Nope. Just reality.
It's like some one is paying you not to get it.
Assuming you have are asking in good faith and simply have the memory of a gold fish, or lack the ability to simply google things yourself:
Thats fair. This is more than a "signal". What people attributed to Biden (you can dig through the articles of the day; it was very clearly taken as a signal he would remain a 1 term president) was a "signal" though, in the pure sense of it. Its a kind of political maneuver that could be a head fake, could be real, you can figure it out later.
and he only made cagey statements about seeing himself as the transition between generations
What the fuck else do you think it means to "signal" something in politics?
Whatever the fuck they want. Both American parties are pro-genocide, and their voters are either too stupid or too scared to demand otherwise. Its relevant because Israel could be doing absolutely none of this without US backing. US voters had (and somewhat still have) an opportunity to demand from their candidates but as I said, either too stupid or too scared to demand it.
Now Israel has carte blanc.
No. It was his words. His words he said. With his mouth.
Remember when Biden "signaled" he would be a one term president in his first campaign, then proceeded to put the entire country at risk by running again?
Damn, I thought it was going to end up being Kowalski from Nebraska.
Its abundance of sunlight and heavy investment in solar cell technology has positioned Saudi Arabia well in its transition to becoming a leading exporter of renewable energy.
You are validating bad faith criticisms by engaging with them. You give them substance by addressing them. These are the exact kinds of things that the fossil fuel industry has been funding for literally decades to create confusion/ uncertainty around renewables. By engaging with and sharing content like this, you are doing their work for them. By asking and then answering non-issues like this, it validates the idea that there was a problem with renewables to begin with. Content like this is the result of 80 years of fossil fuel company psyops campaigns.
On Thursday, House Democrats will look into what they describe as the oil industry's decades of disinformation and misrepresentation to delay climate action. They have called executives from Exxon Mobil, BP America, Chevron Corp. and Shell Oil to testify. The meeting, Democrats say, is modeled on a historic hearing more than 25 years ago that held the tobacco industry to account for misleading the public about the harmful effects of smoking.
Two names likely to come up at the hearing are Charles and David Koch, the conservative petrochemical magnates. They have poured millions of dollars into efforts to discredit the science of climate change. The brothers have given over $145 million to climate-change-denying think tanks and advocacy groups between 1997 and 2018. The Kochs were joined in their efforts by Exxon, which has given nearly $37 million over the same time to spread climate misinformation.
A senior Exxon lobbyist in Washington was caught on tape in June describing the company's campaign to cloud the science. "Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes," said Keith McCoy in a sting operation by Greenpeace U.K. "Did we hide our science? Absolutely not. Did we join some of these 'shadow groups' to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true. But there's nothing illegal about that. You know, we were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders."
The primary goal of these campaigns is to create confusion/ uncertainty; to elevate non-issues into concerns: precisely what this content does.
Yeah if you dont harvest it while its practically just emerged, you are just eating wood.
Democrats have failed on this for 40 years at a federal level. If they've been waiting for puns to come around... that's an been greater failing.
good for getting a stick or two, or for growing seed asparagus, but asparagus gets big. real big.
The problem is that it validates the claim to offer a "solution" (it isn't) to the "problem" (it isn't). It's counter productive to validate the claim by offering this retort. It's also not even the second time I've seen this being trotted out. It's at least the third, maybe fourth.
I'd be more than happy with seeing these things repurposed into something useful. If we're in a position where windmill blades are littering the landscape because we have a preponderance of cheap/ free/ non polluting energy, that's a good thing.
I mean, heaven forbid we ask the party to adopt positions more inline with a majority of the parties likely voters..
Meanwhile, the candidate is still focused on offering right wingers an olive branch, as if courting the legitimate cult that gave us Cheeto Mussolini is really going to produce measurable differences electorally.
You can put aside the deep ethical issue of being a pro-genocide party for just a moment(which is absurd) and it's still clear that better electoral strategy is to shift on Gaza and go get the 3-5% of likely Democrat who are going to say "not good enough".
improvement is improvement
Yeah I don't agree with that. It's a complete distraction and irrelevant, it adds confusion to a ley audience by implying this was something that needed addressing.
We've got some real problems; a preponderance of windmill blades sounds like a made up rw talking point: responding to or producing articles like this offers a validation that the counterfactual doesn't warrant.
It is actually problematic to spend time, effort, and other people's attention and understanding making weird defensive claims to non issues.
Greens are really just flying cover for Dems being a pro genocide party. If Dems lose in Nov, they can blame the microscopic green party instead of their own shitty and deeply unpopular policy.
Democrats: It's always someone else's fault we couldn't do better.
ahh yes because wm blades are just piling up.
non solution to a non problem.
Some people are considering time. Also these fine folks.
Once you put time into the equation, the highlights the absurdity of valuing any form of sequestration while not valuing avoided emissions.
Preordered a Canoo adventure can
At one point in this weird nonsensical abortion they call life, I had a 64 Ford Econoline. It was the model that had 360 windows (the 8 door model). It was the most fun touring vehicle I've ever been in. Granted it only did 55 with the pedal to the metal (quite literally floored). The best vehicle I've ever owned. So great for doing back roads in. You could see EVERYTHING.
So the Canoo is going to have a 360 view and a full roof moon roof? Consider me sold for island driving. Come out and see me bruh you gonna get a tour of the island.
So has anyone bought a like.. gen 0 vehicle before? I've never owned a new car. And never from ab untested manufacturer. I'm just lucky to have this chanc.
Like, I expect deliveries to start in the next few months and I'm trying to set expectations for myself. Has any one here preordered an EV? Is this a mistake? Should I just get another leaf?
Are you making pizza this weekend? If so, whats your plan?
Are you making pizza this weekend??
If so what is your plan? What kind of dough or prep? What style? How are you going to bake it? Any changes from last time you made pizza?
Amal Saad, a leading expert on the Lebanese resistance movement, says all-out war could lead to Israel’s downfall
On Monday, flights at Beirut’s airport were canceled as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised to carry out a “harsh” military attack on Lebanon, following Saturday’s deadly strike on a Syrian Druze community in the Israeli-occupied Golan town of Majdal Shams. The horrifying incident killed 12 children on a soccer field.
Israel and the U.S. immediately accused Hezbollah of hitting the town with a Falaq-1 rocket launched from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has denied it was behind the attack and both it and the Lebanese government have called on the United Nations to undertake an independent investigation.
The way that blame for this incident unfolded publicly lends itself to competing theories of responsibility. Earlier Saturday, Hezbollah had announced it had launched a series of attacks on nearby Israeli military installations in retaliation for the killing of four Hezbollah fighters in an Israeli air strike in southern Lebanon. When news of the deaths at the soccer field began to emerge, Hezbollah swiftly issued a statement saying that it had “no connection to the [Majdal Shams] incident at all, and categorically denies all false allegations.” Hezbollah charged that an Israeli Iron Dome interceptor missile had missed its target and hit the town. Israel has claimed it identified the Hezbollah commander of the strike.
The model has been coconut-pilled. kamala_mode will be activated tomorrow.
One of the most important decisions you face as a forecaster is simply when to publish a statistical model for public consumption. If you’re just running a model for your personal edification — or to make bets with — the threshold may actually be lower. If you’re evaluating the impact of a player injury on an NFL or NBA game that you’re considering betting on, for instance, then you might only get a couple of minutes before some reasonably rational assessment of the impact has already been priced into prevailing betting lines. Under these circumstances, a good first-pass estimate can go a long way. By the time you dot all the ‘i’s and cross all the ‘t’s to incorporate the impact of the injury into a formal model, it may be too late.
When you issue a statistical forecast publicly, though, I think the responsibility is slightly greater. In some cases, probabilistic forecasts can be confusing to people. And in other circumstances, people can take statistical models too seriously and treat them as oracular when in fact all models rely on the researcher’s assumptions. Let’s not get too carried away with this — some assumptions are better than others, which is why some models are better than others. (And putting a model behind a paywall is a pretty useful trick for self-selecting a more knowledgeable reader base.) But there are times when a subjective estimate may be better, especially in unforeseen circumstances that your model wasn’t really designed to handle.
For instance, when Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race last Sunday, I suppose we could have just done a hot swap and immediately replaced him with Kamala Harris — pollsters have periodically tested the Harris vs. Trump matchup, especially since Biden’s disastrous debate on June 27. But I think this would have misinformed even our smart, self-selected group of Silver Bulletin readers more than it informed them. The polls were already in flux, given Biden’s mounting crisis on top of the assassination attempt against Trump on top of the Republican convention, which is typically a period when polls can produce short-lived bounces. And Harris’s candidacy was still hypothetical, although she was clearly prepared, working behind the scenes to become the Democrats’ presumptive nominee within 24-48 hours.
Boring but I finally got it working
I bought a cheap Chinese manufactured CO2 sensor (RS485) with basically no documentation. It took a while, but I've finally got it reading. 0 to about 1700 was me continuing to work, then I left the room and did some gardening. I came back into the room at about 3400.
Last of last weekends dough balls
Olive oil, garlic, nutmeg, Parmesan, mottz and basil.
I think I went half a cycle too long in the oven. I'm not sure the frequency of rotation but I want to get a timer in the pizza kitchen.
NIGHT SCHOOL: Donald Trump LIES About Shooting?! Justice for Sonya Massey; Kamala Harris FIRES BACK!
Like, comment, share, SUBSCRIBE, and JOIN the MLH Membership Program for more engaging discussions: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvP5...
Stream NIGHT SCHOOL with Marc Lamont Hill live Monday-Friday at 9pm EST. Join Marc Lamont Hill's OFFICE HOURS live on Sundays at 9pm EST.
Stay connected with Marc Lamont Hill:
👉🏾 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nightschool...
👉🏾 X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/marclamonthill
👉🏾 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/marclamont
👉🏾 TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@marclamonthill
#nightschool #officehours #mlh #marclamonthill
NIGHT SCHOOL: Will Kamala Harris Shift on US-Israel Policy, Netanyahu Addresses Congress & MORE!!!
Scheduled for Jul 23, 2024 #nightschool #officehours #mlh Like, comment, share, SUBSCRIBE, and JOIN the MLH Membership Program for more engaging discussions: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvP5...
Stream NIGHT SCHOOL with Marc Lamont Hill live Monday-Friday at 9pm EST. Join Marc Lamont Hill's OFFICE HOURS live on Sundays at 9pm EST.
Stay connected with Marc Lamont Hill:
👉🏾 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nightschool...
👉🏾 X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/marclamonthill
👉🏾 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/marclamont
👉🏾 TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@marclamonthill
#nightschool #officehours #mlh #marclamonthill
Lemon LIVE Special | BLACK MEN BREAK INTERNET FOR KAMALA! - July 23rd, 2024
Hey there Lemon Heads! Join Don this evening at 8pm ET to hear all about the biggest news stories of today. Tonight, Don will be sitting down with the Founder, President, and CEO of @KAIROSDemocracyProject, Michael Blake, Professor of Political Science, Dr. Chris Parker, and Founding Partner of HIT Strategies, Terrance Woodbury. The Democratic Party is quickly becoming united behind Kamala Harris. Last night, thousands showed their support at The Black Star Network's "Black Men for Harris" event. But can she win over voters that may have been leaning away from Biden? Tune in to hear all about the upcoming election, trends among voters, and the increasing support for Kamala Harris!
NIGHT SCHOOL: Can Kamala Harris Beat Trump?! Democrat Endorsement Holdouts, & MORE!!! (7/22/24)
Like, comment, share, SUBSCRIBE, and JOIN the MLH Membership Program for more engaging discussions: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvP5...
Stream NIGHT SCHOOL with Marc Lamont Hill live Monday-Friday at 9pm EST. Join Marc Lamont Hill's OFFICE HOURS live on Sundays at 9pm EST.
Stay connected with Marc Lamont Hill: 👉🏾 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nightschool... 👉🏾 X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/marclamonthill 👉🏾 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/marclamont 👉🏾 TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@marclamonthill
#nightschool #officehours #mlh #marclamonthill
Modifying my Qstove to take a pizza steel
Hey all,
I modified my Qstove to take a pizza steel instead of engineered stone and am sharing the results here.
Monte Carlo approach to looking at Bidens chances.
This is an approach I've been using since last November to put Biden's polling in a historical context. I'm using the Gallup approval rating dataset because its the longest, deepest single source dataset where the same question "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [current president's name] is handling his job as president?". Its been going on since the 40's, but has remained extremly predictive of the next president.
Previously, I presented some results (March) in the c/Politics community where using this approach, I said that Biden had between a 5-15% of winning the election. At that time, Biden was polling higher and there was more time between now (then) and election day.
I've re-run the simulation with updated numbers and am presenting them here.
First, get the mean and standard deviation of how approval ratings for past presidents have typically changed leading up to an election based a 30 day window around the current date. I then compare them to a 30 day window at election day, and get back a distribution of shifts: the typical range over which a presidents approval might change between now and the election
Next, I calculate a mean and standard deviation of approval ratings for incumbent Presidents who win their second term. We kind-of have to stick with incumbent presidents, based on the nature of the data. There really is no way to ask the Gallup pole question of non-sitting presidents or candidates.
Using these two distributions, I take a sample from the 'shift' distribution, and add it to Biden's current polling.
I then calculate the probability this new polling value would have come from the "Incumbent presidents who won election" distribution, effectively giving us the probablity, that based on extant polling, Biden can get into an approval range not-disimilar to Presidents who won re-election. Based on this approach, I'm getting an average probability of Biden winning the election at around half a percent. This is down substantially from March, where I had him at at between 5-15% probability of winning. At that time, he was both polling better, and there was more time between March and the election for him to improve.
Using this approach, a Biden victory is currently standing at between a 5 and 6 sigma event. To put it into context, last years historic rate of ice-melting in the arctic was also a five sigma event.
Bonus figure:
The distribution of Presidential polling for sitting presidents who did not win re-election:
New Nate Silver predictions are out as of today. Figures reproduced here for those who lack access (all using data provided by Nate Silver)
So I'm going to try and stay true to Nate's blog-post, but I see his predictions as too important to be pay-walled (especially consider how 538 basically isn't 538 any more since they don't use Nate's model). All of the figures in this post are my own and made using Nate's data and were made in R using ggplot. Just simple reproductions for the purposes of discussion. I didn't do all of them, just the big headline figures.
If you are in Dark Mode (as you should be) you may have to right click the figures and look at them in a separate tab.
Figure 1: Who is ahead in the polls.
Figure 2: Who is ahead in the polls (inset to recent weeks).
Table 1: State and national polling.
Table 2: Who is favored to win the Presidency?
Figure 3: How each candidate's chance of wining has changed.
Figure 4: Probability of Winning Presidential Election.
Keeping everything editorial out of the post. These are basic reproductions of Nate Silvers recent post using data he provided, to support having a discussion.
Majorities of voters express dissatisfaction with the candidates. And 63% of voters describe both Biden and Trump as “embarrassing.”
The rise of UAW President Shawn Fain has been met with alarm in powerful corridors
> The federally appointed monitor tasked with overseeing the United Auto Workers, Neil Barofsky, is ratcheting up his conflict with UAW President Shawn Fain, announcing another investigation into the union leader who rose to national prominence amid the successful “Stand Up Strike” against the Big Three automakers. > > Yet newly unveiled documents suggest Barofsky’s pursuit of Fain has less to do with concerns over union self-dealing and more to do with the politics of Israel-Palestine. > > Barofsky was appointed in 2021 as the result of the Department of Justice-led consent decree put in place in lieu of prosecution of the union itself for rampant corruption, following prison sentences for two consecutive UAW presidents.
The decision to withhold such enormous sums of money is one of the most concrete examples of the fallout from President Biden’s poor debate performance at the end of June.
> Some major Democratic donors have told the largest pro-Biden super PAC, Future Forward, that pledges worth roughly $90 million are now on hold if President Biden remains atop the ticket, according to two people who have been briefed on the conversations. > > The frozen contributions include multiple eight-figure commitments, according to the two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the situation. The decision to withhold such enormous sums of money is one of the most concrete examples of the fallout from Mr. Biden’s poor debate performance at the end of June. > > Future Forward declined to comment on any conversations with donors or the amounts of any pledged money being withheld. A Future Forward adviser would say only that the group expected contributors who had paused donations to return once the current uncertainty about the ticket was resolved.