I think you would struggle to find any serious Constitutional scholar who would agree with your interpretation. “Except in cases of impeachment” is clearly a limit on what cases a president has the power to issue a pardon, not a retroactive “unpardoning” of cases after a president has been impeached. In fact the retroactive nullification of a pardon seems to fly in the face of a basic judicial principle that hold decisions to be final.
I’ve been playing around with this idea I have called “n-link civic literacy” it’s an unscientific measure of civic literacy (how good are you at extracting and understanding information from the news) that works by measuring the number of links it takes to successfully obscure bullshit from the reader.
Did you read a headline, form an opinion and react to it without reading the article? Then you are -1 link literate. Do you open the article but believe it’s claims without checking the source material? Then you are 0 link literate. Click through to the study cited by the article? 1 link literate.
Probably would not work for edge cases, but I think could work to get a rough measure of the civic literacy of a community.
I think one of the problems with citing that first study as evidence Russian disinfo is targeted at conservatives more than liberals is that it only studied one case, and Russian disinformation campaigns tailor their disinfo to different demographics, often through brute force/trial and error. So it is quite possible that the particular case they studied happens to be tailored to (or more successfully resonated with) conservatives, while another specific case would have resonated with liberals more thus resulting in more liberal exposure by their metrics.
When I was in undergrad I had to write lots of essays by hand. I’d say about every other course in one of my majors had midterms and finals that were a single question essay to be completed in class during the testing period. I figured that was pretty typical.
The point I was making was that the people who are in power are in power because about half of all voters are fine with them being in power and about a third actively want facist rule. Ultimately thisis not a failure of government structure. It’s a failure of citizens. Maybe that will change as those who supported trump from ignorance experience the consequences of their decisions. Maybe not. But trump won the popular vote last election cycle and has always enjoyed a fairly substantial base. A base that penalizes conservatives who worked against him by removing them from power. You cannot ignore the role that the people played in bringing about the current state of affairs. We are getting what people voted for.
Btw the checks do still work. They work in lower courts as they apply the law without regard to partisanship. They, surprisingly, work in grand juries. And they work for non MAGA states to the extent that our federalized system gives more influence to local governments. Where they have failed is where maga politicians enjoy wide support.
That’s a nice bromide but framing the current constitutional crises as the result of a “lie” about checks and balances fundamentally mischaracterizes the issues at hand. For one it diminishes the compliance of the other branches which is clearly critical for enabling the abuse that we see. And it also overlooks the general issue that about half the national actively enables the naked corruption and ascendant facism of the current government.
The problem of the present moment is not the structure of the government it’s the tolerance of the population.
The checks still exist to correct those abuses of power. Just because congress or SCOTUS is unwilling to use them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
“Checks and balances” in the context of US federal government just means that each branch has the ability to check the growth of power of the others. It’s not “a lie” because it’s still true. Right now congress could, if they wanted to, impeach the president or pass laws preventing him from doing the things he wants. The SCOTUS could stop him too if they wanted to actually take up cases on the law instead of using the shadow docket to avoid making rulings.
Trump partisans hold a trifecta in government right now so they are not going to use their checks they have available to them. But one branch refusing to check another because its members were elected from the same stock of partisan lunatics is not the same as checks and balances not existing.
AI doomsday marketing wank has the same vibe as preteens at a sleepover getting spooked by a ouija board.
If you don’t care about metal in the wood, the you could use a pair of diagonal cutters to snip them flush with the wood rather than try to extract them.
The post title makes it sound like Reddit is doing some sort of automated classification of user politics with some sort of ml technique. But the screenshot does not show that. It shows an llm summary of a users posting history . If the tool was run on a user that posted exclusively to a cat subreddit, the summary would have been about how the user likes cats. Despite the utility or accuracy of llm summaries, what the screenshot shows is far more anodyne than what this post’s title implies is happening.
The screenshot shows an llm summary of a users posting history. Is that what you mean by “determine belief values stance and more” ? Is there more to this? How is that summary different from scrolling through someone’s posting history to see what they post about?
A scissor jack will probably be cheaper. Some bottle jacks do not work on their sides and some should never be stored long term on their sides, FYI.
PhD Level expertise:
I was referring to the story that implied the rate of loan defaults was rising among households earning over 150K, but the data showed a default rate that increased from something like 0.17% to 0.36% of all households in that category, didn’t describe the variance around that rate, and didn’t describe the reliability of the administrative records from which the rate was calculated–two factors that will dominate percentage fluctuation at values that infinitesimally small.
If you go into the comment sections where that story was posted, you will see people talking about how America forces even middle class people to spend lavishly beyond their needs, or how people in this class are irresponsible with money, or how impossible it is to live in HCOL cities, or how wealthy people are stealing everything, or how corporations are stealing everything. Few people really questioned the plausibility of the story’s framing.
Recently there was a news story about how people earning 150k were struggling financially. Even just reading the article was enough to know the idea was bullshit (which is probably why the headline used such mealy-mouthed language). But that did not stop a bunch of users from prognosticating about how terrible the economy is and how we are on the verge of collapse.
The idea that households earning more than 150k are struggling is objectively wrong. They are not. But that idea is consistent with the political sentiments of users here ( billionaires vs everyone else in a zero sum economy ) so it gets traction.
People pass around trash sources like the new republic which often just copies other news outlets but reframes stories to be consistent with lefty sentiments about whatever current events are going on.
In one community I encountered an image macro criticizing a judge for making a ruling against some plaintiffs suing Trump that was completely divorced from any context, making it appear the judge was in the tank for trump when, if you knew even a little about her, or the ruling you would immediately recognize that idea as bullshit.
Those are just a few examples off the top of my head
Andrew German wrote about this. From his blog post I got the impression that this issue is mostly impacting compsci. Maybe it’s more widespread than that field, but my experience with compsci research is that a lot more emphasis is placed on conferences compared to journals and the general vibe I got from working with compsci folks was that volume mattered a lot more than quality when it came to publication. So maybe those quirks of the field left them more vulnerable to ai slop in the review process.
Is this really that precise? Reading through these 10 points, many of them seem quite vague to me. Phrases like:
[. . .] a structural renewal of a wider movement for social autonomy [. . .]
or
[ . . .] emancipatory defence [sic] of the need for communal constraint of harmful technology [. . .]
could mean a million different things, for example.
How can this be projection? Silicon Valley’s culture brought us fraudulent medical tech, cryptocurrency scams, industrialized wire fraud, illegal taxis, and DRM juice machines. A paragon of honesty and integrity if I ever saw one.
Most of the people I know who endorse this view would assent to it because it is consistent with how they feel about the world around them, not because it is a proposition they have seriously considered.
It just feels like everyone hates Christians, so if someone told them they were being persecuted, they would agree. In the same way, it just feels like nefarious forces are trying to “ban Christmas”, so when idiots on TV claim that is whats happening, they nod their heads along. When challenged they just retreat into ignorance, saying things like “well that’s what I’ve heard” or “I have no idea about that”, because ideas like “the war on Christmas” are not factual claims about the world, they are expressions of sentiments about what the world is like.