The way I see it, either Trump is, and this guy and all his buddies in congress believe Trump is, and rationally should be way more serious about getting people prepared for potentially having to engaged in resistance to that, possibly to include armed resistance (Trump attempted a self-coup already, that would be a reasonable reaction).
Or... Trump isn't, or isn't doing a good enough job for it to be a legitimate threat, and consequently Raskin et al are cynically blowing things out of proportion to benefit themselves in the election, while not actually taking seriously the call to action they are implying is necessary.
In the first case, they are underreacting to an event that has the potential to end the American experiment in democracy; in the latter they delegitimizing their own position by failing to accurately explain why and how Trump's plans are not threatening enough to rise to the level of serious resistance. In either case I do not think Democrats have properly handled the situation.
This is my immediate thought too. I have been under the impression that, after having their infrastructure partially nationalized during the Bolivarian revolution Chevron and the like viewed Venezuelan oil as too risky to invest the absolute shitloads of money they would need to to expand their production beyond where it already is. Maybe Chevron is uniquely positioned for this because of the extent of their preexisting infrastructure, but I'm curious to see if they just slow walk the deal until Trumps out, or something?
I certainly think the possibility of Venezuelans throwing a wrench in the plans after anger with the theft of their sovereignty boils over is greater than zero, but, like, who knows what's being said beyond public knowledge. Maybe the bad taste left by Maduro is enough where thats just not a risk? Maybe there's some other assurances we aren't privvy to? Maybe Chevron is just greedy enough to try regardless?
This was what I was thinking. Maybe it is worse, is it worse enough that it changes the realistic plans for solving climate change? No. Probably not. We still just need to keep the fucking oil in the ground either way. Once we do that we can talk about what style of raising chickens is more damaging to the climate.
I would love to see the logic behind that belief. It's gonna be a good read. According to the first few results on the internet, the entier oil industry is, like, 4 Trillion per year (IEA says 3.5 Trillion in 2018). What the fuck is the slop bot supposed to do to make almost an entire US GDP of money?
This statement is really weird, even for Trump because in the question asked immediately prior he clearly understands the question about whether he directed Bessant to intervene in the bond market stating.
"Not at all. No, he's a very capable man. He wanted to do it. He's very good at it. He is a good touch. Very good natural touch for the bonds and interest."
Right? He understands ehats beung spoken about, or his answer at least makes it sound like he does.
Then the reporter mentions that yields came back up and asks if Trump was going to direct Bessant to do "some other type of intervention". At this point Trump suggests military intervention.
He goes from "Bond market intervention" -> "Interest rates" (reasonable) to "Intervention" -> "I might direct the military to attack the bond market" (deranged) in, like 10 seconds. Is he just playing word association? Is he fucking with the reporter?
There's an AP article that was published yesterday, I think, which has interviews with a few of the people who went to Ceuta. A common theme was young men who are struggling to find work in Morocco thinking that there might be better prospects in Spain, followed by the realization that there really wasn't for them. Might be worth the read if you're curious.
I had always wondered if we'd get one, the end of Goldmember pretty strongly implies there would be another with Scotty as the bad guy. Maybe it'll be a riff on Thunderball.
I mean, from what I've heard it's basically Starlink with two massive money burning dumpster fires spot welded to it so... I'm still skeptical of even that.
They're really not thought. We got a rare light into their finances that we haven't with other chat bot providers due to a filing of theirs in their court case against the DoD. In this filing Krishna Rao, CFO of Anthropic stated that they had made revenue "exceeding 5 billion" (meaning between their founding in 2021 and now they've gotten 5 billion ever). I'm the same filing they claim 10 billion in "training", and I've seen estimates (outside the filling) that put their total costs at something like 30 billion as of early April.
They're just as much of a disastrous money furnace as OpenAI is. It also strongly suggests they've been pretty much just lying about their reported revenues on the other occasions they've shared them outside of court.
Cory Robin's book on Thomas taught me that you can learn a lot about the supreme court justices by reading the opinions they've wrote. I don't have the time to now, but if you're genuinely curious it would be a good starting point.
The way I see it, either Trump is, and this guy and all his buddies in congress believe Trump is, and rationally should be way more serious about getting people prepared for potentially having to engaged in resistance to that, possibly to include armed resistance (Trump attempted a self-coup already, that would be a reasonable reaction).
Or... Trump isn't, or isn't doing a good enough job for it to be a legitimate threat, and consequently Raskin et al are cynically blowing things out of proportion to benefit themselves in the election, while not actually taking seriously the call to action they are implying is necessary.
In the first case, they are underreacting to an event that has the potential to end the American experiment in democracy; in the latter they delegitimizing their own position by failing to accurately explain why and how Trump's plans are not threatening enough to rise to the level of serious resistance. In either case I do not think Democrats have properly handled the situation.
It seems like any time there's a resolution in the UN that doesn't totally suck the US votes against it, so, yeah. That checks out.
97% white participants and only mentions socioeconomic status while discussing possible avenues for further research.
This is my immediate thought too. I have been under the impression that, after having their infrastructure partially nationalized during the Bolivarian revolution Chevron and the like viewed Venezuelan oil as too risky to invest the absolute shitloads of money they would need to to expand their production beyond where it already is. Maybe Chevron is uniquely positioned for this because of the extent of their preexisting infrastructure, but I'm curious to see if they just slow walk the deal until Trumps out, or something?
I certainly think the possibility of Venezuelans throwing a wrench in the plans after anger with the theft of their sovereignty boils over is greater than zero, but, like, who knows what's being said beyond public knowledge. Maybe the bad taste left by Maduro is enough where thats just not a risk? Maybe there's some other assurances we aren't privvy to? Maybe Chevron is just greedy enough to try regardless?
This was what I was thinking. Maybe it is worse, is it worse enough that it changes the realistic plans for solving climate change? No. Probably not. We still just need to keep the fucking oil in the ground either way. Once we do that we can talk about what style of raising chickens is more damaging to the climate.
Bro made a president tier list and put Jackson in A tier. Wild self-report there.
I would love to see the logic behind that belief. It's gonna be a good read. According to the first few results on the internet, the entier oil industry is, like, 4 Trillion per year (IEA says 3.5 Trillion in 2018). What the fuck is the slop bot supposed to do to make almost an entire US GDP of money?
This statement is really weird, even for Trump because in the question asked immediately prior he clearly understands the question about whether he directed Bessant to intervene in the bond market stating.
"Not at all. No, he's a very capable man. He wanted to do it. He's very good at it. He is a good touch. Very good natural touch for the bonds and interest."
Right? He understands ehats beung spoken about, or his answer at least makes it sound like he does.
Then the reporter mentions that yields came back up and asks if Trump was going to direct Bessant to do "some other type of intervention". At this point Trump suggests military intervention.
He goes from "Bond market intervention" -> "Interest rates" (reasonable) to "Intervention" -> "I might direct the military to attack the bond market" (deranged) in, like 10 seconds. Is he just playing word association? Is he fucking with the reporter?
There's an AP article that was published yesterday, I think, which has interviews with a few of the people who went to Ceuta. A common theme was young men who are struggling to find work in Morocco thinking that there might be better prospects in Spain, followed by the realization that there really wasn't for them. Might be worth the read if you're curious.
Work work.
The guy who posted this, Thinkpiece Tribe, has some fantastic videos on his YouTube.
Here's to hoping they have a pre-programmed kill limit
I was curious. The UK drank 12% more per capita than the US in 2022. 10.8 L/person year for the UK and 9.8 L/person year for the US.
What's that saying about oil prices? "Up like a rocket, down like a feather"
I had always wondered if we'd get one, the end of Goldmember pretty strongly implies there would be another with Scotty as the bad guy. Maybe it'll be a riff on Thunderball.
I mean, from what I've heard it's basically Starlink with two massive money burning dumpster fires spot welded to it so... I'm still skeptical of even that.
They're really not thought. We got a rare light into their finances that we haven't with other chat bot providers due to a filing of theirs in their court case against the DoD. In this filing Krishna Rao, CFO of Anthropic stated that they had made revenue "exceeding 5 billion" (meaning between their founding in 2021 and now they've gotten 5 billion ever). I'm the same filing they claim 10 billion in "training", and I've seen estimates (outside the filling) that put their total costs at something like 30 billion as of early April.
They're just as much of a disastrous money furnace as OpenAI is. It also strongly suggests they've been pretty much just lying about their reported revenues on the other occasions they've shared them outside of court.
Profit?
Get a cheap keyboard or guitar (or bass).
Cory Robin's book on Thomas taught me that you can learn a lot about the supreme court justices by reading the opinions they've wrote. I don't have the time to now, but if you're genuinely curious it would be a good starting point.