The problem is that most colleges, at least in the US, aren’t really about expanding knowledge, they’re about checking items off a list. The vast majority of your required coursework isn’t supposed to be teaching anything, it’s to pad out your hours and inflate your tuition. And for that privilege you’ll be paying enough money every year to force the average person into multiple decades worth of debt.

Is it still passing the Turing test if you don’t think either one is human?

I agree with everything you said except this:

And of course she lost, because Trump did have an ambitious plan to transform America, and he convinced Americans his plan would leave them better off, and Americans looked at how they were better off under Trump’s first term than they were under Biden and made the obvious choice.

Trump never had a plan ambitious or otherwise. He has always been inherently reactionary, and what he does do unprompted is always a complete failure. Americans were demonstrably not better off under Trump’s first term, at best they weren’t any worse off, but nothing Trump did his first term helped the American public.

Trump has spent his entire political career being manipulated by various groups, be it project 2025, Putin, or Rupert Murdoch by way of Fox News. He’s a giant toddler perpetually throwing a tantrum.

While you are right lets not pretend a Democrat majority Congress would have changed a damn thing. Democrats have been economically conservative for decades now. The only thing the two parties really disagree on is social policies. Both parties are perfectly fine with an oligarchy running things.

This will surely help stimulate the economy and get Millenials to finally start participating in the housing market right? Right?

Ban food dyes, artificial or not, or at least limit them somewhat. People have this illogical knee-jerk reaction to the words artificial and natural as if those imply some kind of value judgement. There’s tons of natural stuff you don’t want anywhere near you and plenty of artificial stuff that’s super beneficial, people need to stop assuming natural means healthy and artificial means unhealthy.

Also yes, ban fucking pharmaceutical ads.

You know that South Park episode where Japan is trying to use Pokemon to conquer the US and every time someone from the US goes to ask them about it they distract them by saying how huge their penis is? I can pretty much guarantee that tactic would work against Trump. Just tell him that he’s winning and how amazing he is and how much you’re being screwed over by him and he’ll be happy.

That seems to apply to the majority of law enforcement who in general seem to be the absolute last people that should have any kind of authority over anybody else. There’s a reason something crazy like 60%+ of police commit domestic abuse.

Small dick energy.

It’s a standard cop intimidation tactic. There was this really toxic concept that cops were (still are?) taught that they need to “take command” of every situation and one of their first priorities is to intimidate and scare anyone who doesn’t immediately start blindly following their instructions. They perceive asking questions as a threat to their “authority” that needs to be eliminated at all costs.

Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?

Get ready for a bunch more 1 and 2 day outages because someone forgot/missed the deadline to renew some crusty server somewhere. This is such massive overkill for most servers. End users should start getting used to that expired certificate warning in their browser of choice and the process to tell it to continue to the site anyway.

Don’t worry, they’re working hard to pump up those unemployment numbers as well. Not going to be long before people are starving in the streets, not because there’s no food, but because the average person just won’t be able to afford it.

Part of the problem is the cold war propaganda was so laser focused on “communism bad” that much of why the USSR was bad was lost. The older generation still have a knee jerk reaction to the word communism that right wing media frequently exploits to generate a cheap emotional reaction by accusing any group they don’t like of being communist. Meanwhile the real horrors of the USSR are largely ignored lest people start drawing parallels with current events.

To paraphrase a meme, the risk was calculated, but boy is Trump bad at math.

Wouldn’t take the military, he can call on federal marshals, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, and probably even some of the local police would be willing to become his dogs. He could also in theory deploy one states national guard into a different state although that’s a little shakier legal ground. That’s assuming of course that the local officials would refuse to appear in court or a congressional summons voluntarily. There’s also other ways of exerting pressure like refusing to issue federal funds (although that’s far less effective against Democrat states since they contribute more federal funds than they receive, particularly California).

According Trumps bootlickers the Supreme Court the answer is no. They ruled any action the president takes officially while in office is de facto legal. He could drop a nuke on Texas if he felt like and as long as it was an official act of his office he’s untouchable.

That’s not actually true, there are things the federal government can do. First it’s a grey area legally. The constitution says trade deals (and trade outside the borders of any one state) is the domain of the federal government.

The argument in this case would be “Is this a trade deal?”. It certainly sounds like a deal, and it involves trade, but the key technicality would be if California is giving anything in return. Are they promising anything in exchange for no or reduced tariffs or are they just asking with the promise of nothing in return? If they’re not promising anything there’s a pretty good chance they could win the argument that this isn’t a trade deal and therefore the federal government has no legal basis to intervene (although it’s worth pointing out that the current administration hasn’t particularly let legality influence their actions).

On the other hand if California is promising something in return there’s a decent chance the federal government could successfully argue that that meets the definition of a trade deal and is therefore prohibited. This also raises the question of why another country would agree to remove tariffs from California if they aren’t promising anything in return. The only answer I can come up with is to figuratively (and maybe literally at the same time) give the middle finger to Trump.

Just because Trump and his goons are ignoring it doesn’t mean his cronies in congress and the supreme court won’t still use it to attack anyone they want to.

Did you mean to respond to someone else? This seems like a bit of a non-sequitur from my comment.

Economics in general. California is responsible for a significant chunk of the entire US GDP as well as being one of the primary shipping hubs. My point was more along the lines that these other problems are tractable, you could for instance negotiate trade deals between the rest of the US and California. The military on the other hand is a much tougher problem akin to unscrambling an egg. There’s no obvious way to disentangle California from the greater US military.