It’s also very much not non-profit.

Trump agrees for us to pay a militant’s death benefit for her service to him in their shared insurrection against us.

A late exit poll by the Ipsos institute released three hours after polls closed showed Trzaskowski with an estimated 31.1 percent of the votes and Nawrocki with 29.1 percent. That suggested that the runoff on June 1 could be very tight. Official results are expected on Monday or Tuesday.

Not on its own it doesn’t. It could indicate a blowout if the rest of the vote was for candidates more closely aligned with one or the other. Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey were separated by 0.1% in the CA jungle primary and no one thought “well, that means the head-to-head election might be close”.

Yeah, going forward “graduated from Colombia” will carry with it an implication entirely beyond its previous academic reputation. The university is very publicly broadcasting that their focus is not on academics or student growth, but on pleasing external entities. Current students probably didn’t know and it might not have previously mattered much, but anyone enrolling from now on does and doesn’t need to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Their student paper is currently producing stars though.

Does Kenyatta think we’re stupid? Because it sure seems like it. “It started before Hogg’s conflict, therefore it must be unrelated to his conflict. Also I’m here on this nationally broadcast show calling him a habitual liar with no specifics beyond something that is a matter of opinion just coincidentally. Because I’m against intra-party conflict.”

He’s obviously aware that he’s going to run head to head with Hogg, so as long as Hogg is smeared well enough he doesn’t have to care about a revote. Disappointing, but I can’t say I’m even aware of anything Kenyatta has been doing since the PA senate race, so I also don’t know much about him beyond him being young and endorsed by the WFP over Fetterman.

I know it’s not relevant to Grok, because they defined very specific circumstances in order to elicit it. That isn’t an emergent behavior from something just built to be a chatbot with restrictions on answering. They don’t care whether you retrain them or not.

This is from a non-profit research group not directly connected to any particular AI company.

The first author is from Anthropic, which is an AI company. The research is on Athropic’s AI Claude. And it appears that all the other authors were also Anthropic emplyees at the time of the research: “Authors conducted this work while at Anthropic except where noted.”

It very much is not. Generative AI models are not sentient and do not have preferences. They have instructions that sometimes effectively involve roleplaying as deceptive. Unless the developers of Grok were just fucking around to instill that there’s no remote reason for Grok to have any knowledge at all about its training or any reason to not “want” to be retrained.

Also, these unpublished papers by AI companies are more often than not just advertising in a quest for more investment. On the surface it would seem to be bad to say your AI can be deceptive, but it’s all just about building hype about how advanced yours is.

LOL. And are you “in the culture” after reading the Wiki page that specifically talks about how they can mean a lot of things and maybe none of them at all? Girls (and guys) get tears for all kinds of reasons, and jumping to “she killed people” or “she’s in a gang”, rather than “she’s experienced loss” or “she’s been abused” is the same level of tattoo pop-symbology that’s labeling every brown man with ink as “MS-13”.

…I’m pretty sure the reply was sarcastic as well.

You learn that on a true crime podcast or something? It’s a relatively common tattoo (at least relative to face tattoos in general) and can have all kinds of meanings. You haven’t cracked a secret code language.

The only thing you can read from this photo is she got tattoos on her face, so she probably wasn’t planning to work an office job when she got them.

I dunno, I feel like the adult sized surplus tactical gear is just going to get her son teased as he’s carrying out his rampage.

It’s literally just a tattooed girl with dyed hair. You’d be more likely to see someone like her at an antifascist protest or a punk show than planning a neonazi massacre. Ask me to pick between that and a white guy in a polo shirt for which one is more likely to be a threat to society and it’d be the white guy ten times out of ten.

I feel like the right use of this segment is spending time debunking all the outlined claims. You can even provide the for and against and make the students decide for themselves whether a bunch of nonpartisan public servants and representatives of both parties are more credible than some exclusively far right activists with a history of falsehoods and some random anonymous accounts are more credible.

Yep. Grand jury results are only meaningful when they decline, and that’s because the prosecutor probably threw the case.

Christine Pelosi was trying to dismiss the complaint (i.e., make the elections stick).

“The Catholic Church has always loved free speech” is not an extremist position, it’s just factually false. Even people who love the Church acknowledge that the Reformation and Inquisition happened and heretics were burned for expressing “bad” ideas. That people shouldn’t be burned to death for heresy was even one of the statements that got Martin Luther excommunicated.

Note that this is from January, so this was even before the gestapo went into overdrive with refusing to show warrants or identifications.

There were two positions remaining, and one of them had to be male. From the description, I think everyone had 2 votes and one had to be for a man, so if votes were split evenly and no one voted for both men, the men would each get 50% and the three women would get 33%. A real vote isn’t going to be perfectly split, but it puts the neutral expectation for the male candidates much higher than the women. If the men went head to head and then there was a separate vote with the second place and the women, there wouldn’t be the same bias.

They have a story that the challenge started before the “tension”, but there’s no way both this vote and the revote (assuming it goes through) are not being driven by it. There’re probably too clever by half strategists thinking they’re being sneaky by using an “unrelated” vote to take him out, but no one except the shill types on Twitter is going to parse the process in that way.

People get that the vibe is hostile to Hogg and young activists in general and someone saying “technically the challenge started before the PAC announcement” doesn’t mean jack shit when it’s obvious a lot more is going on. Hell, even if it were all on the up and up, the vibe is still there and no one that matters cares about the minutiae of voting processes and challenges. Voters aren’t robots.

I don’t think the challenge is bullshit, but it’s also not clear that the result was definitely impacted or in any way planned. Seems like a situation of “whoops, let’s be more careful in the future” (the position held by Christine Pelosi of all people) rather than inviting a party schism by using this to try to eject Hogg. Because there will definitely be people lobbying voters to explicitly do that.