Yeah I was thinking the same, I feel like I’ve seen one or two of these a week for over ten years now

What he said wasn’t against the middle of the night judgment, he wasn’t “slamming” the court. He was angry at the administration for making it necessary. He said he opposed having to get up and work in the middle of the night because the admin was refusing to do their job. He didn’t disagree with the judgment, he was objecting to the fact that they are taking extraordinary effort now in order to weigh in on things that shouldn’t need their attention at all.

And honestly, Sammy, same. This clown show has demanded too much of my attention and it’s not theirs to demand. But it’s your job to make sure we don’t get to the point where this shit happens. That was your fuck up. Sometimes when I fuck up, I have to work extra to fix it.

So fix your shit, Sambo.

As someone with a bunch of friends who had factory gigs before NAFTA and still a few today, there’s plenty of people who are happy in factory situations, you know?

It’s fair to say there’s a lot of inaccurate assumptions on the right wing side here, but factory work isn’t always a horror show. It’s obvious they want to do as much as they can to make it awful, like deregulating things and whatnot. And obviously, the infrastructure isn’t there and won’t spring up overnight. That’s no good, but the factory labor itself? Probably fine in a lot of cases.

It just makes me so infuriatingly upset how right you were on just about all of it, btw. It was like watching a slow motion train wreck to watch them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Mask off these days for you, I see.

It’s a varying application. It usually models opposing groups during diplomatic tensions, but it can also apply to groups within coalitions who face the same problem together but disagree how the coalition should proceed.

In the process of applying things, you have to consider the outcomes and think of the prisoners as “trapped” by the circumstances of the decision they face. Trapped here means that inaction triggers consequences, so it explicitly models inaction as a choice facing the circumstance.

Usually during negotiation that follows this kind of pattern, the prisoner’s dilemma is applied to figure out the best way to articulate the circumstances at hand and the choices everyone has. It’s a way to connect the cause and effect of everything to everyone in the negotiation, and to illustrate how their actions flow into those consequences, in a way that frames everything as less a “you vs me”, and more of an “us vs the problem”.

And that’s where the logic part comes into play: here it works as a mechanic to introduce cause and effect group logic to humans, and connect the notion of it all to their emotional needs. It helps demonstrate that negotiation and compromise are hard but valuable, logically and emotionally.

If you haven’t read it, “Getting to Yes” is fantastic. I highly recommend it, and although it doesn’t speak about the dilemma directly, the entire thing is about navigating compromise tactically in situations where everyone may be very correct, yet still have a hard time with each other.

The thing about the dilemma is that you need to realize that the prisoners are rational, feeling people. They have good reasons to do what they do, often enough. Often their goals are good ones, compassionate ones.

They aren’t trying to scheme or sabotage one another. But they wind up doing that, because the only success condition is mutual cooperation.

That didn’t happen for us, and the outcome is boolean, pass or fail. Any move except sticking to the coalition and acting to cooperate would have doomed the effort completely, and we didn’t do that. So, here we are.

The vote wasn’t between genocide and genocide lite. It was between genocide lite and genocide, plus additional genocides, some domestic, plus economic sabotage, plus the emergence of a new evangelical southern Baptist military regime.

I don’t think that narrowing the scope of the voting gap to just you is helpful, so I don’t want to use this as a moment to level scorn. I just want to be very clear that the premise you presented is wrong. Very wrong

Yes it is and it’s such a good example of logic that its archetype is now a formal part of game theory in the prisoner’s dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

This is most of it. And there’s obviously some sock puppet stuff too, but the Lemmy community is so small they probably never targeted it. But mostly it’s because getting coalitions to infight has always benefited the people who took power a few weeks ago. Now they have nothing more to gain by promoting it and everything to lose by making people think it’s still a problem. So…

I recognize what you’re saying but I’m done having this particular conversation, you know? I’m not saying you’re wrong if we fight, etc., or anything like that. I’m just saying I guess I’m comfortable with the futility and I don’t think it’s going to shut me up on this one.

Prison.

Just before he fled and hid like the chickenshit jabroni he is, too

Glad we’re talking about what we all think should die next, Musk. Thanks for bringing it up. Glad you’ve said something. Since we’re talking about orgs that need to die, criminal ones, let’s start with yours.

lol yeah it’s only been two weeks

Fuck these headlines. Man. We’ve clickbaited ourselves into this mess and these brunch party editors think that means we can clickbait ourselves out. Hell no. It’s time to put up or shut up.

Lives, almost certainly.

Which country?

The good news is these segregationists have no hoods on. It isn’t much but it’s something to remember. Ken Paxton, Klan attorney.

I honestly haven’t got any idea. But it will fully distract him and I like the thought of him scattering his attention in exactly the way he scatters everyone else’s.