As far as reasons not to vote for him go, there are plenty more important ones. But it seems to be a thing.

It was heavily talked about for as long as the news cycle could bear it, after Kinzinger made a particularly memorable description: like a combination “of armpits, ketchup and butt.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-gop-lawmaker-doubles-down-115915282.html

Kathy Griffin said she has experience from The Apprentice and he smells “really bad”: https://www.newsweek.com/cnn-adam-kinzinger-donald-trump-odor-x-twitter-1853353

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner says he smells like “cooking oil.” https://www.newsweek.com/alex-wagner-donald-trump-smells-cooking-oil-late-show-1939625

Yeah, I was amazed by Atlas Shrugged too…when I was 14.

Isn’t the under 18 procedure pretty much reserved for those who are a high risk of suicide unless they can transition?

In court there’s such a thing as a directed verdict, and also ruling on an issue as a matter of law. Basically where there’s no reasonable jury that could decide otherwise, the judge directs the decision.

That’s kind of how I feel - not removing the democratic process obviously, but this is a situation you can be for Trump or reasonable, not both.

Just for fun: this would have worked so much better if they price dropped the PS5 and introduced the PS5 Pro at the old price.

People are anchored into thinking the PS5 is a certain value, and if they did that, it would instantly make the PS5 Pro and the PS5 appear to be a bargain, and so much of the PS5-owning public would have bought another system because it would be “such a good deal,” while PS5 fence-sitters would jump at the core system. I’m not trained to say for sure, but I think while their profit margin would be lower they’d be making much more money.

Ah, yes. “It was sarcasm.” Trump pulled that last night too.

If you didn’t like it then I meant something different and you just didn’t get it. Women love that response.

Kamala eventually got around to referencing his “love letters” to Kim Jong Un, but I was hoping so hard she would note that Mr. “I’m so powerful, they’re all afraid of me” saluted the guy.

“I’m not a puppet, you’re the puppet.”

I also feel like the moderators were relatively good at calling out egregious lies and not giving Trump the final word. Usually.

But yeah, Trump apparently controlled the mics, not the moderators.

Yeah, I watched Trump train the moderators live. They gave in once and then he would keep doing it more and more until they gave in every time.

Then Harris tried to get an extra response like Trump did near the end and they just ignored her.

They’re an English professor, in that they profess to speak English. I think their name was also very English, maybe Prof. John Barron?

I’m still just like, we all are looking at the same guy, right?

The obvious conman? The guy who said the 2020 election was stolen before voting even ended, and had been giving signals he wouldn’t accept the results unless he won months before? The guy who we heard tell Raffensberger to find the votes to steal the election for himself? The guy whose comms director sounds like a North Korean news anchor?

I feel like you just need a 7-year-old’s credibility detector to see the man is lying and not credible. It’s that hard? I can’t keep up with how quickly I need to lower my expectations.

This is what we should’ve spent every waking moment doing since 2016. Why do we distract so easily…

only site’s

*cite’s

(… /s)

Every time there is funding on the table, the Republicans take the country hostage and create a crisis unless they get something completely unrelated, unjustified and partisan. I’m getting pretty tired of this skipping record.

The main goal of misinformation not to convince people of its truth, although that helps when it happens. It’s to create enough noise to drown out signal and make people disengage. That cognitive dissonance is exhausting, and the exhaustion in turn makes other misinformation and law/norm-breaking easier to proliferate.

The classic Republican platform: “Government doesn’t work. Elect us and we’ll prove it.”

I like the term I first read today, “sanewashing.”

Journalistic neutrality standards are good things when reporting on ambiguity, but you can’t give equal deference to both delusional and sane individuals.

But the researchers then dive head-first into wild claims:

GameNGen answers one of the important questions on the road towards a new paradigm for game engines, one where games are automatically generated, similarly to how images and videos are generated by neural models in recent years.

To which the obvious reply is: no it doesn’t, where did you get any of this? You’ve generated three seconds of fake gameplay video where your player shoots something and it shoots back. None of the mechanics of the game work. Nothing other than what’s on-screen can be known to the engine.

Yeah, this was apparent immediately.

Diffusion models are just matrices of positional and temporal probabilities. It is absolutely incompatible with even the simplest demands of a game, since any player will reject a game if it lacks reliable and input-deterministic outcomes. The only way to get that reliability is to create a huge amount of training data, and spend exorbitant resources training on it to the point of harshly over-fitting the model to the data, all of which requires that the team first make the game they’re emulating before they start training. It’s nonsense.

If someone is going to use AI to make a game, they would get exponentially higher ROI using AI to generate code that writes once the relationship between the data, versus inferring the raw data of every individual pixel.

The demo was always effectively a clickbait novelty for likes.

I suspect between Russian influence operations and the billionaire sociopaths, Trump’s funding isn’t a factor at this point.

But I’m doomscrolling these comments trying to find any practical silver-lining, so I genuinely appreciate this attempt.