think Soong would have argued pooping is integral to the human experience (After all, he made Data able to pointless eat, drink, and fuck. Why draw the line there?), but even if he didn’t, having Data lean over a sink and regurgitate everything he swallowed at the end if the day feels pretty inhuman.

Boy, I really don’t want to be disrespectful, but did I nail it or what?

So, I’m not a doctor, but it sounds like he’s showing early symptoms, he only has a 15% or living more than 5 years, and he’s more likely than not to die within the next year…I’m not trying to be cruel to the guy; cancer sucks and it’s awful he’s going through this. But given how narrow the Republican lead is in the House, it’s irresponsible to have him just stay in Congress at all, since he might miss crucial votes.

I mean, he does eat and drink to try and be more human. Where did you think it went?

Yeah, not the first time I’ve heard that, but I think it’s a bad system for communities that aren’t news/information based. Posts wind up in people’s feed based on upvotes and activity. By only downvoting only based on the rules of the community, it artificially raises the reach of content that the broader instance might not like.

There was a blowup about this a few months ago with the .world vegan community. A lot of posts were obnoxious memes insulting non-vegans, and a mod started banning anyone who ever downvoted them. Posts insulting the majority of the instance suddenly went from 55% upvotes to 95% upvotes and the whole thing became an instance-wide fight. The other mods eventually threw that mod out, but the whole community fell apart.

At the end of the day, it comes down to whether you think it’s the user’s job to block every community they don’t like or the mods job to accept criticism from the broader Lemmy base. I think it’s the former, especially when you consider the new user experience. I don’t think it’s good for a first-time visitor to see a bunch of AI slop or rage-baiting posts with high upvote ratios just because of the individual communities’ guidelines.

Agreed, but let’s take a moment to recognize that he is the highest ranked Democrat in the country, and the fact that no one sees him as the face of the party should be humiliating for him.

Coming in a distant second was close ally Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The pair recently went to various states with their Fighting Oligarchy tour. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) placed third in the survey with 8%.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris came in fourth with 6%. Following her was Pete Buttigieg with 5%, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) with 5%, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) with 4%, and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.

LOL, Chuck Schumer didn’t even place. That gives me a little hope.

Not sure, though, how this ploy would work out for our fine fellows in South America and Canada, the ones currently belabored with being the closest neighbours…

Fuck Mexico, I guess.

I downvote AI content when it winds up in my feed. I recently discovered I was banned from an AI, “art,” community for, “downvote trolling,” (AKA disliking content). At first, I was annoyed, but then I looked at the community and realized it was one guy sharing, “his,” art over and over again for virtually nobody and I just felt sad.

Damn, that’s a deep cut.

“WHY DID HE ACCEPT THAT MONEY IF HE IS SUCH A FAN OF HERS? ISN’T THAT A MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION?"

…does he think Bruce Springsteen was running for office?

I don’t wish cancer on anyone, but these kinds of health risks are exactly why it was sheer hubris to seek reelection in 2024 (or even election in 2020). Cancer, heart disease, and stroke risks are at their highest for people his age, not to mention the dangers of dementia and even just falling. Jerry Connolly and Mitch McConnell have had to step out of leadership due to age related health issues, Sylvester Turner and Raúl Grijalva died in office, and that’s just since the Congressional term started in January. I don’t want to be spiteful or cruel, but I feel extremely angry that he even attempted reelection and once again vindicated in saying his age made him unfit for office.

If you’re able to live on your own over the age of 90, you’re killing it.

Yeah, there have been a lot of attacks targeting AOC by faux-leftists accounts trying to sew discord. I’m not saying that’s you, but the discourse around H.R. 1449 was definitely part of that, so I definitely think you were exposed to some asroturfing on that, even if it was indirectly. In most ways, she has a stronger record on Palestinian rights than Bernie, who was slower to condemn Israel than many other progressives, and (to my knowledge) still hasn’t used the word, “genocide,” to describe what’s happening in Gaza. He’s still better than the vast majority of Democrats, but AOC has been an even stronger voice, and the attempt to smear her over one symbolic vote definitely seems like it was started by bad actors.

The problem with AIPAC isn’t just that it’s a powerful lobby, but that it’s one of several anti-progressive groups that the left has to contend with in Democratic primaries. Big tech companies (especially Alphabet) are huge spenders, as well as health insurance and big pharma, just to name a few. Fighting all the 150+ AIPAC- funded Democrats s would take a lot of time and energy, and probably won’t resonate as much with the average voter as something like health care would. I think the best strategy is to find the most vulnerable centrists and hammer them on all fronts. You’d probably have a better chance ousting someone like John Fetterman by pointing out that he’s taken money from the Pro-Israel lobby, Wall Street, the health care industry, and Google rather than fighting 17 Senate Democrats at once over AIPAC money.

The most important thing, though, is to defend progressives who are under attack from AIPAC. The next time someone like Cori Bush is targeted by AIPAC, people need to fund her, volunteer for her, and most importantly, refuse to allow the Israel lobby to equate condemning a genocide with antisemitism.

Well, first of all:

clearly the rest of the Democrat left didn’t share her worry about giving their enemies ammunition

Three members of the squad voted against it. Two of them are Muslim women from districts with large Muslim populations. The third lost her primary after AIPAC targeted her for criticizing Israel.

As for the rest of your comment, if you wanted to know why she voted for it, you could look it up. She commented on it at the time. She said it was a non-binding resolution, it didn’t directly use the problematic IHRA definition, but only references a State Department guideline that passively mentions the IHRA definition, and that if it had directly used IHRA language she would have voted against it. I’ll be honest, though, you don’t seem like you want your questions answered, you seem like you want to complain.

She’s consistently voted against of sending weapons to Israel, she attempted to block the sale of arms to Israel before October 7th, and she’s called what’s happening in Gaza a genocide on the House floor. I can count on one hand the number of House/Senate Democrats that have a record like that. She signed on to a mostly symbolic resolution rather than give her enemies ammunition by voting against, “Condemning the global rise of antisemitism and calling upon countries and international bodies to counter antisemitism.” I get not liking the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but please, get some fucking perspective.

I’ll be honest, I find that guy super annoying, but I appreciate you sharing it with me. It definitely makes me feel validated that someone else felt the same way

Yeah, it wasn’t even that the first one was bad, it’s just that all the things they mentioned in passing, like the New Founding Fathers and the exemptions for Level 10 Government Officials, were building a world that sounded super interesting. Then we got saddle with some boring rich family for 90 minutes. I only got around to seeing the first sequel, but it delivered on all the stuff I wanted to see after I heard that first announcement.

The original Purge. I thought all the background stuff and setting were super interesting, but the film itself was a generic home invasion movie. The sequel expanded on all the stuff I was interested in, though.

Fuck David Plouffe. He’s been trying to sell this bullshit since November 6th. He went on Pod Save America to explain what went wrong with the Harris campaign. Did he admit that they should have distanced themselves from Biden on Gaza? Or that campaigning with Liz Cheney and targeting moderate Republicans was a failed strategy? Or that their middle-class platform cost them working-class voters? Nope! The conclusion he came to was that they did everything right, but they just didn’t have enough time. Joe Biden should live out his remaining years in shame and isolation for refusing to step down, but Plouffe’s campaign strategy was political malpractice, and he his failures can’t be blamed in senility.