Shockingly easily. Here’s the New York Times

There is video. He did it more than once. Either it’s so ingrained his muscle memory that he just moves like a Nazi salute, or he did it with intentionality. Both say he’s a Nazi

That headline is why I prefer actual liberal media

It’s going to make it a notch harder to prosecute people for bogus charges. The appearance of legality is still somewhat important if the target is cis and doesn’t have dark skin.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t do it either; you get conspiracy theory type answers instead.

The paper makes a very strong point about how people change minds, and it’s not about some personal impact; it’s about gaining distance from an ideological community that denies reality, and then getting useful information from people they trust.

For the NYT, 30 days. I seem to have missed one character in the gift token when I did a copy-paste though. Fixed now.

A couple things:

• ICE operates under rules that say they’re not supposed to detain people at church. So encourage people to spend raid day at church.
• Don’t help out. Give the absolute minimum, don’t provide information, and refuse to give access on the basis of an administrative warrant (one not signed by a judge)

That’s exactly the problem — in the US there’s an extra tariff on larger vehicles, so the manufacturers face less competition and therefore earn greater profits if they only make big vehicles.

The point of not burning gas is to avoid the CO2 released when it burns, and the inevitable leakage of ~3% of the methane from the distribution system. This helps to limit the amount of warming we get, which reduces fire risk.

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?

That’s not my department, " says Wernher von Braun.

They are not waiving the building code requirements that make newer structures fire-resistant.

When appointing people who have absolutely no clue, he’s tended to do better than when appointing those who are actively malicious. Rick Perry famously wanted to abolish the Department of Energy, despite not being able to remember his name, but was probably one of the least-awful Trump appointees, since he seems to have been unaware of its primary mission of nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship until after he was appointed.

Canceled policy = you’ve got an opportunity to get another one when your current one runs out.

Denied claims are of course a problem.

Houston has significant hurricane risk, whether or not you’ve actually had a problem.

The problem is that it’s capital-intensive; people need to eat and make rent for quite a while before the subscriber base is large enough to support them

Failure is indeed possible, though it does look like activism moved the estimates of how hot it’s likely to end up by 2100

I tried it. It produces reasonably accurate results a meaningful fraction of the time. The problem is that when it’s wrong, it still uses authoritative language, and you can’t tell the difference without underlying knowledge.

That’s still not into the realm where I trust it; the underlying model is a language model. What you’re describing is a recipe for ending up with paltering a significant fraction of the time.

The bots are mostly langauge models, not knowledge models. I don’t regard them as sufficiently reliable to do any kind of fact checking.

There’s a fair bit of evidence that it works. That’s why people keep on doing it.