Dude, I live here. I looked them up when I saw them and read the same dumb statements you’re copypasting from Wikipedia. Which, surprise surprise, is not the whole fucking story. You don’t live here and don’t know anything about the politics here, so stop relaying useless wiki text.

Learn to read:

The Green party isn’t a party worth anyone’s heart.

You don’t counter this with “we don’t really care about the Green party”. Go repeat your argument somewhere that makes sense. I don’t care about the 5D chess you think you’re playing.

No they don’t. Just having smaller units you take-all in doesn’t make something proportional. Proportionality means that minority vote totals result in a proportional number of seats, but getting 25% everywhere still gets you zero seats. Jill Stein, in her maximum success, will not win a single district.

Why on earth would you feel compelled to educate me about my local politics by pulling up some wiki pages and then refusing to even format your message? And why the fuck would anything in this post indicate RFK might be someone to vote for? The theoretical appeal of the Greens is progressivism, not the unfortunate antivax shit that’s glommed onto it.

And Aloha Aina is the local party I had never heard of before seeing them on the ballot, which may sound good to you because you know nothing about Hawaii, but is something in the vague realm between nutjob sovereign citizen types and conservatives that can’t bear to be Republicans due to history.

If Stein is fantastically successful, beyond her wildest dreams, and got 15% of the vote she will win zero electors (the intermediaries that then make the official vote for president). They’re awarded winner take all for each state, and there’s no conceivable way she reaches a plurality anywhere. But if she takes those 15% disproportionately from people who would have otherwise voted for Harris, she could very much make it so Trump wins a plurality and gets all the electors for a state. The structure of the first-past-the-post system always devolves into two parties being viable, and any third parties can only practically influence the outcome in the votes they take away.

The Green party isn’t a party worth anyone’s heart. It’s all a big grift funded by conservatives that only puts any effort into the scammy presidential run. I don’t want more of that, I want progressives that challenge moderate Democrats in safe seats to give people a real option to move left.

I’m in Hawaii, and we’re solid blue but last election the Greens had a whole of 2 candidates across the entire state. Some random party I’d never heard of had more candidates on the ballot. My state rep won with something like 2000 votes, no Green challenger in sight. If the Greens were a real party they’d jump on that opportunity. A little sweat and door knocking can pull off 2000 votes. Hell, we have Ed fucking Case in Congress. I’d kill to vote against him, but my only other option is a MAGA conspiracy theorist.

The GPUSA isn’t a real party.

It’s also just not a meaningful act. The people signing the original letter have the personal power to boycott Israeli cultural institutions. The signers of this letter can only complain. Their writing this doesn’t in any way change the boycott, it’s just writing a response to write a response, and the ham-fisted way they did it doesn’t have much ability to influence anyone who wasn’t already all in on the genocide-denial.

It’s not switched willy-nilly though, it’s strongly correlated with race. The “better headline” is “dangerous black perpetrator prone to crime” and “foolish white boy that looks like you and just made a mistake of youth”. Appealing to the racism is what makes the headline “better” (i.e., more affirming to the majority readership).

It’s not a journalism specific thing, it’s a broad bias to view black children as older than their white peers called “adultification”. But the way you approached this seemingly new concept doesn’t come across as someone looking to learn more about a phenomenon someone referenced but didn’t cite but as someone who thinks most references to prejudices are just made up.

But on Wednesday night, lawyers for Musk and the PAC filed a notice removing the lawsuit to federal court.

Wait, that’s something the lawyers for the defendant can just do on their own? WTF?

Man, they could have made the letter something that would persuade people about the importance of ideas and how no nation is a monolith, but they just couldn’t help but make it a blatantly “Israel is right” letter.

“We continue to be shocked and disappointed to see members of the literary community harass and ostracise their colleagues because they don’t share a one-sided narrative in response to the greatest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

“Israel is fighting existential wars against Hamas and Hezbollah…"

Someone here is obfuscating reality, and it’s not the boycotters. These people are insane.

Yes, teen is literally in the word, but you know that the implication is not “an adult legally responsible for their actions” and the choice of how to describe an alleged criminal is not applied similarly to white and black subjects. A 15 year old black boy will be described as a “black male” while a legally adult white man will be a “teen” until the day of their 20th birthday.

IIRC, you’re supposed to report when you’ve had significant contact with Canadians and this motherfucker is talking with Vladimir Putin himself. I can’t imagine he reported that to whoever his clearance is with.

Describing an 18 year old as a “teen” certainly is a choice. And not one commonly made when the person accused of a crime is black.

She literally just called Trump a fascist. But like, I guess supporting fascists is like just one of those “agree to disagree” matters that shouldn’t be held against someone? They can still be good people who just want mass deportations, military tribunals of political enemies, and for trans people to just cease to exist.

Yeah, surely a party that calls their opponents criminals, pedophiles, paid actors, and cheaters repeatedly in every rally would be making a dire mistake that would remove them from any reasonable chance of contention.

Maybe civility politics is just a stupid illusion.

This is an accolade where, at the time of succession, the successor is by definition always less impressive than the person they succeeded.

Because the international order is based on economic and military might, not any sort of higher ideal or codified rules.

Absolutely agree. My comment above was focused on whether some minimal amount of CSEM would itself make similar images happen when just prompting for porn, but there are a few mechanics that likely bias a model to creating young-looking faces in porn and with intentional prompt crafting I have no doubt you can at least get an approximation of it.

I’m glad to hear about the models that are intentionally separating adult content from children. That’s a good idea. There’s not really much reason an adult-focused model needs to be mixed with much other data. There’s already so much porn out there. Maybe if you want to tune something unrelated to the naked parts (like the background) or you want some mundane activity, but naked, but neither of those things need kids in them.

I have not personally explored AI porn, but as someone with experience in machine learning and accidental biases that’s not very surprising to me.

On top the of the general societal bias towards youth for “beauty” related roles, smoother and less-featured faces (that in general look younger) are closer to an average face so defaulting to that gets a bit of training boost (when in doubt, target the mean). It’s probably also not helped by youth-related porn keywords (teen, daughter, young) that further associate other porn prompts (even ones not about youth) with non-porn images of underage women that also have those keywords.