How do you organize an armed group that’s big enough to be effective without the fascists hearing about it in advance?

don’t face them alone

*pervasive surveillance state has entered the chat*

Hey, wasn’t this supposed to be an actual dome? The demented, old dingbat described it as a literal dome.

So, essentially the same as a company spokesperson!

Forget the spokesperson, just ask Google AI directly:

AI on Google Search, including the AI Overviews in search, does not provide summaries on topics involving Donald Trump and dementia. This is due to risk aversion, sensitivity to political topics, and recent legal challenges. Instead, these searches return a list of traditional web links.

Reasons for the lack of response

• Risk of misinformation: AI-generated conclusions about a public figure’s health could spread misinformation. The mental acuity of Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, the oldest presidents in U.S. history, is a topic of public discussion.
• Avoiding political sensitivity: AI models often have restrictions on sensitive or controversial topics to avoid biased responses. Google and other tech companies are cautious about how their AI products respond to election-related or partisan queries.
• Legal history with Trump: Google’s handling of Trump-related content may be influenced by recent legal and political issues. In 2025, Google paid a $24.5 million settlement in a lawsuit related to the suspension of Trump’s YouTube account.
• Inconsistent application of AI summaries: Some users report that searches about other politicians, like Barack Obama or Joe Biden, may return an AI-generated response, though this varies. This inconsistency has led to criticism that the AI applies selective censorship.

Google’s statement A Google spokesperson stated that AI Overview and AI Mode do not always show answers to all queries, especially sensitive or complex ones. The company suggests that users rely on traditional search results in such cases.

Armenia and Cambodia are screwed.

Remember who? I don’t know who Farley Burke is or was.

e: Oh, Charly. I misheard. I will gladly honor the sacrifice of Ensign Charly Burke.

Yeah, so what? This is the natural evolution of online communities. It’s a good thing. When the user base is small, we should have a few, non-specific channels/forums/communities/whatevers so that everybody is in the same place to talk to each other. Metaphorically, it’s like sustaining a nuclear reaction: The fissile material has to be in close enough proximity so that the radiation (posts and comments) can strike more fissile material (other users) to keep the chain reaction going. In the past, I’ve criticized the urge to immediately atomize Lemmy into thousands of highly-specific communities, and indeed, most of them have withered away.

Once a particular topic starts to dominate a community, once it’s reached critical mass, then it’s time to fork it off into its own community. I don’t think that’s happened to !asklemmy@lemmy.world yet.

Oh, certainly not! True, all of the men I know now who wear bow ties regularly are gay, but not the guy I knew back when I was a high school senior. Y’know, good, solid, conservative Limbaugh listener. Had a girlfriend even—back home, while he was at college—you wouldn’t know her. Real friendly, he’d invite me over to his apartment to talk computers, share his university Internet login password with me, that kind of thing. Yup yup. Totally. 110% straight.

Here’s the crux of the difference of opinion: No, Pres. Harris would not have been talking about luxury hotels on the rubble of Gaza. Israel, however, has been talking about it for years. The U.S. President has very little influence over Israeli intentions, and whether the U.S. President talks about it sounds like an objection based on style rather than substance.

I think they’re this powerful right now because there are a lot of non-billionaires who are dumb enough to do whatever they’re told by them even if it’s not in their own best interest (or the rest of the world’s) at all.

And they always will be. The thing about one’s own best interest is that it’s self-interest, always at least parochial, if not outright selfish (as in the US). If the people comprising a billionaire’s private security force can obtain a better standard of living, more power, more perks, for themselves and their families than they could by cooperating with the rest of the proles in a (let’s be honest) speculative venture, even if it did pay off? Well, some people will take the billionaire’s offer, at least enough people to comprise a private security force.

I get the thinking here, but past bubbles (dot com, housing) were also based on things that have real value, and the bubble still popped. A bubble, definitionally, is when something is priced far above its value, and the “pop” is when prices quickly fall. It’s the fall that hurts; the asset/technology doesn’t lose its underlying value.

Indeed, it’s not really a flavor, but that sensation is called astringent.

It’s the other way around. Residential properties are used as investment vehicles, because it’s profitable. It’s profitable because the prices are high and rising. The prices are rising because of the housing crisis, which is caused by lack of supply. Lack of supply is caused, in large measure, because of restrictive zoning.

If there were a glut of housing on the market, prices would crater, and it wouldn’t be profitable, investors wouldn’t buy residential properties. They could still try to buy up all of the properties, and create artificial scarcity that way, but the idea is to make a profit, not just collect residential property for the sake of having it. As soon as they started selling or letting properties in large numbers, supply would rise and prices drop again.

It’s the artificial scarcity mandated by law that’s driving the high prices. This explanation is confirmed by many cities, like mine, that have a very low rate of private equity ownership, and still have a housing crisis.

You are correct. I forgot to qualify my statement to say that it applies on city streets. Apologies, I can’t find the YouTube video that discussed the study right now.

Hi-viz doesn’t do anything. There’s no statistical difference in casualty rates between people wearing it and people not. Consider that drivers routinely plow into the back of emergency vehicles stopped by the side of the highway, completely wrapped in hi-viz, reflective material, and with million-lumen flashing lights. This is victim-blaming nonsense.

How DARE people move around the landscape in the traditional way that humans have been locomoting for tens of thousands of years without considering YOUR needs!

(That is, if you can’t see what’s in front of your car, you need to slow down.)

e: typo

Oh, I’m a little drunk, so I forgot the second point. Maybe I’m not devious enough to lead a bioweapons program, but I would think that research into potential bioweapons would primarily focus on a vaccine or a treatment. Nasty disease outbreaks occur naturally, and as we saw with COVID-19, they affect everybody. Why would any nation release a bioweapon that’s going to hammer itself just as much as the enemy? That would only make sense to me in maybe a Dead Hand-like scenario, in which your nation has already fallen, and you release it as vengeance from the grave.

But, that still doesn’t make sense to me, because we don’t have any reliable way to look at a virus and determine its potential for causing a pandemic. That might not even be possible, since there are/were lots of viruses that seem like they should cause a pandemic, but just haven’t.

The America’s Cup.

Turns out it was hygiene theater for a while. In the early days, we just didn’t know how it was transmitted, so the CDC recommended hand-washing and surface sanitizing out of an abundance of caution. I worked at a grocery store through the pandemic, where both of the owners were very community-oriented, and one was a low-key germophobe. They took the CDC recommendations seriously, and we all had to wear disposable gloves, as well as follow all sorts of protocols to sanitize surfaces.

Later on in the course of the pandemic, scientists started to question whether COVID-19 could spread on surfaces, because the evidence wasn’t showing up. In fact, there was a study done back in the 1980’s here at the University of Wisconsin in which volunteers who were sick with respiratory viruses (incl. coronaviruses) would read newspapers, play cards, play board games, etc. in a room, and then the researchers would bring healthy volunteers into the same room to do the same. Zero healthy volunteers got sick, so the researchers had the ill volunteers cough and sneeze directly on the shared objects before handing over the room. Again, zero healthy volunteers got sick. They were unable to demonstrate any surface-contact transmission.

This news came out, but the CDC was slow to update its recommendations. There was a period during which I was highly annoyed at having to wear the gloves, and spray surfaces with the extremely-expensive electrospray gun, when it was already scientific consensus (minus the CDC) that COVID-19 didn’t spread through surface contact. Eventually, they did update their recommendations, and we were able to stop with the rigamarole. Sales of hand sanitizer and wipes dropped off (but still were high, because the new information wasn’t universally known). If I understand it correctly (eh…), the virus which causes COVID-19 is relatively delicate, and its structure is supported by the water droplets which spread it. Once the droplets hit a surface, the protein structure of the virion collapses, and it’s no longer capable of infecting a cell.

Anyway, yeah, it was an abundance of caution, which turned into hygiene theater.