reliabilityguy

Of course.

What does it have to do with the original claim, which is not domestic in its scope, and immigration enforcement, which is domestic?

The court ruled on the constitutional matter, not international policy.

Do you see the difference?

I see that you still do not understand the difference between the stated claim, and its scope, and your evidence. You also seem not to understand the difference between the US government, which is an executive branch, and the Supreme Court, which is a judicial branch, and by design has no policy to push.

> Sorry but you are just riding semantics here - what is the difference between far-right, extreme-right and “fringe”-right?

I have no idea what is the practical difference. I would say that far right is a party or a group that believe in inherent superiority of certain race over the other. Like, white power, etc. I do not think that saying things like “my culture is better” is racist or makes you far right.

> AfD is classified as extreme-right by German intelligence. > The US vice president gave them an endorsement in public speeches and met with their leaders privately. > The AFD is actively promoting racist, fringe(sic!)-right ideas such as “remigration” (aka trying to get rid of all German citizens that don’t look “german” enough)

It shows support by JD Vance, sure.

> The US government is explicitly promoting the racist ideology that parties like the AFD represent.

I would not agree that this constitutes as explicitly promoting. In my view explicitly promoting an ideology is standing on a stand and repeating the goals of said ideology. Did JD Vance said that reimigration is a good thing, and that he fully supports it for Germany? Idk, if he did, let’s see, and I will concede.

> If that isn’t enough to open your eyes, please explain what level of “evidence” would be enough - but I rather feel like you have made up your mind long before and aren’t really looking for an honest discussion

I didn’t make my mind. I’m very much against racism, and any other form of discrimination. I’m also against intellectually lazy forms of debate.

In my view and my experience the journalists discredited themselves so much in the past 5 years, so I simply do not trust their interpretations at all (regardless of their political affiliation). Show me the source, so I can see myself.

I did not move a goal post. Show me where the US government explicitly states that their goal is to promote racist ideology. Not a new article about nothing and filled with interpretations. But an actual evidence.

You are saying that basically we do not have to hold anyone to any standard because (1) it’s hard, and (2) it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion.

Great!

If the US government explicitly stated their goal of promoting racist ideology, then it should not be hard to find a video clip of a video conference, a published policy memo, or anything of the sorts, that states this. Not an interpretation written by a journalist of something, but a raw source. But, there is nothing.

All we have is articles written in media (which can be biased), which you parse with your own specific bias (so, it’s already bias(bias(rumor))), and you want me to accept it?

I’m sorry, but it sounds like BS.

Show me the tweet please this is all I am asking

And this domestic ruling is, in your view, an evidence of the “very explicitly stated goals of sowing discord within the US's former "allies", to weaken Europe, and to promote racist and fringe-right views.”?

You can’t be serious. The original claim is about the foreign policy of US government to promote racist ideologies, and your “proof” is a ruling about constitutionality of using race and language as a indicator to investigate someone’s immigration status?

Sure, but it is not the same thing as explicitly promoting racist and fringe-right ideas.

JD Vance may have voiced support (I didn’t listen to his speech) for conservative or right-wing political forces in Europe, but it is not the same as promoting explicitly racist and fringe-right ideas. There is a night and day difference between the original claim, and the evidence presented.

I’ve read the article and I do not see any evidence to the original claim. Where did Vance say that he supports racist ideologies? Being anti-immigration is not racist.

> You want concrete proof?

Yes.

> Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof.

This court case has nothing to do with the claim made that US government explicitly stated that they want to promote racists and fringe-right ideology among our allies.

> not even bothering to dogwhistle

So, basically, you are saying that they are openly racist?

Is there any evidence of this?

> If you need a source for that you haven’t been following the news.

Nice deflection. You are the one making outlandish claims, so the proof is on you and not the “news” that someone is supposed to follow.

> very explicitly stated goals of sowing discord within the US's former "allies", to weaken Europe, and to promote racist and fringe-right views.

The US government explicitly said that they seek to promote racist and fringe-right views? Do you have any sort of evidence to back it up?

> Do you see the sleight of hand I'm talking about?

Yes. I have sociologists in my extended friends group, and we had a couple of heated discussions on why interviewing 20 subjects is not sufficient for the conclusions they have. But, turns out, it’s the norm in their specific field. Go figure

> I'm arguing that science is great because it produces better output than the people that make it as long as they stick to good methods.

I don’t think we have a contradiction here. What I am saying is that science is made by people, and we as scientists have to be extremely vigilant today not to let “ends justify the means” crowd to use the name of science for their own agenda.

What a wonderful way to not discuss the facts and claims made by you on their merits.

Also, I am not sure how you can imply that you are unbiased.

> I say this because I think non-scientists regularly say that science is biased because scientists are biased.

As any other field, the science is as good as the scientist that produced it. For example, there is a serious reproducibility crisis in multiple fields, like psychology, and social sciences. In the latter it is hard to say of its due to systemic educational failure of the PhD students in those fields, or that the field and personal politics are merging too tightly.

Unfortunately, all it takes is one bad scientist to discredit the rest, e.g., Wakefield.

So what is the percentage?

> And given the whole Greater Israel plan

What is this “plan”?

> Palestinians live under a system of occupation and blockade

What did the Palestinians do to not end up in this situation?

> genocide

War is not genocide. And remarks by some of the politicians are not a proof of genocide as well.

> There is no way that Israel will be welcomed into the wider ME under this regime.

Israel just need to be stronger to survive as they did in the first 20-30 years of their statehood.

> What do you mean by “back”?

> Egypt wanted its land back after failing to reclaim it in 1973.

It seems you are aware that peace deal with Egypt is what got Sinai back to Egypt.

Question: why do Palestinians do not take a unilateral step of declaring “no more armed resistance”? If basks can, why Palestinians can’t?

> Hamas was sticking relatively well to the ceasefire

By launching rockets? Are you serious?

How can you argue in good faith that launching unguided rockets indiscriminately over civilian population centers as “sticking to the ceasefire”?

Palestinians too. Unfortunately, they are not sticking to their side of the bargain as well.

How do you know?

Are you saying that the Jews didn’t buy land in the Ottoman Empire and the early British mandate times?

I know that the pro-Palestinian side attempts to erase any link of Jewish people to the area, but there are documents that are not even 100 years old.

> No, the British backed the Jordanians, not the Palestinians.

What is the difference between Jordanians and Palestinians given that the line that separates them is drown by the Brits?

> So there was no ethnic cleansing at all? I suppose 700k or so Palestinians just oopsied their way out of their homes and villages.

So they all left because Israel kicked them all out? What about the interviews and news articles from the time where Arabs themselves said that Jordan Army asked them to leave for the duration of the fights?

And you are the one talking about narratives?

> War starts with neighboring countries, partly to disrupt the ethnic cleansing campaign against a mostly defenseless population

Did you made this all up?

There is zero evidence that the war started because the Jews were ethnically cleansing “defenseless population”. It is enough to go to the library and read newspapers from the time where Arabs openly stated that they do no accept Jewish state for the sake of it being Jewish.

In principle? No. In practice? I think others, eg TPUs and Trainiums of the world will cannibalize a lot of Cerebras’s share. I am not an expert though, that’s why I’m asking opinions of others.

I have a question for those who closely follows Cerebras: do they have a future beyond being inference platform based on (an unusual) in-house silicon?

> make the issue salient to bigots that have

That’s why the government should be transparent.