I would genuinely cry. He is older than both of them and could literally run circles around them, both mentally and physically. I would 100% vote for Bernie and be fine with it. The vote for Biden is because the armpit of hell that I live in doesn’t do ranked voting and Trump will wreck the planet. A rotting potato powering a computer core running ChatGPT left ignored on the resolute desk for 4 years would be a better alternative to these two fuckwits.

Seriously, why did they have to run Joe? If they had run someone in their 50’s or 60’s they would win on “well, he isn’t as old as Trump” alone. If they had run someone under the age of 40 I imagine every leftist voter under the age of 50 would have been voting for them. The only reason “he’s fucking old” doesn’t stick to Trump is because he behaves like a horny 15 year old jacked up on cocaine and Twitter.

Just… FML.

What gets me is part of Project 2025 is planning on reclassifying all of the workers in the exact agencies this affects with sycophants and yes-men. As I understand it, the entire idea of that move is that Trump and the GOP can bypass Congress and the courts and essentially rule however they want.

Doesn’t this decision run counter to that? Instead of allowing the regulatory bodies that are going to be sycophantilized to just run shot over their domains, now the risk having a non-sympathetic judge or an unfavorable swing in voting in Congress?

Oh, I get that. I actually have a BS in Applied Mathematics and specialize in Statistics, Probability Theory, and Data Science professionally. I am well aware of how unstable thses numbers are, which is why I made the jab at the “soft sciences” and their acceptable sigma analysis points.

What I was more noting was the linguistic tic of OP saying that they ‘exaggerated’. I freely admit that I did not actually read the article and do not know what the author did in it, but the click-bait title was accurate given the data shared. So what was done is to ‘sensationalize’ the results. If we are ever going to get better and teach society how to understand when statistics are being used to manipulate, we need to be sure to describe it in a way that people can recognize one manipulation from another.

I would see an example of manipulation through exaggeration being “cops kill more white people per year than black people”. Yes, this is true, but it is inflating one piece of the statistics that ignores a lot of relevant factors, like the per capita rate, the proportion of stops and actions by police which result in violence, etc.

Sensationalizing is what we have here. Intentionally choosing words that fell the full picture of the statistic in a way which causes knee jerk reactions. There isn’t anything left out per se, the time frame is described, the change in the statistic is mentioned, and a potential causal relationship is proffered. Would "The overturning of Roe has caused a statistically significant increase in the number of voluntary sterilizations among young US Citizens’ haave been more genuine, yes. Is it catchy or emotional, no.

I didn’t read this article, so idk how they spun things, but given the title and the information you shared from the actual study, they sensationalized, not exaggerated. 5.31 is an 87% increase from 2.31, which is a rounding error off 2x. Honestly, in medical/psychological/anthropological/sociological studies the sigmas are never high enough for my comfort as a probabilist anyway.

I’ve become personally partial to “landleech”.

When cops only legal responsibility is to enforce the law, and the laws are written to protect corporate interests, of course they will stand outside the school and arrest protesters. SCOTUS has ruled that way so many times that “to serve and protect” is literally gaslighting.

I mean… wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

That is the definition for Fraud. It should already be illegal for a politician to lie. Fraud is illegal in most countries from what I understand.

I mean, technically if you are able bodied you have the capacity to remove anyone from office, it just generally does not end well for the one enacting the removal.

Don’t worry, they will also be making it so you have to use their data mining apps that require unconscionable permissions just to see that they are changing prices every 10 seconds.

Came here to say this. The SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that police officers and other agents of the government are only legally obligated to capture criminals, not prevent laws from being broken. A cop can legally watch someone execute someone and as long as they arrest the perpetrator afterwards, they are legally in the clear. Never believe a cop who says they are here to protect you. In a world where the laws are written to protect business interests and cops only have to uphold the law, the cops are nothing more than tax funded corporate enforcers.

And here I thought the answer was to light rental properties on fire until it was too expensive to insure them and all of the landleeches ended up in squalor?

It really is unfortunate as it COULD be a really good feature if it were being implemented by someone who wasn’t just trying to crowdsource AI training data that will go into commercial products without compensation to anyone. It could be a great tool for professionals and experts to expand on what creators say, a way to call out falsehoods and Hypocrites, and a way to find your people in a world that is growing ever bleaker. But no, it is just being done to force more ads down our throats and harvest more money from us.

Wait, if I am reading this right it is saying that Mary’s tits should be an open tap for anyone who wants a drink?

It’s called GoodRX. Always check it. At least Walgreen’s is bound by the prices on there, I’m sure most other pharmacies are as well.

No bug found, working as intended.

Why are we surprised? They were the ones who pioneered the DLC microtrans model. I would legitimately have been more surprised if this headline were the converse statement.

I feel like there is a semantic difference between an Atheist and a Pretender. Trump is a Pretender, Reagan was a Pretender. Most of the right wing legislators are pretenders. Both believers and pretenders are dangerous. Actual Athiests are open about their beliefs. They are usually fine.

Yes, many. Are they going to do any of them? Not even remotely. If any actual governance occurs while Biden is in office then they can’t claim him to be inept at governing.

The problem with this one is that while it proves that it has more smut than literally any book they are banning, it also is a direct support of their attacks on sex workers, which I would rather be able to refute as well.

This, and as long as the company is legally structured to prevent restructuring things will be fine.