minnow

No, AI did exactly what it does: predict which words were most likely to appear next to each other given a specific context/prompt.

The humans involved aren't "fucking up" either because this is all intentional. They know the evidence is fabricated, they just don't care because it provides them an excuse to indulge their biases.

it's reasonable to suggest you find another

If it's "just a job" like working retail at Target, sure, that's a respectable take. It's still blaming the victim, but it's also advocating for the victim to address the issue themselves.

But if it's not "just a job"? If it's your life's work, your calling, something you love more than anything else?

That idea is very likely what drove her to the brink. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

I've been there and I almost didn't survive. Choosing to live isn't always so easy.

He saw the writing on the wall and decided to make a strategic exit. A definitive defeat now would permanently end his career as a politician, but by conceding he leaves the door open to possible future efforts like a presidential bid.

And 10, 15, 20, 30 and technically 60 but that would be silly

Thankfully, the Constitution gives us a way to redress this situation! Congress just has to impeach and remo... OH GODDAMNIT 🙎‍♀️

Yet. Didn't start WWIII yet.

Yeah and I just saw (after writing all that!) that Russia and China had warned the USA to not attack Iran, so I could absolutely be way off base there.

Edit: the logic had more to do with Russia's ambitions to reform their lost empire. Afaik it's widely believed that after Ukraine, Russia will go for Kazakhstan and possibly Afghanistan. It's less that I see Russia siding with the USA and Israel, and more that I think Russia will be opportunistic in its military expansion.

I think we can expect Iran to just keep on fighting back, but who I'm REALLY looking at now is Pakistan. They said that if anyone attacked Iran besides Israel, they would enter the war on the side of Iran. Even if America's participation in the war stopped here (not fucking likely) if Pakistan follows through with their threat then this escalation really, honest to God, could be the start of WW3.

Because here's the thing: India has been trying to goad Pakistan into their own war for a few months now. So here's my prediction, although be warned it gets a little crazy after the first 5 points:

• Pakistan attacks Israel as an ally of Iran
• India attacks Pakistan as an ally of Israel
• Afghanistan supports Pakistan with supplies and possibly troops, out of fear of India
• Israel continues to pressure Trump, who supports Israel the way the USA (used to) support Ukraine. But direct action is possible, as seen today.
• European support for Israel disintegrates, and they focus on Ukraine.
• Russia declares support for Israel. Now Afghanistan has aggressors to the North (Russia) and India (South) albeit with a buffer country in both directions. They're highly motivated to support both buffer countries, but also wary of the USA coming after them (again).
• Europe can no longer simply ignore Israel as it has become a second front in the war for Ukraine.
• Kazakhstan declares allyship with Afghanistan because they understand that Russia has to go through them to get to Afghanistan and they really really don't want that.
• Russian allies (Turkey, Belarús, Hungary) hamper the EU response.
• Trump takes advantage and makes a play for Greenland and Panama.
• NATO invokes Article 5 against the USA, uses this to justify attacking Russia (who is now aligned with the USA via Israel) directly IF they didn't decide to focus on America first (likely).
• Canada is part of NATO, talks Mexico into joining against the USA because it's the only way they stand a chance.
• China grasps at the opportunity to seize Taiwan and cement its claim to South China Sea.
• Japan, South Korea, and most is Southeast Asia and the South Pacific band together against China to drive them out of the South China Sea and Taiwan.
• Egypt and neighboring countries take strict control of the Red Sea, denying passage to ships belonging to Israel/Russia/China/et allies.

Ultimately, the two sides:

THE AGGRESSORS

• Israel
• Russia
• India
• America
• Hungary
• Turkey
• Belarús
• North Korea
• China

THE RESPONSE

• Iran
• Pakistan
• Afghanistan
• The EU (and the UK)
• Egypt and neighbors
• Canada
• Mexico
• Japan
• South Korea
• Most/all of Southeast Asia and the South Pacific
• South Africa

Oddly I see Australia sitting this one out, as their politics are far enough right to not want to go to war with their traditional allies (eg, the USA) but not left enough to support the response in any meaningful way. Something would have to force their involvement.

As for Central and South America, it's a mixed bag. Obviously some countries like El Salvador will support Trump, but I think most of them will defend Panama if they get involved at all. I certainly can't see Argentina and Chile being ok with just letting anybody pass Cape Horn.

Africa I just have no fucking clue. China has been involved in a lot of African countries in very big ways that the African countries aren't entirely happy about. They could take advantage of the circumstances to seize and nationalize Chinese assets within their borders, which puts them at odds with China/Russia/Israel/et allies and I think they would be pretty ok with that. South Africa in particular I think may take a more active role against the aggressors, given their position controlling the Cape of Good Hope.

Tldr if this plays out anything even remotely like what I've written here, and I really REALLY how it doesn't, we're all VERY FUCKED.

(This is a work of total conjecture, I'm probably wrong, so don't waste your breath telling me I'm wrong. That said some of my logic may not be obvious, so I'm happy to answer questions to clarify my thoughts)

if it was him, that's exactly and all it could or would be.

This is what passes as empathy for conservatives. They're incapable of seeing things from other people's points of view, they can only take their own view and project it onto others.

Apply this to EVERYTHING they've ever said another people is going to do, or what the other person's motivations are, or really anything.

Accused of a crime? You can be held for to to 24 hours without official criminal charges.

Accused of being in the country without documentation? You can be held indefinitely, but maybe they'll let you out sooner rather than later if they decide to acknowledge that they were wrong to nab you.

So profoundly fucked up.

The modern concepts of conservative and liberal are born out of the French Revolution. Conservatives were the monarchists, and they still are.

So there's this phenomenon where a person can change their mind because of learning new information.

For example, a person can reasonably say "Our elections are safe and secure" and then, after learning new information, say "Our elections are so insecure."

The last four years don't undermine the current claims because there was no credible evidence that the election was compromised then. But new information contains evidence that this time the election may have been compromised. This new information can and should encourage people to change their minds about how secure our elections are. Changing your mind in the face of new information isn't hypocrisy, it's rational thinking.

As for your last paragraph, confirming the number of people who voted and the number of ballots recorded does nothing to verify that the ballots were recorded correctly. To do that they need to audit the paper ballots against the computerized count, which is a massive undertaking that will require a lot of time and money. There's nothing simple about that.