Untitled attachment

JA Westenberg (daojoan@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 18:45:36 JST

Someone accused me of bias this morning. Specifically, bias against MAGA and Trump supporters. Apparently it's disappointing to discover that I'm not the morally neutral arbiter of truth they imagined me to be.

So let's talk about it. Let's talk about my neutrality. A thread. 🧵

Embed this notice

Nazo (nazokiyoubinbou@urusai.social)'s status on Thursday, 05-Dec-2024 20:43:57 JST

Nazo

in reply to

@cavyherd @VampiresAndRobots @futurebird 99.999% sure it is.

Synthetic training ultimately results in a breakdown of a model in a generation or two. They need non-synthetic input. And what better way than to mass deploy a system where users identify the outputs so they don't have to.

Except it's still pretty synthetic. We're being fed some pretty poorly made results and we don't understand our instructions. (Should I click this one? Will it count against me if I click it?) And of course they're low resolution too, which makes it that much harder for us to even determine what they are even supposed to be.

So I guess the good news is we're giving it at least some bad data. 😁

Embed this notice

solarbird (solarbird@solarbird.net)'s status on Saturday, 02-Nov-2024 03:35:53 JST

solarbird

this looks to me like what we call a “tell”

“Scoop: What Trump is hearing about his chances in a tight 2024 race,” writes Axios. I’m not linking it, because I think it’s shenanigans.

What he’s supposedly hearing is that he pretty much has the election pretty much in hand, better position than 2020, blah blah blah blah [fart noises].

I’m calling bullshit on the whole story, because this “internal” memo that they “scooped” is using as its thesis data from fucking Real Clear Politics, an absolutely canonical clown car, and if they had real, actual, good internal data showing what they’re talking about, they’d be using it. And they’re not.

Given that even Trump should know that, I’m thinking much less “this was a scoop” and a lot more “This was propaganda written to be ‘scooped’ up and reported as a ‘scoop,'” and Axios happened to be the ones who bit.

Further – I think it’s a tell. Between that and Trump going all in on telling his cult that he has a truly massive lead that can only be overtaken by fraud, what I’m actually hearing is that the Trump campaign thinks they’re losing.

I think they know something very bad about their numbers, and I think I know what it is, and I think it’s more than one thing. 1: I think the gender gap is higher than they or pollsters have been thinking it is; 2: I think likely voter composition is different than they think it is and pollsters haven’t caught up either (this is, however, reflected in enthusiasm numbers); 3: I think Trump has failed to get past his hard upper limit of 47% and thanks to that racist hatefest in New York, Latino men who had been leaning towards not voting for a woman got a big slap of reality in the face, and finally…

4: People who don’t math very well are saying that Harris’s wide lead in early polling just reflects how Democrats always turn out more for early voting than Republicans, and that her lead is not even as good as Biden’s was in 2020, but that ignores that this time, Republicans are in fact turning out in early polling, and way more than they have for a while, and Trump’s even been encouraging them.

A lot of people don’t seem to be catching on to that, and it matters.

And while a lot of these numbers are shaky at best – there’s one set of numbers going around that is in fact from a decent polling agency but the question it’s hanging on is kind of fucked up so I don’t think it’s reliable – Harris’s lead appears to be bigger than the party turnout differential.

And what that means is that some of those early-voting registered Republicans are voting for her.

Mostly women, no doubt. But still, I have seen some numbers that make me go holy shit. And not just in Kansas.

I’m wondering whether the Trump campaign have figured all that shit out. Particularly with their panic about Republican women not voting the way their men want them to, and talking about how maybe women shouldn’t be voting at all and maybe the 19th Amendment needs to go away so that women can’t vote.

Their reaction to losing is always to prevent the people who vote against them from being able to vote at all. I see no reason for this time to be different. If they’re saying women shouldn’t be voting at all, that tells me they’re being absolutely brutalised by women voters – as they damn well should be.

So now they’re moving forward on their Plan B of setting up the faithful for mass rejection of the results and a second coup attempt.

Another thing I said a very long time is that to get through this without major violence, we need the fascists to think that they’re on the very cusp of victory throughout, and not to believe they’re actually going to lose until they literally can’t win.

That’s what 2024 has always been about, and I think they may’ve just figured out they can’t win.

I really would’ve preferred them not figuring this out for another few days, but, well… four days beforehand, that’s not so bad. One day after would’ve been ideal, of course, but four days before? We can work with that.

Keep up the pressure, team. Stay at your posts, or if you’re not at your post, get to one and start pushing us across the finish line. If these numbers confuse you, forget about them all – in fact, ignore all the polls entirely. I could be so very, very wrong. I don’t think I am and my history is good, but in the fog of war, anyone can be fooled, including me.

So stay on target. First we have to win this, then we have to keep it. And we can’t leave anything “on the field,” because this is – as I have said many, many times – for all the marbles.

Eyes. On. The. Prize.

3 days remain.

[link] #politics #USPol #fascism #politics #uspolitics

Embed this notice

Doc Impossible (impossible_phd@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Jun-2024 22:31:27 JST

Doc Impossible

@sleepybisexual lol.

It works by, for an AMAB, removing the scrotum and tedticles, leaving the penis as is, then crafting a shorter vulva with or without, according to the preference of the person getting it, a standard vaginal canal where the perineum would otherwise be.

So, yes. It would remove the testes, ending major testosterone production (your adrenal gland would still make some--usually enough to meet your needs otherwise).

Embed this notice

Delta Sierra (notthatdelta@mstdn.social)'s status on Tuesday, 13-Feb-2024 13:10:54 JST

Delta Sierra

in reply to

@snarfed.org @activitypubblueskybridge @fedidevs @fediversenews

Such a service should be opt-in only, for the handful of folks who DO want their content used to generate traffic for Bluesky.

As I'm not one of those people, I am notifying you that I am opting out. It'd be nice if that request was honored, but realistically I know it won't be.

So fuck you.

Embed this notice

LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿 (lukealmighty@gameliberty.club)'s status on Wednesday, 07-Feb-2024 23:56:51 JST

LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿

in reply to

@narada @Ottovonshitpost @sickburnbro
Also, why would you care?
A definition of a word is by definition (ironically enough) whateverthefuck you decide it to be.

So, even if it was gender == sex 50 years ago, it isn't now, and it can be 10 years from now.

Public

Notices where this attachment appears