I think that’s a tough one.

Clearly, Venezuela likely served as an “I told you so” for some hawkish folks that felt we could throw our military weight around and we should try other long thorny issues that folks said we shouldn’t try military solutions.

Iran conversely proved the conventional wisdom right.

The deal is a necessity for trying to avoid looking even worse. There’s no ‘looking good’ anymore, it’s about trying to make everyone hopefully forget by midterms.

Note that he didn’t say that violent offenses didn’t work broadly or were immoral, just that it was never going to work with Iran specifically, which from what I’ve seen has been a long-held perspective even among the same folks that were eager to bomb away on Iraq. Even people that thought they could do this with Afghanistan were more skeptical about trying the same stuff with Iran. Even as those same people would have loved it to be the case they could do this to Iran, they had to admit it wouldn’t work.

So even for more warmongering sentiment, this Iran situation was still a dumb idea.

Colud be someone bragging to someone not expecting it to work all the way out to the media.

Or a narrative that is probably fairly described, but editorialized. E.g. if they did state the fact they had the help of psychologists in negotiating, that statement by itself doesn’t necessarily insult a man that thinks only very smart people pass cognitive tests.

So the reporting actually extrapolates into the obvious, but unstated implications of why pyschologists would be useful in this situation.

Yep, posessing a shred of dignity really gets in the way of manipulating Trump.

I don’t think this is unique, it’s just rare for someone to openly say it.

Especially since openly saying it runs the rather high risk of undermining the whole approach. If Trump hears this, he’ll get all pissy and tank things for the sake of his fragile ego.

You can see it in most every person in Trump’s circle. They all play the game of manipulating the president, all you need to do is risk your dignity and you can pretty much get him to do whatever. If they dare to serve their own ego, they fail.

Yes, but the chances of a Democrat winning in South Carolina are not exactly huge. They basically have voted for the incumbent whenever it has been possible since the 1930s. South Carolina senators only change when someone dies or retires.

Ok, I didn’t have that law, but my main problem with that law is that it is limited to people over 55.

Problem is property tax valuation ends up mixing up people just using their house as a place to live, and folks using it as a financial instrument. So people can get hosed on the property tax despite having no actionable wealth derived from their residence.

artificially low property taxes

I disagree with this one…

It depends on the nature of the job.

If you are a educated professional, then companies get pissy about how your second job might interfere with your primary work and erode some competitive advantage.

If you are working hours in a fast food place, they don’t give a shit unless you fail to cover your shifts and never are available to pick up a shift for someone who can’t cover theirs.

a share of % of the profits.

Hollywood already has the playbook for that. You can have as little “profit” as you need to avoid payouts to people with profit share arrangements. Funny how executive compensation cuts into profits…

I assume all instances of the word “right” should be “white”

I think this really is the goal. The health professionals are the realistic target.

As everyone notes, the concept of killing the mother to stop an abortion makes zero sense, but open season on any providers…

Guy at work proposed AI workflow enhancements…

His whole idea was to take a workflow and just replace a few roles…

Developer becomes “AI developer agent” Reviewer becomes “AI reviewer agent” Tester becomes “AI code testing agent”

Rinse and repeat until the only block that was human was “Marketing Engineer”. Guess what department the guy worked in…

Another thing is that it kind of instills a false confidence. Reviewers are getting lazy when the LLM gives a ‘LGTM’ and letting stuff through that bites us in the ass…

Yep, seen this.

Also, each iteration saying “ok, all problems are now addressed, the check should be fine, but running it just in case” (generates even more build errors than before). Rinse and repeat until my token quota is exhausted and I just code the good old fashioned way, no skin off my back. And I’m doing a ‘good job’ with utilization, despite having burned most of my quota on a failure that got thrown away.

Which is a stupid mindset.

“Go forth and burn tokens and your performance will be measured on that”

Looks like I’m going to make a for to ask for a for every word in /usr/share/dict/words. Look at all the tokens I burned.

It doesn’t reflect upon business value, performance, or education.

It’s even worse than the disastrous lines of code metric.

Their problem is they have no idea what to expect, so to signal affinity to hype, they just measure tokens.

They will hit you with and underpayment penalty, and they’ll actually get a pretty decent amount more than they would have otherwise gotten from you…

Yes, because the democrats are the ones to blame for why it will never ever get to a senate conviction…