large language marge

I have to go to Brazil soon and meet a chud in-law, and now that is going to be so much more bearable

there are lots of ways to do a nosology of the modern right, but a simple one is that it's an alliance of people who want to indulge some of their racist urges while maintaining a self-image of virtuous non-racism and people who can only feel liberated by redefining racism as a positive good.

oh my god, Flock just uses in-app username/password with nothing else at all? And there's no inactivity timeout? Literally all somebody needs to use the Flock network for surveillance is steal one (1) password created by some cop? This is a lot to process.

And the standard needs to not be written by DOJ this time. The last thing anyone needs is another CJIS

oh my god, Flock just uses in-app username/password with nothing else at all? And there's no inactivity timeout? Literally all somebody needs to use the Flock network for surveillance is steal one (1) password created by some cop? This is a lot to process.

hope the discussions of you can see everything without regard to spoilers can begin soon because some of the stuff in the second half ahhh bears discussion

it's been interesting watching this reappraisal elevate Freud himself, who we can now see as having an incredibly perceptive sense of what was happening in his own society long before it would coalesce into a mass politics

While it's worth pointing to lynchings as part of a throughline of an American appetite for spectacular violence, I don't think it's rhetorically useful or analytically productive to collapse this grotesque new development to a lynching and use that to adopt a "what are you, surprised?" stance.

Finally, it deadens our ability to understand what is actively happening in the world around us when we adopt an analogue of "Holocaust uniqueness," according to which every genocide must be first compared to the Holocaust, and then inevitably diminished to triviality by that comparison.

While it's worth pointing to lynchings as part of a throughline of an American appetite for spectacular violence, I don't think it's rhetorically useful or analytically productive to collapse this grotesque new development to a lynching and use that to adopt a "what are you, surprised?" stance.

This execution is announced with the full, cold sobriety of the state. It's not a suspension of public order; instead the state is trying to impose, from the top down, a new, degraded order, in which people are expected to indulge their perversity publicly and without shame, without any dual nature.

While it's worth pointing to lynchings as part of a throughline of an American appetite for spectacular violence, I don't think it's rhetorically useful or analytically productive to collapse this grotesque new development to a lynching and use that to adopt a "what are you, surprised?" stance.

It wouldn't have made sense, within the logic of the Jim Crow lynching, to invite the world in. Each one was for its local white audience/participants and its Black targets of oppression. Here, we don't have public participation. Instead we have the state addressing the entire world.

While it's worth pointing to lynchings as part of a throughline of an American appetite for spectacular violence, I don't think it's rhetorically useful or analytically productive to collapse this grotesque new development to a lynching and use that to adopt a "what are you, surprised?" stance.

First, lynchings involve a varying level of usage of organs of the state, but in all cases they involve a denial of due process as a core element of their appeal and their terror. That's not really comparable here. This is a top-down, fully state-driven affair.

The point of this is to break scientific medicine entirely by destroying board certification and malpractice liability, two of the main mechanisms for the medical profession to establish the standard of care. It's impossible to overstate how destructive this change would be to medicine as a field.

If you sue a doctor for malpractice, what happens is an adversarial process where other doctors testify about whether the defendant met the "professional standard of care." What Altman and Kennedy want is for that power to be taken away from them and given to AI companies.

The point of this is to break scientific medicine entirely by destroying board certification and malpractice liability, two of the main mechanisms for the medical profession to establish the standard of care. It's impossible to overstate how destructive this change would be to medicine as a field.

surprised there's so much discourse about choosin texas and very little about the video, which is (slightly) more interesting for its sheer amateurism, dated 2000s styling, and the muted political-cultural signaling done through several shots of people very pointedly lighting up in bars

the investigative piece I've been waiting to read is an exploration of what the fuck is going on with West Sub's owner's claim that they accidentally weren't submitting insurance claims for a YEAR because their EMR system broke and they've never been able to fix it. Just an impossible story