The leadership of a group is responsible for that group's actions, especially if they passively allow things to happen. If he does not wish to be responsible for that, he could of course always step down.

"Either he approved it or he doesn't know what's happening in his own party" is, however, a completely valid take.

There does not have to be a coordinated, conspiratorial effort for a group to be acting as a unit from outside perspective.

I'm sure as individuals they're all operating for their own reasons - and yet, they end up moving as one in predictable ways, and are best addressed as a group as well.

Doesn't that line get applause like... every time?

There are days I am willing to downplay my queerness in order to do things like show up at protests looking "normal".

But what I give up in clout and ability to use my privileges in some aspects I get back in community and in ability to make space for others like me.

Plus, trans Misha's hotter.

Marriage vows are mutualistic - both ends of the contract need to be respected for either to apply.

Any oath that is prewritten and required - or required in order to enter a legal state - could be held to a slightly different standard. Not "you must follow this oath", but "breaking this oath puts you out of the category". They also ought to be written with a lot more attention.

The article is kind of an ad for the product, but here are the highlights - pay $10/month to make it work, this is broadly just a small ringshaped recording device attached to some AI transcription software, you could probably hook up any recording device to any transcriptionware for similar.

Hmmmm, this feels like many AI applications - "ok so it doesn't work super well, but hey, at least that means it's unsuccessful at the Great Evil"

We already kinda have both voice recording equipment and voice to text software. Bonus scary to have it in an always-on ring, still.

This is some new heights of tereifying invasions of privacy

Taking the earnest prompt - the "you" in the last two sentences is general, while in the rest of it they mean "you" (Jessie). "That's why you (as in people) have to provide evidence (which by implication you, Jessie, are not)".

They're also confusing clickbait and misinformation. It's a bad take.

Shush, corvids are *better*.

Not a whit.

The model does not have an understanding of the real world. It has an idea of what sentence structures and keywords have been described as plausible before - therefore I can probably rule out that the idea involved unicorns - but it can't give me much beyond that.

Catalina is brilliant. What a genius.

The last four words of that sentence were entirely unnecessary.

I don't think this is about deserving.

We could all do with extending a little grace, especially in offering people opportunities to be less shit. She deserved the kind of support community that wouldn't have let her slide down a right-wing pipeline in the first place, and this is all we got.