The most common variant of the "abolish DHS" opinion simply holds that this re-org was unsuccessful and should be reverted.
6,608 karma · joined October 3, 2007
The most common variant of the "abolish DHS" opinion simply holds that this re-org was unsuccessful and should be reverted.
1) Exit polling (https://www.timesunion.com/capitol/article/voted-trump-new-y...) does not back you up. More college educated New Yorkers reported voting for Trump than total fraction of San Franciscans that voted for Trump.
2) Middlesex County, Massachusetts (roughly, the north half of greater Boston) is an alternative example to NYC that has a very similar proportion of college degrees compared to SFO (about 1% less). Middlesex County is in the northeast. About 42% of those voters voted for Trump, which is more than New York and more than double SFO. Suffolk County (with Boston proper) has very similar numbers to NYC for both college education and voting for Trump. This can't be explained as a cultural difference between NYC and Boston because the Suffolk ratios are so similar. It can't be explained as an educational difference between SFO and Boston because the Middlesex educational numbers are so similar but there are proportionally more Trump voters than NYC. It can't be explained as a cultural difference between Suffolk and Middlesex because first, they are direct neighbors sharing a public transit system, and second, Middlesex is considerably more traditionally leftist than Suffolk (leaning on that cultural difference would undermine your original argument).
Of course, growth like this can only continue for so long without changing that.
I don't think you can decouple Trump from himself in this way without a concrete explanation. If some factor causes one to dislike something just because Trump likes it, then that same factor would influence voting. We have numbers for voting. When there are lots of other plausible explanations than Trump, the onus would be on you to demonstrate why more people are taking reverse-psychological cues from Trump in a place where more people also voted for him. Gesturing at "culture" doesn't do that.
> Its just the thing that upsets me the most about your everyday liberal professional, how much they hate AI just because Trump is pro AI
That's what I'm refuting here -- that people here dislike AI just to be contrary to Trump. This is implausible.
And trying to lecture a life long New Englander who currently lives within the MBTA zone on what the culture is like in the northeast is maybe not the best look. We aren't afraid of Waymos here; the only people I've met who weren't jealous of them were taxi or Uber drivers. That supports my hypothesis, not yours.
[0]- Assuming it's true, which in my experience it isn't especially, but this isn't the best argument.
Whether or not you think it likely that this threat will materialize is beside the point. Workers never like it when someone is advertising that they will put you out of work.
It's just that subvocalization is one powerful technique for organizing thoughts, but not the only one. If you had a swimmer who only ever learned the crawl stroke (freestyle), they might wonder how someone can swim without it. The difference, of course, is that the breaststroke is a demonstrable physical act whereas cognitive techniques are not. The monologuers are just more practiced at subvocalization-based reasoning, and the non-monologuers are more practiced at other types.
It's not that hard to exert limited control over which technique you're using -- and I think there are multiple nonverbal techniques. I'd encourage people to explore the space a bit. Subvocalization-first approaches are very good for linear progressions, whereas subvocalization-last (or never) approaches are usually better for big-picture reasoning.
It doesn't show up in the short term numbers because it is a long-term solution. But Americans aren't interested in long-term solutions.
Making it a kind of super holiday where we mandate closure of everything from gas stations to non-emergency hospital services might help, but you're never getting the votes to make that change.
Of course, point 1 (which includes immediate stoppage of the fighting in Lebanon) isn't happening -- which sort of renders the rest of the thing moot anyway.
Inclusion of Lebanon in the cease-fire is an Iranian condition, not an American one. Since Iran clearly has the leverage here, it's unclear what you expect the US to do to cause this decoupling.
Still cheaper than a new Mac. Maybe not cheaper than a used one.
80 years later, we have something approximating AI, and we're trying to restrict it with simple bright-line rules. Not because we never learned that lesson, but because we simply haven't come up with a better way to do it. Probably because a better way to do it just doesn't exist.
The hilarious part, though, is that it's not the AI that's working around the rules. That's the scenario that's been in science fiction, but it's not what's happening. It's the human users making use of our agency to get the AI agents to work around the rules. Despite calling them "agents", current AI agents don't seem to be able to that particular something. Yet, at least.
Nobody seems to care about either of those, either.
How is that worse than the current situation? Iran is closer to nuclear capability now than in your counterfactual, yet those who disagree with you are the ones who want a nuclear-capable Iran?
The more your toolchain (compilers, linters, etc) can statically verify, the better agents will do.
The terser the code, the better agents will do.
The more often similar problems have been solved in open source, the better agents will do. Agents seem particularly good at plumbing together different pieces of software.
Anything that requires a judgement call, as opposed to having one obvious way to do it, will get worse results from an agent.
As the scope of the request grows, agents get worse at it. This can be mitigated somewhat using various techniques ("write a plan", "do step 1 of the plan", etc) but never fully resolved. At some point the task is so big that it's necessary to do large parts by hand.
However, his base is smaller than it seems like it is. It definitely does not include everyone who voted for him. A substantial fraction of his voters just prioritized other things over the rule of law.
That prioritization was a critical mistake - both because he was never going to deliver on those other things, and because giving up rule of law is catastrophic. It is understandable, though. It's these people who may be starting to break fron Trump.
That is what has led to Trump. What little evidence we have indicates that bullying just works. It's not the only thing that works -- see Obama -- but it does work. Ignoring the bullying doesn't.
Or do they just regret that they were fooled by this guy, specifically? That he's not accomplishing his stated goals, whether or not he is taking his promised actions? If it's this one, then it's only a matter of time before another charlatan does the same thing better.