So funny that Musk has specifically chickened out of a fight like that.

Build a wall and make the Goron pay for it!

I’ve had limited experience with slack, but the whole way conversations map to workspaces at least got to be confusing to me, and I would have liked an experience based on me as a user, rather than having my user span workspaces and have to juggle them to figure out how to talk to whoever I’m supposed to talk to at the time.

For me “it just works” doesn’t ring true. Generally at least once a day, I join a call and it won’t let me unmute, and I have to restart Teams.

Scrolling through history is obnoxiously slow.

The activity feed is mostly useless, spammed with stuff that isn’t important and it’s the only place that vaguely tries to keep track of ‘Teams’ conversations.

In my company, I’ve been added to about 70 Teams and it’s pretty much impossible to interact with them, so as a result no one does, they all just start ad-hoc chats, since that’s the only thing that vaguely gets managed in a way people can follow.

When going cross-organization, it’s a crap shoot whether or not we can use text, voice, and screen share/remote control. I know this is generally due to obnoxious company ‘security’ policies and other solutions have it, but it is a frustration. One recent call with a particularly screwed up company had us on two different meeting platforms at once as well as on an old fashioned conference call, because text was only allowed on one platform, screen share on another, and no audio was allowed on either (despite both supporting all three).

Sure, Teams suffers, in part, because like all corporate tools it connects you to generally dysfunctional work communities. However it broadly does have it’s own annoyances.

I would say LLMs specifically are in that ball park. Things like machine vision have been boringly productive and relatively un hyped.

There’s certainly some utility to LLMs, but it’s hard to see through all the crazy over estimations and being shoved everywhere by grifters.

Then he just gets to sell a whole new batch of 48 merch and get even more money… That would really show him?

I frankly think that while Bernie should be right, he’s not. His strategy would have also failed, though I’d rather that have been the attempt.

Simple fact of the matter is that out of 10 major countries with elections this year, all the incumbents lost. Didn’t matter whether they were left or right or whatever, they lost. Democrats were doomed by being the incumbents at a time when just so many are unhappy with how things currently are, and people are eager to change everything for a shot. Between having the pandemic become endemic everywhere, economies struggling to digest the massive COVID stimulus, supply chains still off due to both recovering from shutdowns and war, and just the overall situation in Ukraine and Gaza, there’s a lot for people to want a change of course, and they don’t know specifically how this all could get fixed.

Even if they went all-in on more leftist policies, most voters won’t see beyond the ‘D’ and know ‘D’ is what we had today, therefore ‘R’ must be attached to the answer. A critical mass of the electorate either can not or will not critically consider the respective platforms and instead just decide based on ‘keep the same’ or ‘change course’.

Meanwhile, in political circles, everyone is talking like the specifics and strategies made this huge difference or that huge difference and what it means, when the fact is likely that this result was pretty much a given no matter what.

Well, if goods become even more expensive, and wages fail to improve or get worse, then people tend to notice that more than the spin.

Sure you have very loud passionate politically active people who are game for “their team” to win no matter what and will listen to anything to rationalize their position and reject anything that disagrees, but a lot of folks are just looking at their personal circumstance and deciding if they think it’s bad or not and voting either to continue or change, without a whole lot of consideration of what either side says will work or why things are the way they are, they just know “keep it going” or “change it out”.

Well, a scenario is that he cuts taxes and applies massive tariffs, resulting in a huge regressive expense paid the most by the poorest. That he lets companies be more sociopathic toward their workers and says “screw you” to anyone that needs welfare.

The end result if 2 years sees even more expensive bills and less safe employment and less recourse when the employment screws them over would be an electorate that demands him out and takes it out on the house and senate races. Perhaps to the point where they could remove him from office, and maybe even Vance too, and have a Democratic president finish out his term.

So his point is simply that while he pursues republican economic policy, which I suspect the author agrees with broadly, to take it easy and make sure he doesn’t piss everyone off in the process.

That summary was a bit misleading compared to the linked summary.

“What Americans really want, sir, is fewer protections on the job and a weaker safety net,”

The conservative economist is not saying that he shouldn’t have tax cuts and maybe some deregulation, is that he shouldn’t screw the pooch for swing voters in the process.

As he looks toward his new term, Mr. Trump could claim a mandate to lead however he wishes,

As an example, I heard a MAGA politician on the radio the other day. Admittedly it didn’t sound like anyone “hooked in” to Trump’s circle, but I suspect his rhetoric was consistent. The interviewer put to him a question like “given how divisive things are, what do you hope Trump will do to be a good leader for all the nation, including those that didn’t vote for him?”. The response was that Trump won, therefore, there’s no mandate to do anything for the losing voters, and the mandate was simple to do whatever Trump wants to do.

Further, Don Jr. said a key facet for anyone in Trump’s administration is that there must be no one who would dare think themselves smarter than the president. Only yes men allowed.

Ultimately, people need to feel like they have viable livelihoods with a return to relatively affordable goods, and they need to see that within 2 years or else the house and senate will be hard blue come 2027. Of course, there’s always the potential for dismantling the democracy, but the economist would probably think that would be disastrous for stability, and a grave threat to everything including economic concerns. So best outcome for him, as a conservative economist, is somehow making the electorate willingly want to keep the republicans, and he knows that Trump listening only to himself and hard core sycophants is not a recipe to make the electorate happy.

The last time a sitting president embarrassed him, he escalated by running for president.

Mashed potatoes head Trump might just hit the big nuke button.

Also now he’s convinced that God specifically saved him from a bullet and chose him…

I understand there’s generally nuance and all for various folks villified through history, but given the last decade of his life, his story became one of the easiest in history to break down into “bad person” without oversimplification or any vaguely acceptable case of moral relativism. More context is informative as a key part of learning of history, but it doesn’t ultimately impact ability to simplify it to “bad person”

The more nuanced data: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Views_on_Hitler_poll_results.pdf

I was hoping that the ‘not all bad’ would be almost all of it. Unfortunately while it was half of it, a full half said Hitler was as good a guy as he was a bad guy, with an equal number responding unsure, which is likely leaning toward I don’t want to give a socially unacceptable answer.

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Views_on_Hitler_poll_results.pdf

12% had the rather less ambiguous responses of ‘he was at least as good as he was bad’. While 12% of folks were of the maybe defensible technicality of ‘well, even the worst person occasionally will do the right thing’, another 12% responded as ‘unsure’, which I would suspect would lean toward “I don’t want to admit a socially unacceptable answer”.

They wouldn’t need to bother. High risk for relatively little benefit over him nominally being in the position.

If they are going to sideline him in practice, I’d expect more of a Dick Cheney. It’s not like he’s going to stand in the way as long as he gets personally enriched/protected.

For example, the Ragu ‘Simply’ is only your “other ingredients”. The only sugar in that sauce is innate to the Tomatoes used in the puree.

Sugars exist in all sorts of foods and when it’s incidental to the fruit and/or vegetable content it’s mostly fine.

But it does matter a great deal. The sugars innately in most fruits usually have a low glycemic index, so generally aren’t really that bad for you.

So presenting granulated sugar to represent the innate sugars in a tomato is misleading.

The Ragu one has 0g added sugar, so for that one it’s just the tomato sugar, so it’s misleading.

Unfortunately, at least here, that could still backfire, as the voting record indicates whether you voted in person or mail in, so they would know you voted in a different way than expected.