But, like, Peter Thiel genuinely thinks life ought to be harder for gay people? He's a good Christian and thinks gay people will go to hell? I still don't really get it.
No. He supported conservative and christian groups because that's who he is. He founded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stanford_Review funded by conservative luminary William Kristol. He went on to get a philosophy degree and a JD. He was a clerk and worked for Sullivan and Cromwell, one of the most prominent law firms in the country that defends corporate interests.
He's always worked on the law/capital/property side. The man can't code and has never claimed to be able to.
He's a deeply libertarian conservative christian who happens to get titillated by men.
But that last part is just what he is, it's not really who he is.
Being gay doesn't constrain you to a particular set of beliefs.
There's plenty people active on the right that are all kinds of diverse; hispanic, gay, asian. Look at that recent shooter, a trans person with a history of far right activism with neonazi tattoos who said they were "to the right of hitler" but also, transgendered.
Thank you for the explanation. I find the "conservative christian who happens to get titillated by men" hard to grok, but it looks like you're correct.
I’m litigating this conversation - you supported outing somebody and publishing someone else’s sex tape. As an adult human being you know this is wrong. You are mistaken and you know you are mistaken.
No. I support the concept of an open society with an institution of journalism that isn't stultified by powerful forces that seek to control information
I think you believe this stance is standing up to power. But the media is powerful in their own right and nobody needs the details of their sex lives published without their consent- not Peter Thiel, not you, and not me.
It is biased. I do not think we can "both sides" the impact of DOGE here and I think the site makes its case for why it should be seen as a destructive force.
It calls DOGE workers "wreckers" and it lists all the staffers related with the DOGE project with a detailed description of how they're related and what they've done recently. They even have a page just for revealing anonymous staffers in court documents: https://dogetrack.info/people/aliases/
I agree DOGE is destructive but is it productive to reveal all the names and history of every staffer, contractor, lawyer, etc... related to the DOGE project?
The above is why I see it as "biased and emotionally charged".
This website very well could've gone without the extensive list of people related. Which is why I see this as more of a harassment list.
I called certain members of the DOGE staff wreckers, because that is precisely what they've been deployed to do. For instance, if you read about DOGE's activities at USAID or CFPB or the National Endowment for the Humanities or USIP, you see a pattern of some DOGE staff coming in under the pretense of "IT modernization" and then immediately seizing control of systems to suspend all employee access and cancel grants. I think "wrecker" does cover that pretty well, but I will grant it's a loaded term. I am currently working on a major revision to better tie actions/positions/etc. to certain major DOGE projects to make it more obvious.
As for the other point, DOGE has purposefully done a lot to avoid oversight and scrutiny. If you want privacy, you should not work for the federal government as your position and work will be public. DOGE has used this evasion and ambiguity to lie about its actions publicly and try to wriggle out of accountability in the courts and Congress (the whole question of "who is running DOGE?" continues to be unclear). Giving names and locations both provides clarity into what DOGE is doing, reveals patterns (as in the way in which specific DOGE staff at GSA were sent to small independent agencies) and provides info for FOIA or other public-serving transparency measures.
I have purposefully avoided ever giving addresses or photos, and I scrupulously only use public sources for my information to avoid the risk of it seeming like a harassment list, but I'm not going to hide information about activities that should be public and transparent and accountable.
Doge.gov already has the most transparent listing of everything they are cutting. This other website that starts out its header with "Tracking The Damage" is clearly a biased attempt by democrats to discredit a program that was started by republicans. It's actually kind of sad people don't realize that the two-party system involves tribalism where no matter how good something is, the other side will call it bad if it wasn't their idea.
I haven’t looked at it in almost a year, but was that the site that was full of basic errors and misleading info that was clearly designed to expose “waste, fraud, and abuse” that actually wasn’t any of those things? Yeah, I don’t know why we wouldn’t trust them…
Most things are clearly linked to the contracts themselves with descriptions. Waste is a broad term and things like DEI or many more definitely fall into that category. Imagine spending billions of dollars on your HR department for the specific purposes of DEI without any tangible return on the investment. Its definitely wasteful and at most corruption. Discretionary funds for things like 'payroll' were being used to fund a very specific political ideology that aligned with one political party and congress did not authorize the use in that manner, which is why they were able to cut it so easily.
The article refers to the DOGE employees as "bros" and "chucklefucks" throughout and says things like "as far as i can tell" when describing their history. This is clearly biased and not a real article - more like a forum post from a 4channer.
But OpenAI legitimately needs HBM. Amazon in this instance doesn't need food and is doing purely to create artificial scarcity. If OpenAI were to actually not use the HBM then it could mean something.
That's the whole problem: it's unlikely that OpenAI will actually use all of that HBM. It seems probable that they are using it to create artificial scarcity for their competitors.
I doubt this is to create artificial scarcity. Especially when OpenAI is the biggest player thought to be able to build AGI first and that it is now backed by the US & the Saudis.
The US Government, Saudis, consumer/private investors apparently or at least the one that can build the most economically useful AI. I myself believe Google is most likely.
I'm not sure what platform of Google Photos you were trying, but on the web and mobile app, you can drag to select sequential photos (i.e multi-select).
I find it funny that they deliberately avoid having the figure robot actually touch water when "washing the dishes". I have to wonder why it doesn't use a rubber wrapping around the hands or some other waterproof solution.
How does Figure 03 know if the washer is actually on? I know it has tactile sensors on its fingers but if it tried to press the button and missed how would it know? I know it's probably not by sound.
He instead seems to make up a mental image of how a neural network might work on a computer and uses that representation instead.
reply