Is that even a close call? If Trump called me a shithead I’d wear that as a badge of honor. If Mr Rogers called me a disappointment I would question my life choices.

“It’s true that I hear lots of women, and men, who say ‘you’re very brave,’” she said. “I say it’s not bravery, it’s will and determination to change society.”

The solution is for states to allocate delegates proportionally. That is in the best interest of each state, so it’s not fragile. It can be accomplished one state at a time, so it’s logistically easier.

Isn’t this overlooking that each state that does this, especially swing states, does it at their own disadvantage? States that allocate their electoral votes all-or-nothing have more sway over politicians who receive those votes (because the politicians are, in turn, are incentivized to spend their effort on states where the return on that effort is larger, and an effort that wins you 5% of the vote in an all-or-nothing swing state could win you the whole state’s worth of electoral votes, compared to 5% of electoral votes in a proportionally allocated state).

Better investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma even harder then!

Oh shit, we haven’t? Do I… do I have to start saying stuff about eating pets?

When ChatGPT first started to make waves, it was a significant step forward in the ability for AIs to sound like a person. There were new techniques being used to train language models, and it was unclear what the upper limits of these techniques were in terms of how “smart” of an AI they could produce. It may seem overly optimistic in retrospect, but at the time it was not that crazy to wonder whether the tools were on a direct path toward general AI. And so a lot of projects started up, both to leverage the tools as they actually were, and to leverage the speculated potential of what the tools might soon become.

Now we’ve gotten a better sense of what the limitations of these tools actually are. What the upper limits of where these techniques might lead are. But a lot of momentum remains. Projects that started up when the limits were unknown don’t just have the plug pulled the minute it seems like expectations aren’t matching reality. I mean, maybe some do. But most of the projects try to make the best of the tools as they are to keep the promises they made, for better or worse. And of course new ideas keep coming and new entrepreneurs want a piece of the pie.

Is this the Simpsons approach? “I’m just going to fire my chain guns like this, and if you get shot down it’s your own fault!”

The winner of the popular vote within the state wins the state’s electoral votes. And Florida has a sizeable number of electrical votes.

“Don’t elect the other guy” campaigning is strongly incentivized by first past the post voting, unfortunately. Not that that’s the sole cause, but… it’s certainly not helping.

Doesn’t take a “church boy” to not assault someone, dipshit.

I mean, going from this example it seems like everyone should be afraid of good guys with guns.

Because he did crimes? Voters don’t decide whether people go to prison for crimes (unless they are on the jury, I suppose).

Maybe. But can it be configured to power the ship? If so why wasn’t it?

S’pose that’s fair. It does seem odd that the report would say the generator was “not configured” to power the ship, rather than not capable of it.

The emergency generator was not configured to power the ship, the report said.

So was it just there for decoration or…

Not a fan of the bit about not voting for Biden. Not that Biden shouldn’t be doing better for Palestine, but not voting or voting for Trump are stupid options. I thought that was a distraction from an otherwise strong message.

To reply to myself again as I keep going down this rabbit hole, the opinion in Citizens Utility Board v. Klauser, 534 N.W.2d 608 (Wis. 1995) includes

Thus, the amendment as ratified by the citizenry only limits the governor’s veto of letters and keeps intact the Wisconsin Senate conclusion that the governor has the authority to “reduce or eliminate numbers and amounts of appropriations” and exercise a “partial veto resulting in a reduction in an appropriation.”

A “reduction in appropriation” is clearly not what happened here, but the distinction between letters and numbers is apparently, at least in the opinion for this case, intentional.

I was curious, so I looked up the amended wording, which is

(b) If the governor approves and signs the bill, the bill shall become law. Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law.

(c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill.

I guess I don’t know how strictly laws are usually interpreted with respect to the distinction between letters in words vs digits in numbers, but I think I would expect the court to rule against Evers here; striking digits seems to be clearly against the spirit of the amendment. On the flip side, though, the partial veto has enough of an established history of gamesmanship that I would also buy the argument that an amendment intended to ban striking digits should be expected to spell that out.

It is, and I’m fine with Evers using it to either secure school funding, or have the courts codify what the limits of the veto powers are.