mrala

This is also mentioned in the article that you linked:

> In April 2016, during UN-brokered peace talks in Kuwait, Houthi representatives gave the United States a "sincere apology" for the "Death to America" slogan, claiming that the slogan was used for "domestic consumption as a means to attract support in the streets and create a common cause between their supporters to keep them united."

> During the Red Sea crisis, Houthi supporters waved the flag of Palestine every Friday during anti-Gaza genocide and anti-western attacks on Yemen demonstrations, alongside the slogan and flag of Yemen. A new Houthi slogan appeared after the group's re-designation as a terrorist organisation: "America is the mother of terrorism" set on a red background.

It would be interesting to compare the costs of a top of the line machine every decade or so. Costs were steadily decreasing until recently.

Interestingly, from the article you linked:

> The quote "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law." (Spanish: Para mis amigos, todo; para mis enemigos, la ley) is often attributed to Benavides, although other sources also attribute it to other Latin American heads of state, such as Benito Juárez, Juan Perón, Getulio Vargas, or Juscelino Kubitschek.

> Is all of this arbitrary?

You’re describing language.

> It was also perplexing when Iran was shooting missiles at their allies, until you realize they aren't rational humans.

Ah yes, the classic “my enemies are ontologically evil” gambit.

What is your definition of speech? It seems like you are defining it literally.

> NemoClaw is expected to be officially unveiled at NVIDIA's annual developer conference, GTC 2026, scheduled for mid-March 2026. NVIDIA has been actively presenting the platform to enterprise software companies ahead of the public announcement.

Guess we will find out.

> But this rant's "solution", which seems to be "let's empower the police state to do more excesses" - yeah, no.

What led you to believe this is the solution presented in the article? Much less try to pass those statements off as quoting or paraphrasing.

> Maybe let's just ensure that everyone gets the same due process?

That is the actual solution presented in the last two sections of the article.

Have a link to your blog?

It sounds objective to claim a reasonable person would not kill a person because they felt scared. Based on the video footage[0], a reasonable person would be able to tell that woman presented no threat. Even if you argue shooting her in the leg because he was scared, it is nearly impossible to claim he was still scared and he has stalked her around her car and then shot her five more times. That is objectively, an unreasonable response to being scared when it’s apparent the woman was not endangering his life.

[0]: https://youtu.be/RSlOY39ynaY

The article continues to argue the point:

> Sanchez was charged following a search that ICE proclaimed on social media turned up “literal insurrectionist propaganda” he had allegedly transported from his home to an apartment, noting that “insurrectionary anarchism is regarded as the most serious form of domestic (non-jihadi) terrorist threat.” The tweet also said that Sanchez is a green card holder granted legal status through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

> The indictment claims Sanchez was transporting those materials to conceal them because they incriminated his wife. But how can possession of literature incriminate anyone, let alone someone who isn’t even accused of anything but being present when someone else allegedly fired a gun? Zines aren’t contraband; it’s not illegal to be an anarchist or read about anarchism. I don’t know why Sanchez allegedly moved the box of documents, but if it was because he (apparently correctly) feared prosecutors would try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s.

The title is “Did a US Chess Champion Cheat?” and the text of the article uses statistical analysis to show that the person most likely did not cheat. What would you consider to be misleading between the title and the article?

> Far away galaxies appear both older and redder the further away they are, so red is the past.

> If the galaxies are turning red, you are in the future.

Aren’t these statements saying the same thing?

You seem to be missing the point entirely.

1. The bill shown for July 2024 was for about $100, which includes $65 of supply charges.

2. The bill for July 2025 was for about $129, with supply charges of $84.

3. Despite actual usage being lower for July 2025, the total cost increased by 29%.

The point being raised is that energy costs are higher for individuals because the cost of building infrastructure to support data centers is being subsidized by individuals. Even if her bill was for $65, it is inconsequential to the main point. I don’t understand why people make comments like yours other than to muddy the waters and obfuscate the issue. Or truly failing to understand what is being communicated due to some bias or ideology. A sad microcosm of what passes for discourse in our time.

> He added, however, that it is important to remember the limitations of such studies: "We used point/money to represent the real-life costs associated with actions like campaigning or going on a protest march. Experiments like these are only meant to simulate aspects of the real world, not perfectly represent its complexity."

> Behavior may be different if participants had earned their points rather than simply received them, or both Proposers and Responder shared a common identity or wider goal.

> "Still," Dr. Gordon continues, "it is a reminder that we should be mindful of attempts to limit the ability to hold power to account. For example, through anti-protest, anti-strike, and voter suppression laws. In an era marked by growing global inequality, this study offers critical insights into the psychology of power, and the mechanisms that can promote more equitable societies."

It was a metaphor. Are you taking it personally because the shoe fits?

Conservatives have been trying to redefine equity as equality out of outcomes for some time now. It is disingenuous at best.

You are objectively incorrect almost across the board but especially about what “MLK was looking for.” See: https://www.diverseeducation.com/opinion/article/15661878/ho...

> I'm presently in the most oppressed group -- I'm a white heterosexual male.

The group you are in is the perpetually seeking victimhood group.

> All the DEI training materials claim that I'm "inherently racist", which is a ploy to punish me unjustly.

Right, the problem is not the actual racism rather it’s pointing out things that could be racist and making racists feel bad about being racist.

You say that like it’s a worse option.

LOD = level of detail

Yes, if you have never heard of Kimi Research, it is unclear what the article is about. It seems to be referring to Moonshot AI’s product called Kimi.

https://www.moonshot.ai/ https://moonshotai.github.io/Kimi-Researcher/

Since the article doesn’t mention it, CPA stands for cost per action.

Are you seriously comparing the use of pronouns in emails to swastikas?

What evidence is there for this claim?

FTA:

> Every five years, surveyors fan out across Bhutan measuring the nation's happiness. The results are analyzed and factored into public policy.

Or are you asking whether the results of the survey can be trusted?

The article literally states this fact:

> Bhutan, which is about the size of Maryland, was largely isolated from the rest of the world for centuries. The kingdom was so protective of its unique Buddhist culture that it only started allowing foreign tourists to visit in the 1970s and didn't introduce television until 1999.

This might be a great example of epistemic trespassing.

Think you might be projecting just a little?

I suppose there could be any number of reasons. Maybe they were already using SSO prior to using a password manager and it would take more effort than an extra millimeter to switch.

That is also my preference. However, that is not the question that is being asked.