What
www.texasmonthly.com/news-politic...
@angyl
“The purpose of a system is what it does.” Wonky about rules but cynical af. Probably not partisan enough for most of your party, yet still a patriot of the people and outspoken for solid policy. Transparency good, shenanigans bad.
If the principle is basic needs, make it cover basic needs. Make those fskers go on the record voting against diapers and deodorant, and use that in every campaign they run until they retire.
If I was a federal legislator, I’d say, ok, I’ll vote to restrict EBT from being used on products with over n grams of sugar per serving, BUT, only if we allow use on toilet paper, toothpaste, deodorant, diapers, formula, cleaning supplies, etc.
It’s not all that basic. It requires post-editing unless one has an app with algos to do it, it actively discourages live streaming as somehow a specifically hostile act, and it encourages actively blocking live press coverage.
Respectfully, opsec isn’t a third party responsibility. If one truly doesn’t want to be linked to being in a public place there are A LOT of careful steps one needs to take especially around one’s cellphone.
Basically actively hostile enemies are equally as dangerous to keeping opsec as are actively incompetent allies when you’re not operating in a secured system environment.
Like, so many people think security is just about keeping active hostile actors out. And yes that’s a big part of it. But a HUGE proportion of security fails are just, stupid human shit, which is a whole-ass different thing to protect against in a system.
Just here to contribute to the ratio on this cringe take!
Somebody should tell these dudes that there are multiple systems specifically designed to keep one from accidentally inviting unintended audiences to secure discussions and stuff like this is literally why they exist 😅
Did an Apple Vision demo today. Definitely way more interesting than anything else I’ve seen in that category. Worth the time.
Talked to Tim Walz as he campaigned in Wisconsin. Thought his answer to one Q I'd had for Dems - if you come back in 2028, do you rebuild everything DOGE broke? - was interesting.
"I think it's an opportunity."
www.semafor.com/article/03/1...
What’s interesting about the timing?
TIL the “first hundred days” originated with Napoleon and then was elevated to presidential terms by FDR and is now internationally applied to leadership roles in general.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred...
Better safe than sorry!
Was that in addition to the childhood 2?
Interestingly the weakest link in the trio is mumps, and additional doses only seem to offer short coverages. Our immune systems just don’t seem to pick that up with quite the same oomph and if they fail at it they tend to stay failed at it. We’re talking single digit %s but still interesting var.
So my preliminary sweep of the data suggests that, having had two mmr courses as a child, I should still retain measles coverage now. Dose makes the poison tho, so if I rubbed my face on an infected person maybe not so much.
*cough* and independent, worker-owned news *cough* specifically based in Eastern WA/North ID *cough* which is a microcosm of the US and its issues with right-wing extremism *cough cough cough*
rangemedia.co/press-for-th...
Ugh.
I feel like the all or nothing dichotomy is a false one, and that carefully considered questions that are properly verified just aren’t on the table in the hyperpartisan discourse, and that’s frustrating because doing public good and limiting public harm aren’t actually diametrically opposed.
The main reason I’m uncomfortable with the left’s approach is that a very small number of bad actors can have an outsized negative impact, like the 9 billion in COVID relief fraud (so far) that was partially enabled by reduced scrutiny
www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs...
The main reason I’m uncomfortable with the right’s approach is that it tend to be strongly biased to one simplistic idea of a mainstream experience, like the fallacy of averages from the Air Force almost a century ago
medium.com/continuousde...
I’m more of an ask very narrow and specific questions and make damn sure you can verify them in some way and ideally on the record to make future verification easy person.
Amongst the places I struggle with partisan splits is that the left tends to take a no questions asked, just believe people position and the right tends to take an ask way too many questions and set up ridiculous gatekeeping position.
Just got a tip from a guy at the FAA. You'll never believe who is still getting new government contracts while all the contracts at the Department of Education and USAID and other agencies are being nuked from orbit.
I mean….