I am beginning to wonder if the person who keeps spamming this board with vapid third party posts and then refusing to ever engage in genuine non-adversarial discussion about them is deliberately trying to sour everyone here on third parties.
Like, a few months ago no one cared. Now though, EVERYONE is well armed with facts and opinionated as hell.
It’s probably the Streisand effect though! And it’s great to see.
It’s not extreme to seek their prosecution, it’s an extreme leap to jump from a post about how they should’ve known better (they really should have!) to “They should be prosecuted by the DOJ”.
I’m not sure they need to be prosecuted to have these funds seized, though. The government doesn’t even need to ask them for it I don’t think, depending on how the case proceeds. If the money is part of the case it is probably part of the verdict.
No. My god, no. What sort of nonsense is that?
You’re taking the position of a catastrophic extreme in response to someone saying they should have been more circumspect about where their money came from.
They should have been more circumspect, though. There’s leagues between acknowledging that and saying that they should be prosecuted by the DOJ.
I’m most excited where it’s most open. Clear training process, legal data sets, fully open code bases, published reports, etc. I think we’re going to see the local models boom in sophistication once that’s more common.
Do you know of any good local models that fit that kind of description?
Case law has been established in the prevention of actual image and text copyright infringement with Google specifically. Your point is not at all ambiguous. The distinction between a search engine and content theft has been made. Search engines can exist for a number of reasons but one of those criteria is obeisance of copyright law.
This is what springs to mind for me as well. OP, you should try to remember this: the people around you are not as concerned with you as they are their own lives. And their own lives are probably pretty intense for them to deal with!
“Your desire to push out the thugs grinding our government’s ability to grow and change to a halt is an extremest view” sure is a weirdo take, isn’t it?
Honestly, as I’ve grown older I’ve come to realize most voting is risk mitigation. I was brought up to think it was about making positive change but votes that do that are less common than the risk mitigation votes.
Oh! I think we agree, my apologies for misunderstanding you and talking past what you were saying.
It’s a convenient wedge issue because although no one disagrees, and Harris is the clear choice, people are very upset about it. That allows the topic to steer people away from reason and into raw emotion. That in turn allows the conversation to become a way to subvert the topic into a general negative sentiment that plants itself association with Harris.
It’s a good manipulation tactic, and you can observe that any dissent turns into a pithy back and forth quickly. That’s going to leave it in the conversation for good. Because we’ll get upset every time it comes up.
It’s a very cynical, awful thing to do. To take the genocide of a helpless people and only serve it when convenient as a wedge issue. But it works, so here we are, talking about them but only when people want to take pot shots at specific politicians.
What are you thinking of when you say “conversion rate”? Like, is the top of your funnel people who saw the endorsement, I guess? If so, I agree, 1% of those converting into voters seems like a reasonable expectation.