volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@ginaintheburg

Trump shut down? Wrong branch of government. The legislative branch is having appropriations legislation blocked, and the executive branch doesn't get a vote in that.

@Ultraverified stealing what money?

There isn't money appropriated to be stolen, and that's the whole problem.

Democrats are blocking consideration of the legislation that would provide the appropriations, and without the appropriations there is nothing to steal.

@rdfranke Red State America is responsible for the shutdown is a ridiculous statement when the ones blocking the vote on funding legislation are from blue states.

@ike I don't think you're considering the structure of the US government with different branches and representatives answering to their own constituents.

This isn't like two teams on a football field. These are the divergent interests of different actors and different roles, not people taking orders from political parties.

It's an unrealistic view of government, but unfortunately it supports gridlock to insist on viewing the world that way.

The US government was intentionally designed to put the executive branch at odds with the legislative branch, and that's exactly what we're seeing play out with the firings.

@TerryHancock

Yeah that one to me seems most intuitive of these options, but far from great.

Unfortunately in the general public the @ has been rendered confused by the social media use of it.

Thanks, Twitter. :)

A new convention is needed.

@evan

@mick is it, though?

@tylerknowsnothing made her intentions unmistakable? No I think this right up actually mistakes them.

Employees justifying their positions is not exactly rare. Yes, if you want to collect a paycheck you need to be bringing value to justify it.

It comes across as kind of disconnected from the real world to see this request as something malign, or as a loyalty pledge.

In the real world, this is just normal for an organization to make sure it's using its resources wisely and sustainably.

@david_megginson

This sounds like a reach. The simpler explanation is that Biden simply lacked the executive energy to act, while Trump with the understanding of a 5-year-old, and the energy of one, is just poking buttons kind of at random.

There's no need to assume either understood anything about a larger pact or about the larger world.

@Gustodon

@fkamiah17 this gives the guy way too much credit.

He's killing them because he doesn't know anything about how the law works, he was told there's a bad guy in a boat, something about fentanyl, and then he ordered strikes.

No reason to reach for any story more complicated than that.

His brain has turned to mush, regressed to the state of being a child, so he's acting with the understanding of a child.

@MikeDunnAuthor You're still missing the argument.

Pseudoscience? Discredited? Completely lacking in any sort of scientific rigor or positive outcomes or on and on and on?

None of that matters in the slightest because they aren't questions of law.

Again, it is not the role of the Court to judge science or medicine. Its job is to speak on matters of law, not science or medicine.

If we would like to amend the US Constitution to permit legislation restricting speech on account of International consensus that it's bad, we can do that. But until we do, the Court is bound to rule on the law as it stands, not as we would prefer it, even if we think our preferred law would better promote science and all kinds of other good social things.

That's why we have an amendment process.

@RachelThornSub I'm not surprised.

The drama that's come up seems pretty niche to me, very interesting only to a small number of people.

@MikeDunnAuthor that misses the argument here.

It's NOT that torture is protected free speech but that talking to people is not torture.

As for the science, it's not the role of the Court to judge science. They're experts on law, not science, and often times poor results come out of courts wading into matters of science.

The Court is to apply the law as they receive it.

@HamonWry Well no, that's not how the Supreme Court appointment process works.

Presidents nominate and must gain approval of the Senate. The majority leader has no authority or ability to appoint a justice himself.

So no, the story that McConnell stacked the court is just false because that's not how that process works.

@maeve_bkk no, that gets the case backwards.

The issue before SCOTUS is that lower courts found section 2 to REQUIRE racial gerrymander.

The argument is that in requiring racial gerrymander, section 2 is unconstitutional.

The confusion in Louisiana v. Callais highlights that VRA may have had best of intentions, but is kind of a mess to implement.

@maeve_bkk@kolektiva.social no, that gets the case backwards.

The issue before SCOTUS is that lower courts found section 2 to REQUIRE racial gerrymander.

The argument is that in requiring racial gerrymander, section 2 is unconstitutional.

The confusion in Louisiana v. Callais highlights that VRA may have had best of intentions, but is kind of a mess to implement.

@solarbird remember, the current Republican strategy is not about winning but about fighting.

They just want to fight. Republican voters often explicitly say that, they want fighters. Winners? No, they elected a loser after all. And so much of the administration is staffed by losers. But they'll fight, they'll fight themselves right into a loss.

This is so important I think: Republicans want to fight. Winning is secondary, they just want the fight. The WWE cage match.

@statsguy No, it's pretty much the opposite.

Democrats are complaining that Republicans aren't imposing on states. Often enough they even accuse Republicans of taking too much power because the power they are referring to is the prosecutorial discretion NOT to impose on states.

Democrats complain that Republicans seek the power not to impose power on the states.

I know that gets into confusing double negatives, but it is what it is.

It's also, of course, not 100% coherent. A lot of these politicians go back and forth and are hypocritical, but this is the general rule.

@berniethewordsmith building on what other replies said, think about it this way:

When you need to put a couple of shapes on the screen that is thousands of individual pixels that need to be updated all at the same time. GPUs, graphical processing units, are designed so that they can update as many of those pixels all at once. That's why they are specialized for working in parallel, doing a bunch of things at the same time, because all of those different parts of the screen all need to be updated at the same time.

In contrast, if you need to do something like, I don't know, adding up your bank account, a traditional CPU does that as a single process, single calculation, as quickly as possible. It does one thing as fast as possible to get one single number as a result.

The current type of AI happens to need to do a whole lot of things in parallel so it is more like the GPU needing to update all the pieces of the screen at the same time. It's KIND OF like the AI needs to read a thousand books all at the same time as it's training. That's not a perfect analogy, but it's close.