Carceral housing law arose from a transformation in federal law enforcement, in which the U.S. government encouraged the merging of policing and welfare, and policing became driven primarily by profit
This is real. It’s also one reason why laws against gay sex were on the books in many states until finally overturned by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Lawrence v Texas. Sometimes police would use the laws directly, but more commonly since gay sex was considered a criminal activity, landlords would use it as an excuse to deny lgbt people housing or evict them.
Sociologist Matthew Desmond has an amazing book called Evicted that talks about criminal act evictions and profiles people who have been the target of them. The book follows very low income renters in Milwaukee through years of their struggles to find and keep housing. It also follows individual landlords from the same neighborhoods. It’s technically an academic subject and is impeccably researched (the notes section in the back could be its own book) but it reads like a novel. It won a Pulitzer iirc.
He also just published Poverty, By America last year. I’ve only just started it, but it’s just as readable. He explains overly-complicated regulations and social services red tape in a way that’s concise and easy to understand, and he illustrates their consequences through his interviews with real people. His books should be required reading for every American.
Wow, that’s a little too impressive. I’m guessing that image was probably in its training set (or each individual image). There are open training sets with adversarial images, and these images may have come from them. Every time I’ve tried to use ChatGPT with images it has kinda failed (on electronic schematics, plant classification, images of complex math equations, etc). I’m kind of surprised OpenAI doesn’t just offload some tasks to purpose-built models (an OCR or a classification model like inaturalist’s would’ve performed better in some of my tests).
This exact image (without the caption-header of course) was on one of the slides for one of the machine-learning related courses at my college, so I assume it’s definitely out there somewhere and also was likely part of the training sets used by OpenAI. Also, the image in those slides has a different watermark at the bottom left, so it’s fair to assume it’s made its rounds.
Contradictory to this post, it was used as an example for a problem that machine learning can solve far better than any algorithms humans would come up with.
Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, told NPR that as long as there’s a petition for U.S. Supreme Court review in place by Jan. 5, there’s a “99.9%” chance that Trump will remain on the Colorado primary ballot.
The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case.
If a) Trump seeks review, b) SCOTUS agrees to take up the case, c) SCOTUS overturns Colorado’s Supreme Court’s ruling, and d) all that happens in time, then Trump will appear on the Colorado ballot.
The U.S. Supreme Court “can’t” take up the case in the same sense as Trump “can’t” incite his base to storm the capital building. But that didn’t stop him.
And as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, we’ve got three Trump appointees on the SCOTUS plus a guy whose wife took part in the January 6 rally and endorsed the attack on the capitol.
I hope you’re right (and I’m not saying there’s a 0% chance it won’t get overturned – not that it’s going to make a difference whether Trump wins the general election in 2024 either way) but I fear we’re living in a world where “can’t” doesn’t necessarily mean “won’t” and where the U.S. Supreme Court may be totally willing to flout the rules.
How can SCOTUS even have jurisdiction when the Constitution specifically gives the power to oversee elections to the States? This seems more like it should require Congress to change the Constitution if the federal government wants the power to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado.
States are allowed to make their own rules but they aren’t allowed to contradict the US Constitution. Since the US Constitution is subject to the political leanings of the current court, who tf knows what’s ever going to happen.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but they are following the Constitution in making this decision. The Constitution does not require a conviction.
I mean, three of the SCOTUS were appointed by the guy who tried to coup the U.S. government and a fourth is married to someone who also tried to coup the U.S. government. I don’t think it’s so much about whether the arguments why they “can’t” overturn it are good arguments or not at this point. It’s like telling a pidgeon to stop shitting on the chess board because shitting on the board is not a legal move in chess.
Yup, none of Colorado’s 10 votes will be for Trump. Colorado has a winner-take-all method, so even if there are alternate candidates, the difference will probably fracture the republican vote and loose any chance of any votes.
Why is it always the worst rap music imaginable? Like, I’m a hip hop fanatic, old school, new school, trap, g funk, boom bap, conscious, etc. But why is it the most asinine “i took a xanny now i’m fucking your girl” type shit?
You don’t enjoy “Gucci Gucci Gucci Gucci, fucked yo girl on a Tuesday, Gucci Gucci Gucci Gucci, I made poopies on yo boobies, Gucci Gucci Gucci Gucci.”
Great info. I can understand modifying YouTube to remove ads, PnP, & screen-off usage for an entertainment app, but I don’t know I would tolerate that for messaging actual humans. It’s a shame these efforts aren’t going into self-hostable, decentralized options. :(
I mean, sure, the dictionary definition says “created directly and personally by a particular artist; not a copy or imitation”, and I agree with that, but hear me out, I like these philosophical rabbit holes.
The definition says “not a copy or imitation”, so we are presupposing that those things exist, so something original is the antithesis of a copy or imitation.
Now imagine if absolutely everything is original, wouldn’t the word lose its meaning? Isn’t something original the opposite of a copy? If no copies exist wouldn’t it be the opposite of nothing? Or even itself?
Original things wouldn’t be original, they would just be.
Ive got hundreds of these damn movies on my Plex server specifically because my wife LOVES this crap.
I’m convinced we have a Family-Guy-Manatee-Ball-Pit situation going on here. There’s less balls to choose from, but damn if I haven’t seen “save family business with a last minute impromptu charity event spurred on by the handsome dude from her past who posseses some talent” 100 fucking times.
They aren’t usually direct plot copies, they just have identical pieces that get moved around so they can factory farm these bitches out.
He also forgot the silly, but loveable sidekick best friend of the romantic interest who is irrelevant for the whole movie, but helps to save the day in the end (and sometimes gets it on with the very serious sidekick best friend of the main character).
Fun game: see how much of the set is used in other movies. Most of the Hallmark movies are made on the same set in Atlanta so some will share little things like the same staircase or same exterior of a house. Hallmark reuses more than just the plots!
There’s an episode of South Park where they go to the writing offices of Family Guy for whatever reason, and instead of actual writers, they have an aquarium tank full of manatees and plastic balls with words on them.
The manatees would bring the balls to the top of the tank, few at a time, and the staff would use the words on the balls as prompts for their new jokes/episodes.
Liberia and Myanmar also use imperial units, but they’re both starting to move towards metric in recent years so soon the US truly will be alone in that
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.