Clearly some people do, and more people try. Whether they “generally” do doesn’t matter. What’s important is that “enough” people do to prevent humanity from selecting one of our myriad possible self extinctions.

the supreme court run by the Federalist Society is seeing a serious deterioration in rights and a vast expansion of corporatism. I’d argue the denial of more federalist society court judges is far more valuable (to both americans at home and the international community at large) than literally anything the fringe parties could contribute

likely a green party president would just be impeached if he/she refused to tow the line on israel or whatever - note that trumps first impeachment was on denying ukraine weapons.

While I appreciate the idea that we have a democracy in the US - corporate rule has become far more likely because of a decades long campaign by the far right billionaires to seize control of it

wish we had that kind of moral integrity here.

Its clear there are no moral lines with vance. If Trump said “somebody should stab JD vance hundreds, thousands of times with a knife” Vance would try to agree with it. He’s such a greasy little weasel.

Texas has over a 50% increase in maternal fatality rates.

Hopefully what’s left of the business is sued into the ground for such willful negligence

Wants to be president

🐔

Afraid of 60 minutes reporters

supreme court gonna allow this deadly nonsense and turn hospitals into religious death panels. Let the doctors decide things not a bunch of bean counters

So you’re saying the AI should own the things it makes?

Broken analogies aside, The twin major problems are

1. most the data is still intact that AI often recreates it. I think court cases about this are ongoing.

2. It breaks authorship chains. humans often have to wade through ads or buy products to ‘add data’ to themselves. So if you buy a magazine, you often contribute back to the source artists. or even cite them. AI does not do this. Which is why licensing datasets is a proposed solution to prevent AI from being a death spiral for creativity.

no gels allowed

and address

this is how final fantasy villains work

are you suggesting the ai itself owns the copyright?

At least station some US troops there or something

?There’s several ways to affect politics

1. Corruption - largely the higher corruption is the more advocates to lower taxes for their donors. This is driven by capital accumulation.

2. Bottom up struggles - largely if a number of states do a thing the federal politicians will pick it up. Voting rights, marijuana legalization etc fall into this. Realistically this is probably the way to pick up votes.

3. Media driven - Trump is primarily influenced this way with scares, fear, bullshit. The last 40 years are driven heavily by media scares funded by right wing billionaires. Factual information sometimes breaks through here: I would argue the obamacare ban on pre-existing conditions was the outcome of a media cycle. Usually these are bad rather than good.

4. Personal affectations of politicians. Cheney’s daughter caused him to be sensible on gay rights, McCain’s stance on torture was a result of his time as a POW. George Bush’s daddy issues about Iraq lead to millions of people dying. If enough people shoot at trump I do see him passing gun legislation (not encouraging it, just speculation)

the fact news companies don’t headline this as Trump “railing against free speech” is absolute journalistic malpractice.

This is one of like 5 celebrities I would vote for if running for president.

Psycho gonna psycho.

if you make a magazine collage you’ve already paid all the magazine authors for their work by buying the magazine. I know its not perfect, but at least in a collage situation there is some form of monetary trail going back to the artists.

If the AI company were to license their training data this would be an almost perfect metaphor. But the problem is we’ve let them weasel in without monetary attribution.

The problem is if you believe this entirely then there’s no mechanism to affect parties. Which is easy to disprove.

The overarching reality is that the parties are affected by things: culturally there’s been a long period (150 years) of slowly unrestricting people with lots of resistance. Then there’s also a economic right wing drift for decades, largely along capital accumulation lines.

I buy the idea that the parties are hard to affect but the idea they are impossible to affect seems ahistorical.