nah, you're right though. this sucks.

i'm sorry for hubski being nothing but politics, i take the blame for a lot of that. it's not helpful. it's not fun.

i like this place and the people a lot, I don't wanna be the one making it worse. i have a hard time not engaging and its clearly not making things better or anyone including myself happy

see you in a while hopefully. can't wait to catch up on the CNC machine progress & the watch drama, that's been my favorite part & it's getting drowned out

Speaking of the power of language,

crazy how all the Palestinians captured without trial and held and tortured are "prisoners" and not "hostages"

This is not to defend what Hamas did on Oct 7.

But Ukraine could also stop all the killings with unconditional surrender. Israel wants complete military domination and will not accept any Palestinian state.

They've proposed an permanent ceasefire in exchange for all hostages. Israel will only accept a temporary ceasefire.

They are deliberately starving them, burning their food, denying aid. They've moved all the civilians into one city and are now bombing it indiscriminately. They fire onto unarmed civilians, even killing their own hostages shirtless waving a white flag. They are bulldozing houses and building settlements on their land. 75% of all structures have been destroyed.

This is not total war. Hamas can barely fight back. Post Oct 7th, a fifth of the IDFs 188 deaths have been friendly fire. It is a slaughter by a government that promises that there will never be a Palestinian state.

Yeah :/, there's definitely a pragmatic case to be made. And it wasn't a genocide. But wow was it horrific for a bunch of civilians.

I would compare it more to what happened in Bosnia than to the atomic bomb. But you're right, dropping the abomb has also fallen out of favor with the left

I think you're right that Trump is doing badly.

I think Klein's right that Roe v Wade is very motivating.

I think Biden is not beloved, and if you believe what's happening in Gaza is a genocide, being able to take a moral stance on "never voting for a genocider" is a hard line in the ground to argue against and means you get to feel brave voting aginst someone you didn't really like to begin with. If the war isn't over and the Palestinians made whole it will be a very tight race. I'd give Biden the odds, but I did in 2016 too

I don't get your conclusion, Mitch has been pushed out of his party for not being MAGA enough, but I don't see how that relates.

Packing the courts seems so out of character for them. I think if they win they'll legislate around the court as much as they can, and otherwise just accept losing. They know how to lose pretty well, I think they're used to it at this point.

Id give 100:1 odds that by the end of the next term, they have not packed the court, and 10:1 odds that Biden never even pitches the option

I have aboslutely no faith that they will be willing to do it. They couldn't break the filibuster for Obamacare with almost a supermajority, and the filibuster is a boring procedural thing you have to be tricked into caring about. Adding more justices is the right thing to do, but its dramatic.

I'd love to be proven wrong

[edit: what's your opinion on impeachment? I always thought that was the more politically correct option and the results are the same]

What's the democrats plan to restore legitimacy to the court?

Then why stick it in the last possible slot and not give a reply until July, virtually guaranteeing that the trial isn't over before he's elected president?

I think the idea is to get the best of both worlds, "credibility" by making the obviously correct ruling, while still allowing trump into office

Why didn't they take the case up the first time it was presented to them, or make any sort of expedited judgement? A swift ruling would have been slightly more decisive true, but I do not believe that's their goal.

I'm with you that trump will not serve more than his four years.

I dont want him to win ofc, but its looking like Trump has at least 50/50 odds in the general. I'm not sure whatever you're hoping will happen to him will happen.

Yeah I dont get why he hasnt been more on the offense. His main pitch is being "Not Trump", the resistance to their tyranny, and yet he usually acts like the GOP are respectful colleagues that he has a few quibbles with.

Hmmm, maybe

I don't thing ChatGPT's problem is that it can be bullied into saying 5+7=90, its that it fundamentally doesn't know what 5+7 is, and I'm doubtful that Khan Academy has solved that

Gah, I wrote a long detailed response, but my cat pressed the power button on the computer just as I was finishing the conclusion. Hopefully with the second chance to write it it will be a little more edited anyways.

The basic gist was that, to me, this has a lot of parallels with the BLM movement, which also tried to solve something incredibly complicated in a What do you mean it's complicated just fucking fix it! sort of way. And while the BLM movement largely failed, as I suspect this one will to, at least it's heart was in the right place. And it does not seem like the government's heart is in the right place currently.

Is this another Kony 2012? Maybe. Was BLM another Kony 2012? Also maybe. The first draft was a little more poetic here, but there is something to the idea that with the most powerful government in the world, that we're capable of writing wrongs and making the world better. And it totally didn't work, lol. And was obviously an easy movement to criticize both now and back then, but there is still a bit of beauty to it.

"this intractable problem has been solved by Zoomers and it's grownups who suck."

I don't think any zoomer claims to have the solution, just like BLM did not claim to know how to solve police brutality. It just demanded that people care, and gave some first steps.

Defund the police is pretty comparable to the demand to not give weapons to Israel. Increasing the police budgets to solve brutality seems about as effective as giving unconditional military aid to Israel. And as for "they have been arguing since October 8 that they're not [using untargetted bombs]", Biden himself has denied this. Saying there is ‘indiscriminate bombing’ is the closest Biden has ever come to accusing Israel of war crimes. This is while using our weapons.

From the poll you posted earlier, only 13% of the 65+ demographic think Israel is an apartheid state, and only 27% think their treatment of palestinians is analogous to racism in the US. Zoomers do not have the solution, but there can not ever be a solution if you don't agree there's a problem. I know you're not one of those, but a large part of the movement here is just to get Biden to acknowledge it! The closest he comes is calling Israel "over the top," when the rest of the world can at least say "ethnic cleansing," if not "genocide." It made the news when Biden even mentioned the possibility of a "ceasefire" instead of just a "humanitarian pause" (what a term). This is hundreds of days into the war and after being the sole veto on two earlier UN ceasefire votes.

Here's another parallel to BLM:

Much of the Middle East is united in wanting the destruction of Israel, but also united in turning away Palestinian refugees. Jordan doesn't want them because they started a civil war there. Lebanon doesn't want them because they started a civil war there. Kuwait doesn't want them because they tried to start a civil war there and Egypt doesn't want them because they're afraid they'll start a civil war there.

Seems similar to the idea that the police are so violent because everyone has guns, and if you just look at the crime statistics, you'll see who the problem really is. Not strictly wrong, but just like in BLM it's doesn't detract from the main point, and also, maybe there are better ways to solve the problem than by giving the oppressor tanks.

Anyways, conclusion take 2:

It seems to be that Biden would like peace in the middle east in the abstract, just like he would like it if there wasn't police brutality. Any of the obvious steps towards this are not being done, in the same way that none of the steps BLM asked for ever happened. If you think the pro-palistinian movement is a bunch of piss baby dunces who watched one video and threw a tantrum, fine, but BLM was also largely based on watching one extremely horrifying video, and I while I don't know your opinions on that movement I hope you at least sympathize with why people wanted to be part of it.

That's all. I'll read and consider anything you reply with, and I promise I have spent a lot of time considering what you've already wrote. No worries if you're tired and done though, I am too, and I don't think I'll be writing any more on this. It's exhausting.

Idk, I guess I really just don't get you. I am trying to understand.

Dropping untargetted bombs on civilian centers is already against the rules of war. They have responsibility there too. And I can't see how we can ever get to two states when Israel is winning their war to totally subjugate one of the two. And we are aiding them at doing that.

Or I guess put another way, surely it is uncontroversial that we have historically sided almost exclusively with Israel against the Palestinians, for proxy war and geopolitical reasons, or because evangelicals like it, or whatever. What's different now? Because our behavior seems exactly the same.

Palestine has offered an exchange of all hostages for an indefinite ceasefire. Israel rejected it and said that it will just allow Hamas time to regroup. They propose a temporary ceasefire (weeks) and then a return to the genocide. They will accept nothing other than total military control of Gaza. We're backing that plan at the UN. I cannot understand how you believe that we are doing everything we can to save Gazan lives and to ensure they will be able to keep an independent state.

Edit: Even NYT agrees Biden is not doing much:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/24/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news#us-takes-a-harder-line-on-israel-in-words-but-not-in-deeds

And other articles list UN Human Rights experts begging to stop arms exports. None of Bidens messaging has been about how their bombs are safer or more targeted, it has always been about ensuring Israel has enough weapons.

I think maybe I'm being to quippy:

The situation in the middle east in general is complicated, clearly. Two oppressed groups who hate eachother, one of which is currently subjugating the other and the other is guerilla terrorists. It is complicated in that I hate what both are doing while sympathizing with both as oppressed groups.

What Hamas did was straightforwardly bad, if slightly understandable. They have been oppressed for decades and were about to be sold out by the Saudis.

What Israel did after the attack was straightforwardly bad, if slightly understandable. We did the same thing after 9/11.

What Israel is doing right now - in my opinion - is straightforwardly bad, and extremely disproportionate. They are trying to capitalize on the war to fully occupy Palestine and guarantee there can be no two state solution.

Biden is choosing a side completely, with unconditional support for Israel including vetoing any UN ceasefires and a massive donation of weapons. He is making this simple, by declaring Israel morally untouchable and ignoring the worth of Palestinian lives. He is morally culpable in this war continuing and their blood is on his hands.

To me, opposing this is equally simple. Our support to Israel SHOULD NOT BE UNCONDITIONAL. That's all I'm asking, I'm not calling for unconditional support of Hamas, or the dissolution of the state of Israel. Just an end to this genocide. Or, given that they are their own sovereign nation and we can't decide it for them, at the very least not aiding and abetting in it. I don't know nearly enough to say how to get to a two state solution, However, seems obvious that it will not be helped by being unconditionally in the pocket of Israel, who would much prefer themselves to be the one state.

That's all I'm trying to say. I'm glad now we're not one sidedly against the Native Americans and one sidedly against the Armenians. We should stop being one sidedly against the Palestinians too.

[edit: just realized this whole misunderstanding was because the tweet earlier was implying that it was going to hurt jobs. I didn't catch that when I posted it, I was mainly griping about AI Art being made without an artist in the middle and then shown to me to despair at]

I do not think AI is coming for VFX jobs, or will be a problem for the industry.

I once suggested earlier that maybe some jobs might shuffle around, in the way that there's not people drawing inbetweens now that everything is 3D animation. But I really don't know how much of the industry is that specialized, and its all stuff that's already offshored for maximum cheapness anyways I'm sure. And they'll likely be able to figure out something else to do.

Every so often I see something that's obviously AI generated in a way that's careless and loveless and would have otherwise been a stock photo and I would prefer that it would have been a stock photo, that's the extent of my complaints.

I promise you, I'm not one of the 'anti-CGI' types! They're wrong and silly and stupid and don't know anything about how movies are made.

Here's my personal experience with AI Art:

1. I've seen one or two ads that very clearly were AI generated. I think one of them was coca-cola.

2. Some local place's fliers now use AI Art. They used to be scrapbooky doodles and I liked that better.

3. A friend of a friend who I had a conversation with works in making corporate animations said that he's being given shorter timespans to make things, necessitating the backgrounds being done in AI which he's sad about because it's less fun and doesn't look as good.

I don't know much about the movie industry except for following the strikes in the news, and from trying to learn blender for VFX a few times. I think it is a beautiful art and very difficult and I gave up because I have a dayjob and I'd rather my hobbies be more immediately gratifying. I hope none of my comments came off as authoritative on that, but clearly they did and I'm sorry.

This isn't something I'm super mad or passionate about, I think that the movie industry will have the best time with AI out of anyone since they have huge budgets and tons of artists already and are aiming for high quality.

If I can be slightly charitable to the people railing against 'CG', it is tacky when there's something on the screen Obviously computer made. It feels like whoever made it doesnt respect us enough to know the difference, that they went the cheap way instead of the good way. It's not a loving, artisanal, small-batch effect, but some gross industrial thing.

Again! I know that the Vast majority of VFX is beautifully done and totally invisible. I expect AI will be the same way, especially in movies. But sometimes I have to see something that is Obviously AI and it's kinda saddening. I hope it doesn't happen more and that it gets integrated well.

And I'm sorry that this came off as shouting over your experience. This is something you obviously know way more about and are more personally invested in. I honestly thought I was just agreeing with you, given your comments earlier about the directors using AI audio plugins as an alternative to hiring someone who actually know what they're doing, and your comments about modern TV mixing.

Oh, yeah. That makes sense about why the studio was actually cancelled. The quote part i likes though. Its my personal biggest worry with the tool- that the people with money will decide they don't like dealing with experts and their expert opinions and will use it to make and fund worse things instead. Not even necessarily cheaper as you said earlier, cuz the stuffs expensive and will be even more expensive once they actually have to pay copyright owners

I feel like we got different reads out of the tweet. I agree with everythibg you've been saying re: AI 100%, wasn't trying to be combattative at all.

My take on the tweet was that its going to be used by the know-nothing producers who hate experts that you were talking about earlier and that will make for worse art. When its a tool used by experts its lovely. I have nothing against green screens, studios, set extensions, CG, or any of that

That sucked !

And like, is my point. We should not have bombed so many people after 9/11. Yet we did. And now we're letting Israel do the same thing for a lot of the same reasons and it's like we've learned nothing.

If you want a "Jewish" state, I don't see how you can possibly say that talking about ethostates is off topic. It's not a space where Jewish people can be safe it's a Jewish state. In Israel, a place were people already lived. It's saying they have more of a right there than the Arabs. It is absolutely picking a side.

i think that's maybe just your definition? I don't want the Jews to be genocided again lol. To me Zionism is unquestioning support for Israel as it is, an ethostate where Arabs are a second class citizen and Palestine is occupied and blockaded. It's support for Israel as a colonial project. And if finding an expedient place to live requires doing a genocide of your own, maybe it wasn't a good place to pick idk.

We'll see. They just admitted publicly the goal is indefinite military control with "buffer zones" of stolen Palestinian land. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/23/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news More so than staying safe from Hamas, this seems like Netanyahu's real goal and that of a lot of people that voted for him. Certainly this war hasn't made people more leftist over there.

I don't disagree that we're using Israel for proxy warfare. But this fits so much with what am_U's saying about effective altruism,. We gotta give them nukes and let them bomb children because it lets us stop these other guys from getting nukes and lets us bomb them easier which gives us lower prices on oil which helps the global stability and peace or whatever. It's all so indirect and sneaky and about the ends justifying the means, and I'm not convinced we're going to get the ends anyways.

It's too late for it now, Israel's existed for a while, so a two state answer is still best. But I don't see why it's self evident that the only option at the time was a colonial project, or why an ethostate is inherently a good idea. So much of our culture now in the USA is embracing diversity and inclusion. Anyone arguing the USA should be an ethostate of White Christians is a deplorable, but the same arguments are made for why Israel should be allowed to do what they do.

How to get to a two state solution is complicated. One thing is not complicated though, that it we absolutely should not give half the budget of NASA no strings attached to Israel so they can bomb children.

I don't see how your simpler times examples match, it took us until 2019 to recognize the Armenian Genocide. That was straightforwardly bad. Until then, our policy was that we like the Turks more so it doesn't count. That's our policy with Israel, but now it's just complicated?