starspangled

16 ms·

61.
by starspangled 2y ago
Those sound like enemies within, but what do I know? Liberals / leftists / whatever have non-personal internal enemies (white supremacists, ultra right wing, nationalists, etc), and right wing have external enemies as well as enti
62.
by starspangled 2y ago
Other side will call them intolerant racists too, it is also pretty clear to them.
63.
by starspangled 2y ago
I wasn't commentating on the rationale behind the thinking or whether it is right or not, just that the idea of the internal enemy is not owned by any one political persuasion. Though I'm sure right-wing groups believe themselves
64.
by starspangled 2y ago
Seems like a typical mythos of most political movements these days, doesn't it? E.g., "the far-right is our greatest threat". And it's said that e.g., Russia themselves is no great threat, they're basically an incom
65.
by starspangled 2y ago
Looks like the old "they're a private company, they can do what they want" chestnut is coming back around. Who could possibly have predicted this would ever happen?
66.
by starspangled 2y ago
Compilers runs enormous regression suites, and CI/git/bisect/etc style of development has made bugs harder to check in and quicker to squash in a lot of cases I would say. I have found a number of compiler bugs in GCC and LLV
67.
by starspangled 2y ago
The comment I replied to which is easy to find is this: > 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the hi
68.
by starspangled 2y ago
> Are consistent and steady not synonyms? You seem to have been arguing consistency, I'm not trying to make a strawman here. > Are you saying it's steady but inconsistent? You don't have to ask all these obtuse rhetoric
69.
by starspangled 2y ago
Government expenditure to GDP is up on the 70s anyway, and not just because of a covid outlier, it was well above the 70s rates in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 10s (i.e, before covid expenditure).
70.
by starspangled 2y ago
> Government expenditure as a proportion of GDP has been rising steadily for a century and is now approaching 40%. From IMF: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA . The recent trend is shaky d
71.
by starspangled 2y ago
> They were going down for an entire decade. You can't remove an entire decade and then say "steadily rising". I certainly can, over a century. > The numbers also went down 5 years in a row in the wake of the 2008 spike
72.
by starspangled 2y ago
I didn't see using the word consistently , so it seems like you're attempting an escape hatch with this strawman. I called it steadily upwards over the past 100 years until recently when it's becoming more erratic but stil
73.
by starspangled 2y ago
Sure but the 1990s, after Clinton's federal worker bloodbath and other expenditure cuts, is also an outlier and by the same argument you could say it is not representative of the overall trend. You can't just pick and choose your
74.
by starspangled 2y ago
> I said "latched onto" specifically because someone else said it first. Though they said "about 1980". Wrong, try actually comprehending the thread. I was being generous, they said "mostly until 1970". 1980
75.
by starspangled 2y ago
> It was dropping for most of the 1990s, and most of the 2010s. It was dropping in the 90s because of Clinton's enormous budget cuts and firing half a million federal employees which is clearly an outlier and something that now seem
76.
by starspangled 2y ago
That's not true.
77.
by starspangled 2y ago
> Rising steadily is what you said. It's really not doing that. It really is. > It's funny that you latched onto the mention of the year 1980, Excuse me, I didn't latch onto 1980, crazygringgo nominated that date. >
78.
by starspangled 2y ago
It's risen almost 6% over 40 years, and you're wrong it's not too small to claim that it's rising.
79.
by starspangled 2y ago
2% of US GDP is 500 billion. I don't know what you're confused about. I'm taking numbers linked from the IMF so perhaps you know better? Also it's obviously not a 2% increase over 45 years, it's a nearly 6% increase
80.
by starspangled 2y ago
Right. Healthcare expenditure just looks incredibly wasteful. Even if it is (as its defenders would say) buying more for the money, it just seems to be costing way too much when you look at others. And it's not as though those other de
81.
by starspangled 2y ago
Honest question, do expect people to actually believe you're a serious person interested in rational debate with that kind of response? What Trump / DOGE has proposed or claimed to have cut amounts to far less than $500 billion &#
82.
by starspangled 2y ago
Yes. What would you put up in the defense of an argument that says it has not risen?
83.
by starspangled 2y ago
> No it hasn't. It rose until about 1980 (mostly until 1970), and it's been about the same for the past 45 years. Yes it has. In 1980 it was 34.25%, in 2022 it was 36.25%. > And yes, it rose 1925-1980 as we built the modern
84.
by starspangled 2y ago
It significantly outperformed competitors on those benchmarks. Around as much as the deltas between some others, which are considered significant.
85.
by starspangled 2y ago
> 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least the 1970s, with
86.
by starspangled 2y ago
> The creation of a model which is "co-state-of-the-art" (assuming it wasn't trained on the benchmarks directly) is not a win for scaling laws. Just based on the comparisons linked in the article, it's not "co-st
87.
by starspangled 2y ago
Interesting question. I'm not sure what "woman" has to do with it since they're both women, but we'll go with it. It would be helpful if you could link your comment, but I guess it's been nuked. Anyway... Just
88.
by starspangled 2y ago
> This can potentially enable an end run around congress and the courts in that the President can easily choose to interpret laws in a manner inconsistent with the intent of congress and courts. How does it potentially enable that? The e
89.
by starspangled 2y ago
I love browsing the tuhs mailing list from time to time. Awesome to see names like Ken Thompson and Rob Pike, and a bunch of others with perhaps less recognizable names but who were involved in the early UNIX and computing scene.
90.
by starspangled 2y ago
I don't agree because they were simply talking election denial, so 2016 and 2020 both equally fit. Unfortunately there looks to be a lot of denial and conspiracy theories around 2024 too now, which is very dangerous to democracy.

More ›