Theres a reason 99% of actions taken by democrats are just "strongly worded letters" and how they consistently come up with the exact small number of Democrats needed to push legislation and bills that the party proposes to be against.
Most Democratic politicians are in on the game too. Its all just political theater and their in-group rotates out who gets to be the bad guys.
Yes Democrats clean-up by not breaking norms, but as mentioned they never go far enough because they legitimately do not want to go too far due to corporate interests and the elite.
I am left leaning but do not align with the majority of the Democratic party because they are in on this too. They have the tools to be much more antagonistic to the GOP but they purposely don't use them
I think this take is on the cynical side. A more charitable interpretation would be what they say (but maybe I'm being naive): that they don't want to break the rules to fix what someone else broke by breaking the rules.
I'm not sure what you mean by "they consistently come up with the exact small number of Democrats needed to push legislation and bills that the party proposes to be against" -- if you mean the Republicans manage to get some Democrats to "switch sides" -- it's important to remember that this is how everything used to get done. Check the old votes: party-line was less common back in the day. And even now, Democrats tolerate members with differing opinions far more than the GOP does, and it shows in their voting patterns.
Can you expand on this, because I'm not understanding what your grief with the 2016 DNC is. I'll help speed the process saying: 1. I voted for Bernie in the primary 2. I fully recognize -- and we all should -- that the DNC is not beholden to us to run the primary in a particular way. Until some point in the 20th century nominees were literally decided in backroom deals without primaries influencing anything. So the idea that they "robbed" us of the Bernie candidacy doesn't hold sway with me (if that's what you're arguing) even though I supported him myself.
The issue isn't not choosing Bernie, it's knowingly picking the only candidate who could possibly lose. Because as GP said, they're in on the game. The goal wasn't to pick who they sincerely believed to be the best candidate for the country, including both fitness and likelihood of winning. So it's theatre, as they pretend to put the populace first, but clearly they don't.
No, I didn't imply that anywhere. Not sure how you read that. They knew she was a very poor pick in terms of "good for the whole populace" and "maximizing the chances of winning", yet chose her despite that, not because of it. The theater is the pretending that they have the best for the populace in mind, which directly contradicts this.
My wife and I went to a couple cities where Waymo operated and when we tried it were pleasantly surprised. Talked to a few people and did some research and it's clear women feel much safer and will pay the premium to have their type of experience vs basically a random gamble as to the type of person who will pick you up in an Uber.
Not to mention lately it seems like Ubers standards for the cars picking you up have gone way down the drain. That or maybe people are just lying or gaming the system about the state of their vehicles.
And on top of that there are plenty of drivers who probably shouldn't even have a license. As a man there have been plenty of rides where I've felt unsafe simply due to erratic driving.
See, I'm not sure I would feel safer that way. You can stop a Waymo with a couple traffic cones and then rob the occupants. I think busses and trains are way safer. They have transit police and drivers that are able to handle situations like assault. Also, in my experience, people tend to help out when someone is being a POS and you are less likely to be robbed on a bus than in a car.
Anecdotally, I've had the opposite experience. However, the raw data shows the difference. Scientific American did a great article on the data released by the DOT in the USA.
I can't imagine being somebody who voted for him and thinking this is what an "alpha" man does, bitch and moan about prizes and recognition instead of actually doing things of value.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a large cohort of people who never admit they voted for Trump in the future out of embarrassment.
I try to talk to Trump voters to understand. I suggest you try as well if you're curious about this stuff. N = a dozen or so, but ones I've talked to care more about his actual political stances, like his white nationalist policies above all else. They see this stuff as entertainment and laugh with Trump as he makes these long established institutions bend to his will.
I honestly think the racist stuff is the primary reason.
They can’t be impressed with his business acumen considering that he’s an objectively terrible businessman. They can’t be impressed with his academic record considering he doesn’t really have one. He has no military history, the only thing people know him from was a terrible reality TV show and his constant need to embellish everything he does.
Well, that, and the fact that he started saying a bunch of really racist shit in 2015 about how Mexico’s “not sending their best”, and how he’s not going to get a fair trial for Trump University because his judge has a Mexican-sounding last name.
I think a lot of his voters are cowards who are deeply unhappy and are too afraid to say that they believe that immigrants and DEI are the sole reason that their lives are terrible.
I find it funny because the reasons their lives are terrible are both more complicated but also simpler than DEI and immigrants. As far as I can tell, nearly all their problems boil down to self-interested sociopaths who have inserted themselves into power, and these sociopaths are completely ambivalent to the consequences of their decisions, so long as it doesn’t directly affect them.
To be clear, this is beyond “capitalism” or anything like that. Sociopaths controlling the world has been a thing for millennia, probably as long we’ve had any concept of “society”.
I don’t think we have to wait for the future. Part of the problem with the polling data in 2016 was that people lied because they were embarrassed about voting for him.
Never releasing the benchmarks or being openly benched unlike literally every other model provider always irked me.
I think they know they're on the backfoot at the moment. Cursor was hot news for a long time but now it seems terminal based agents are the hot commodity and I rarely see cursor mentioned. Sure they already have enterprise contracts signed but even at my company we're about to swap from a contract with cursor to Claude code because everyone wants to use that instead now - especially since it doesn't tie you to one editor.
So I think they're really trying to get "something" out there that sticks and puts them in the limelight. Long context/sessions are one of the hot things especially with Ralph being the hot topic so this lines up with that.
Also I know cursor has its own cli but I rarely see mention of it.
Being 100% honest even though it sucks to be the truth - it doesn't matter if its customizable or accessible or not because you just ask the LLM to do that for you.
Or ask the LLM to customize it to your specific use case since most people really only really care about their situation - not for it to be customizable to everyones use case.
Even with AI, I'd still use a component library. It reduces the surface area you have to maintain and keeps your look consistent. The same reasons to use them before AI.
Doesn't matter. Even if people were for some reason still going to their docs there would simply be no need for the types of paid products they offer - prebuilt template components.
Why pay for a template when AI's can shit out your entire design system and multiple templates in 5 minutes, not to mention competition from other template systems like shadcn that are completely free.
And yes they might not be the best quality but you just prompt it until you like it and then use it as a reference.
Not taxing anyone under 500k would remove a very large share of tax revenue. Combining that with higher corporate taxes would be nice, but if it got pushed too high (which it would in this scenario) we would simply see corporate flight from the US to elsewhere or it would eliminate practically all the benefit of lower taxes from the less wealthy as the cost of goods would skyrocket.
There isn't really a silver bullet unless people in the US as a whole culturally become less consumerist and our entire economy is restructured around that fact.
> we would simply see corporate flight from the US
Good. If they don't want to pay for the physical and legal infrastructure to make their business possible here, then they can go elsewhere. I'm so tired of this cowardly excuse.
People who also say 'the rich will just stop' ignore that the rich work crazy hard trying to ensure they add to their billions. They already are past the point of noticeable returns for their quality of life, yet they keep at it.
In return for their super high taxes we should give them a 'contributor to society' chit or star or something. Then they can gamify over getting chits, instead of hundreds of billions more. I'll happily call Elon a '7 star citizen' and support such a game.
It's not an "excuse". I'm just saying what would happen. I'm not against raising corporate taxes and patching loopholes. I just know there would also be unintended consequences for even the less wealthy that many don't consider.
I wouldn't be surprised if the thing this is actually testing is benchmarking just claude codes constant system prompt changes.
I wouldn't really trust this to be able to benchmark opus itself.
reply