As near as I can tell, he has a lot of money but he’s several orders of magnitude away from billionaire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang#Net_worth

Not rude at all. The original question is why certain people behave in a certain way.

The first point addresses the direct reason why some voters would refuse to vote for Harris due to her stance on Israel. When people believe they are being harmed they tend to focus all their attention on the immediate harm. It’s not a logical choice but people don’t act logically in these circumstances.

As an example of this, I’d offer our response to 9/11. The entire nation came together to pass the PATRIOT act and start a war in Afghanistan. There’s no logic in passing a bill that was so long that no one in congress could have read it before voting on it. It’s hard to argue for the logic of invading Afghanistan. There wasn’t really an objective (besides “get OBL”, who we later ended up assassinating in an other country) and in retrospect it’s certainly clear that it caused far more harm than good. But we were in an emotional state. The people watching their relatives getting bombed in Gaza are in a similarly emotional state.

The second point addresses why Democrats attempts to convince them are failing so spectacularly. Getting someone to vote for your preferred candidate is an exercise in persuasion. Much has been written about the art of persuasion and “insult your audience,” isn’t generally a recommended technique. One counterexample is “pickup artists”. They theorize that by insulting or “negging” women they can motivate the woman to counter the insult by seeking the mans approval. While this does work on some small percentage of women, the vast majority are more motivated to find their mace.

2 reasons jump to mind.

1. When I listen to people who personally identify with the people of Gaza, it goes way beyond logic. They have a completely emotional reaction. Their choices are almost completely driven by the question of, “Who is doing what, right now?” Questions of, “Who will do what 6 months from now?” take a distant back seat.

2. Every time the topic comes up, Democrats dogpile on them and call them morons. People will often respond with something like, “Yeah but that’s OK because they ARE morons.” I won’t argue if that’s true or not but it’s pretty obvious that line of reasoning won’t win a lot of converts.

Maybe.

There have been a number of technologies that provided similar capabilities, at least initially.

When photography, audio recording, and video recording were first invented, people didn’t understand them well. That made it really easy to create believable fakes.

No modern viewer would be fooled by the Cottingley Fairies.
The sound effects in old radio shows and movies wouldn’t fool modern audiences either.
Video effects that stunned audiences at the time just look old fashioned now.

I expect that, over time, people will learn to recognize the low-effort scams. Eventually we’ll reach an equilibrium where most people won’t fall for them and there will still be skilled scammers who will target gullible people and get away with it.

It’s not just the sexual aspect that makes people uncomfortable.

Many people view it as childish. Children are really into their stuffed animals and love playing dress up. There is nothing inherently wrong with enjoying activities normally associated with children but other adults tend to look down on it.

Some furries like to talk about their fursona as a spiritual extension of themselves. Many people associate that kind of language with crazy old hippies.

Haha. Maybe.

I doubt the VCs will provide much followup funding if they can’t control the code base but weirder things have happened.

There are a lot of scams around AI and there’s a lot of very serious science.

While generative AI gets all the attention there are many other fields of AI that you probably use on a regular basis.

The reason we don’t see the rest of the AI iceberg is because it’s mostly interesting when you have enormous amounts of data you want to analyze and that doesn’t apply to regular people. Most of the valuable AIs (as in they’ve been proven to make or save a bunch of money) do stuff like inventory optimization, protein expression simulation, anomaly detection, or classification.

It’s otherwise a fairly well written article but the title is a bit misleading.

In that context, scare quotes usually mean that generative AI was trained on someone’s work and produced something strikingly similar. That’s not what happened here.

This is just regular copyright violations and unethical behavior. The fact that it was an AI company is mostly unrelated to their breaches. The author covers 3 major complaints and only one of them even mentions AI and the complaint isn’t about what the AI did it’s about what was done with the result. As far as I know the APL2.0 itself isn’t copyrighted and nobody cares if you copy or alter the license itself. The problem is that you can’t just remove the APL2.0 from some work it’s attached to.

It’s not deeply rigorous but it’s correct reasoning in principal.

The scientific and statistical standard interpretation of the null hypothesis is that there’s no relationship between the variables in question. It’s up to the researcher to establish an evidence based argument that the null hypothesis should be rejected in favor of some alternative.

When we “fail to reject” the null hypothesis, we haven’t proved it’s true, we just continue to assume it is until someone proves otherwise.

In this case, the alternate hypothesis is that there’s a correlation between incarceration and crime rates and the null is that no such correlation exists.

As of now, the bulk of the research has failed to find such a relationship https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=correlation+incarceration+crime&btnG=

You might not be the target audience. I’m not currently the target audience either.

My wife and I are really into cooking. We have a whole bookshelf of cookbooks, a metrowire rack full of “kitchen stuff” and we use it daily.

There was definitely a time when this book would have been perfect. This book seems to cover a lot of stuff that’s obvious to me now but wasn’t always.

If you’re food plan is a bulk package of Ramen, any help on how to make it not the same as every other day is culinary gold.

Just started playing Shapez 2. https://shapez2.com/
Hot damn, is that addictive.

Finding plot holes in Harry Potter is like shooting fish in a barrel. There’s no challenge to it.

Rowling took “a wizard did it” as far as it can go.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=a+wizard+did+it#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:2884189e,vid:sVgVB3qsySQ,st:0

I almost forgot “pants”.

Yeah. It confused me at first too.

It’s not too bad when they use some word that we never use at all. I had no trouble figuring out what a “bellend” is.

It’s more of an issue when they use a word differently.
Me: “Yo blondie, that’s not how you’re supposed to wear condoms.”
Nigel Covington III: “You git, I most certainly do wear rubbers on my feet.”

That’s just the name.

In the UK, “public school” just means that admissions are generally open to the public. They’re still very expensive, are often boarding schools, and tend to have a lot of castles on their campuses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)

That’s one of many many plot holes in Harry Potter.

There’s really no depth to the world building beyond, “What if British public schools taught magic?”

It doesn’t make sense in any context beyond that because the author never considered it from any context beyond that. Whenever you run into some crazy crap in HP and wonder, “Why TF would anyone do it that way?” The answer is almost always, "Because that’s how they do it in British public schools.

And the spidertron is really cute…
But who’s ugly or cute on the inside? That’s what counts, right?

Right?

There are already some games like that.

Some games like Eve or Factorio have backstories that make it clear the player sucks. Capsuleers are immortal but the rest of the crew isn’t. The Factorio engineer lands on a strange planet, pollutes the hell out of it and kills the natives.

Then there are games like KOTOR or Pathfinder:ROTW where the evil path has you make some pretty fscked up dialog decisions.

The visual qualities are exactly the point.

If you wave around the constitution, it’s indistinguishable from some random bits of parchment. Most people can recognize their flag, even when it’s flapping around and next to similar flags. Humans are just very visual creatures.

In either case, the pledge isn’t actually to the object itself but to the country represented by that object.

The problem we have in the US is that Old Glory is commonly used to represent some particular group’s vision of what the US should be rather than a symbol of the country as a whole. When that sort of change is broadly positive, such as when it started to become a symbol of American ingenuity in space, it’s easy for everyone to rally behind. When it starts to symbolize a message like, “We should give the police unrestrained power.” it becomes more divisive.

It was a typo. I meant to say that the Democratic leadership seems to have put their and their parties interests above those of the people but I wanted to avoid editing my post too much.