Fandom doesn't matter.
Republicans will nominate a center-right candidate.
Democrats will nominate a center-left candidate.
Bush vs. Clinton 2016
And Hillary will win unless something unspeakable happens in the coming year and a half and the dems will reclaim the senate hard because 2016 is going to be a vote against the tea party in the senate as much as it is a presidential election, and there is going to be some motivated voters wanting to clean house that year in particular.
This whole dance is kind of dumb. I am surprised at how many republicans actually want in on the presidential race this year.
Republicans are kind of delusional about their prospects on the national stage because of their success in gerrymandered elections.
yup!
You don't even need to bother showing up, I mean you guys have this thing in the bag.
this dude is in a metal band i've never heard of and posted a really long conspiracy theory that just sounds like he has paranoid schizophrenia
but i am still trying to figure this bit out
Writing about this is my only option now, so I will continue to do so. Now, this is going to continue to get more and more insane and disturbing. Back in 2012, while he didn’t realize I was looking in my bedroom, Trent Hafdahl was messing with a semen encrusted t-shirt that was under my bed.
Wait, what? Why would he want a sample of my semen? The plot thickens drastically.
Fandom doesn't matter.
Republicans will nominate a center-right candidate.
Democrats will nominate a center-left candidate.
Bush vs. Clinton 2016
And Hillary will win unless something unspeakable happens in the coming year and a half and the dems will reclaim the senate hard because 2016 is going to be a vote against the tea party in the senate as much as it is a presidential election, and there is going to be some motivated voters wanting to clean house that year in particular.
This whole dance is kind of dumb. I am surprised at how many republicans actually want in on the presidential race this year.
Republicans are kind of delusional about their prospects on the national stage because of their success in gerrymandered elections.
yup!
You don't even need to bother showing up, I mean you guys have this thing in the bag.
A strategy to force Hillary to adopt Bernie's policies and shift leftwards towards Bernie's politics and away from whatever it is she represents these days
But I don't necessarily agree he's unelectable
But maybe it's just hard for me grasp the idea since in Canada's political climate he is electable so I'm just like
what's
what's wrong with Bernie
nothing's wrong with Bernie
um he's a socialist
So?
I* don't like socialism.
*I am the broad majority of the American Electorate
an interesting thing about this is the broad majority of the American Electorate only doesn't like the literal word "socialism" but actually favors many socialist policies
Everybody likes free stuff.
no you're thinking of libertarianism
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
A strategy to force Hillary to adopt Bernie's policies and shift leftwards towards Bernie's politics and away from whatever it is she represents these days
But I don't necessarily agree he's unelectable
But maybe it's just hard for me grasp the idea since in Canada's political climate he is electable so I'm just like
what's
what's wrong with Bernie
nothing's wrong with Bernie
um he's a socialist
So?
I* don't like socialism.
*I am the broad majority of the American Electorate
an interesting thing about this is the broad majority of the American Electorate only doesn't like the literal word "socialism" but actually favors many socialist policies
Everybody likes free stuff.
The greatest secret is that it isn't free.
You have paid for it already.
0
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
A strategy to force Hillary to adopt Bernie's policies and shift leftwards towards Bernie's politics and away from whatever it is she represents these days
But I don't necessarily agree he's unelectable
But maybe it's just hard for me grasp the idea since in Canada's political climate he is electable so I'm just like
what's
what's wrong with Bernie
nothing's wrong with Bernie
um he's a socialist
So?
I* don't like socialism.
*I am the broad majority of the American Electorate
an interesting thing about this is the broad majority of the American Electorate only doesn't like the literal word "socialism" but actually favors many socialist policies
Hey, so maybe somebody here who knows about art or design or image recognition or something can inform me about this.
I was browsing an Imgur gallery of Where's Momo pictures, which is a series of photographs that are pretty neat on their own, but also contain a dog (the aforementioned Momo) hidden somewhere in the pictures. And I was noticing that it was easier to find Momo in some of the pictures than in others, but not necessarily because of camouflage, where Momo is hard to find because much of the photograph has color groupings similar to Momo's. Rather, some were easier because they had fewer "places" in the photo for Momo to be hidden, and others had many "places".
Is this a recognized concept in art/photography/graphic design or even image analysis? I'm not sure who to @ about this.
Hiding something in an image, both from a computer and from a human, come down to the same thing: overwhelming the processing system. Both human and machine image processing systems rely on a hierarchy of tools. The initial tools are very simple and require little specialization. These are just there to reduce the complexity of the data. Images are unfathomably complex, so simple tools will detect edges and remove shadows. If you're searching for something they'll filter for feature size and color. If you're looking for a black and white dog, your brain will filter for dog-sized black and white patches. Once that's done, the majority of image data has bee tossed out, leaving higher level tools a greatly simplified image to deal with.
These higher level tools need a simplified image to work at all, because they are easily overwhelmed by complexity. Checking if a cluster of features is a dog is already a complex task. If there are too many features, a computer will get stuck churning for hours or report back that the search would take too long. You brain does largely the same thing, reporting back, no dog found, confidence low. Which translates as that sort of eye-fuck feeling you get when you look at that last image.
And that's how these pictures work. The ones that are more difficult are exploiting the lower level filters, getting as much confusing visual data past them to overload the higher level processes. As a result, you have to break the image down, getting closer to your screen, mentally partitioning off smaller and smaller sections until it's manageable, your stumble upon the patch with the dog, your brain does its thing, and the image of the dog pops out.
Naturally your eyes will skitter around the image randomly, which is nature's pants-on-head instinctual solution to the problem. It works about as well as it needs to I guess. But if you get ahold of yourself and make the search more methodical, none of the images are very hard.
This is great, thank you!
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Someone keeps tagging the sidewalks with "All Lives Matter!" By my apartment.
Stop! Just... stop....
Hillary Clinton threw out an "All lives matter" during a speech about Charleston to a black congregation.
She apparently did not know the recent history of the term.
how recent are we talking? Because jesus fuck it must be exhausting to be the people in charge on staying on top of everything you're allowed write into a president's speech
About as old as the whole #BlackLivesMatter thing
it was a reactionary hashtag started by racists and adopted by other racists and by ignorant people who don't think of themselves as racists but are basically saying something really ignorant without really thinking it through
Keeping up with the things that really matter, like twitter hashtags...
Honestly, I'd be more concerned if a candidate was apprised of twitter hashtag minutiae, because they should be doing their actual jobs, which is hard and time consuming to do properly.
you know it's really easy for you to be snide about this
and this is a popular tactic to dismiss protest movements for whom things like social media are very real and useful tools
but it's more than a "twitter hashtag", it's a protest slogan, and protest slogans are as old as protests themselves
knowing protest slogans of important social justice movements that are sweeping a nation in the middle of racial strife is kind of important for a presidential candidate
and knowing not to use the racist counter-protest version of that slogan is also important, politically
c'mon, man
don't yell at clouds
I will be snide about people ridiculously reading into hyper specific wording that is a typical colloquial phrase, deliberately and maliciously misinterpreted 180 degrees from the context in which it was meant, because that is shitty when anyone does it to anyone, but especially stupid, immoral, and self-defeating when done to one's own natural allies.
Emphasizing style over substance is how you get shitty policy and shitty rhetoric.
A lot of people, myself one of them, don't consider Hillary their natural ally and are kind of suspicious of her and watch her pretty carefully and she's walking a pretty fine line.
She doesn't get a pass, she doesn't get credit, she doesn't get leeway. She has a really horrible history in politics in some people's opinions and where she stands on a lot of things for some people ranges from nebulous to objectionable. She has changed where she stands on some things, but on others she's either not changed or not really clarified.
So when she uses a phrase that has it's origins with racists, even if she does it by accident (which, to be honest, I think she did honestly do by accident), she doesn't get leeway. She gets narrowed eyes and calls for accountability.
There are people who do not trust her and she has not earned their trust.
"Accountability?"
So, she's going to clarify that she obviously meant what she obviously meant, and that clarification/apology will be deemed as sufficient, or alternatively will further be pecked over for something to further willfully misinterpret.
So is it now just impossible to express the idea that everyone's life matters because of some people on twitter?
Apparently we should all follow prominent racists on twitter so we can not accidentally use similar wording as they did, despite the actual meaning being obvious from context.
Instead of actually focusing on actual policy to benefit the same people who have been allegedly slighted.
you are not a presidential candidate
presidential candidates literally have people whose job it is to keep their candidate from saying things that sound like they're kinda sorta endorsing the viewpoint of racists
like i said
this is a minor gaff that only reveals someone in Clinton's camp went "whoops"
and that's all
personally I don't even really think Clinton needs to apologize or address this, except maybe with her staff
some might disagree with me, and that's their prerogative
I think she could, and it's not a bad idea per se
but eh
Yes, and I am saying that the process of people picking shit apart with deliberate misinterpretations, especially ones based on twitter hashtags of a tiny minority of racists that everyone should be ignoring anyways, is bad, and people should feel bad for doing it.
Style over substance politics is harmful, because it takes debate away from "what specific policies could most effectively increase black economic participation," and turns it into, "OH EM GEE! Hilary said 'all lives matter' which, her Secretary of Twitter should know was the 216th trending hashtag one day, and really means the opposite of what you might think!"
Mostly I just hope that modern politicians don't adopt the internet obsession with personal feelings of grievance being more important than governance or policy in my lifetime.
Unfortunately, it's already an issue. This stupid bullshit merits a NYT piece, so...
It is barely a piece.
Funny reading the whole line it seems to be tied to something completely different.
I don't know.
My knowledge of shit like this is below zero if it is tied to twitter.
Didn't even realize it was a counter slogan.
Funny it didn't pop on any of my news feeds or politico or any of my normal sources. Just a short article talking about some backlash on social media and like a couple short interviews.
it's amusing that you didn't get a long form questionnaire about how much you care about black people for posting this :bzz:
0
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I actually don't agree that that is the average american's mindset.
If it were, Obama would not be rounding out his second term right now.
I do think that it is the mindset of a large minority of the electorate, and perhaps the most active one in midterms, but broadly Americans don't think that way.
We're very good at ignoring the fact that certain politicians do believe that, though, for the sake of balance.
"i was on food stamps you think anyone helped me out" is a pretty good summation of the average american mindset
nnnngh
my brain
It gets better
The thing that brought me closest to aneurysm during the ACA debate was every night seeing an oldster on medicare at a town hall meeting ranting about socialism.
Someone keeps tagging the sidewalks with "All Lives Matter!" By my apartment.
Stop! Just... stop....
Hillary Clinton threw out an "All lives matter" during a speech about Charleston to a black congregation.
She apparently did not know the recent history of the term.
how recent are we talking? Because jesus fuck it must be exhausting to be the people in charge on staying on top of everything you're allowed write into a president's speech
About as old as the whole #BlackLivesMatter thing
it was a reactionary hashtag started by racists and adopted by other racists and by ignorant people who don't think of themselves as racists but are basically saying something really ignorant without really thinking it through
Keeping up with the things that really matter, like twitter hashtags...
Honestly, I'd be more concerned if a candidate was apprised of twitter hashtag minutiae, because they should be doing their actual jobs, which is hard and time consuming to do properly.
you know it's really easy for you to be snide about this
and this is a popular tactic to dismiss protest movements for whom things like social media are very real and useful tools
but it's more than a "twitter hashtag", it's a protest slogan, and protest slogans are as old as protests themselves
knowing protest slogans of important social justice movements that are sweeping a nation in the middle of racial strife is kind of important for a presidential candidate
and knowing not to use the racist counter-protest version of that slogan is also important, politically
c'mon, man
don't yell at clouds
I will be snide about people ridiculously reading into hyper specific wording that is a typical colloquial phrase, deliberately and maliciously misinterpreted 180 degrees from the context in which it was meant, because that is shitty when anyone does it to anyone, but especially stupid, immoral, and self-defeating when done to one's own natural allies.
Emphasizing style over substance is how you get shitty policy and shitty rhetoric.
A lot of people, myself one of them, don't consider Hillary their natural ally and are kind of suspicious of her and watch her pretty carefully and she's walking a pretty fine line.
She doesn't get a pass, she doesn't get credit, she doesn't get leeway. She has a really horrible history in politics in some people's opinions and where she stands on a lot of things for some people ranges from nebulous to objectionable. She has changed where she stands on some things, but on others she's either not changed or not really clarified.
So when she uses a phrase that has it's origins with racists, even if she does it by accident (which, to be honest, I think she did honestly do by accident), she doesn't get leeway. She gets narrowed eyes and calls for accountability.
There are people who do not trust her and she has not earned their trust.
"Accountability?"
So, she's going to clarify that she obviously meant what she obviously meant, and that clarification/apology will be deemed as sufficient, or alternatively will further be pecked over for something to further willfully misinterpret.
So is it now just impossible to express the idea that everyone's life matters because of some people on twitter?
Apparently we should all follow prominent racists on twitter so we can not accidentally use similar wording as they did, despite the actual meaning being obvious from context.
Instead of actually focusing on actual policy to benefit the same people who have been allegedly slighted.
you are not a presidential candidate
presidential candidates literally have people whose job it is to keep their candidate from saying things that sound like they're kinda sorta endorsing the viewpoint of racists
like i said
this is a minor gaff that only reveals someone in Clinton's camp went "whoops"
and that's all
personally I don't even really think Clinton needs to apologize or address this, except maybe with her staff
some might disagree with me, and that's their prerogative
I think she could, and it's not a bad idea per se
but eh
Yes, and I am saying that the process of people picking shit apart with deliberate misinterpretations, especially ones based on twitter hashtags of a tiny minority of racists that everyone should be ignoring anyways, is bad, and people should feel bad for doing it.
Style over substance politics is harmful, because it takes debate away from "what specific policies could most effectively increase black economic participation," and turns it into, "OH EM GEE! Hilary said 'all lives matter' which, her Secretary of Twitter should know was the 216th trending hashtag one day, and really means the opposite of what you might think!"
Mostly I just hope that modern politicians don't adopt the internet obsession with personal feelings of grievance being more important than governance or policy in my lifetime.
Unfortunately, it's already an issue. This stupid bullshit merits a NYT piece, so...
It is barely a piece.
Funny reading the whole line it seems to be tied to something completely different.
I don't know.
My knowledge of shit like this is below zero if it is tied to twitter.
Didn't even realize it was a counter slogan.
Funny it didn't pop on any of my news feeds or politico or any of my normal sources. Just a short article talking about some backlash on social media and like a couple short interviews.
it's amusing that you didn't get a long form questionnaire about how much you care about black people for posting this :bzz:
Wait what?
I am confused?
Like as stated before I don't go on twitter at all.
I knew the Black Lives Matter from the actual protest more than anything else.
0
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Someone keeps tagging the sidewalks with "All Lives Matter!" By my apartment.
Stop! Just... stop....
Hillary Clinton threw out an "All lives matter" during a speech about Charleston to a black congregation.
She apparently did not know the recent history of the term.
how recent are we talking? Because jesus fuck it must be exhausting to be the people in charge on staying on top of everything you're allowed write into a president's speech
About as old as the whole #BlackLivesMatter thing
it was a reactionary hashtag started by racists and adopted by other racists and by ignorant people who don't think of themselves as racists but are basically saying something really ignorant without really thinking it through
Keeping up with the things that really matter, like twitter hashtags...
Honestly, I'd be more concerned if a candidate was apprised of twitter hashtag minutiae, because they should be doing their actual jobs, which is hard and time consuming to do properly.
you know it's really easy for you to be snide about this
and this is a popular tactic to dismiss protest movements for whom things like social media are very real and useful tools
but it's more than a "twitter hashtag", it's a protest slogan, and protest slogans are as old as protests themselves
knowing protest slogans of important social justice movements that are sweeping a nation in the middle of racial strife is kind of important for a presidential candidate
and knowing not to use the racist counter-protest version of that slogan is also important, politically
c'mon, man
don't yell at clouds
I will be snide about people ridiculously reading into hyper specific wording that is a typical colloquial phrase, deliberately and maliciously misinterpreted 180 degrees from the context in which it was meant, because that is shitty when anyone does it to anyone, but especially stupid, immoral, and self-defeating when done to one's own natural allies.
Emphasizing style over substance is how you get shitty policy and shitty rhetoric.
A lot of people, myself one of them, don't consider Hillary their natural ally and are kind of suspicious of her and watch her pretty carefully and she's walking a pretty fine line.
She doesn't get a pass, she doesn't get credit, she doesn't get leeway. She has a really horrible history in politics in some people's opinions and where she stands on a lot of things for some people ranges from nebulous to objectionable. She has changed where she stands on some things, but on others she's either not changed or not really clarified.
So when she uses a phrase that has it's origins with racists, even if she does it by accident (which, to be honest, I think she did honestly do by accident), she doesn't get leeway. She gets narrowed eyes and calls for accountability.
There are people who do not trust her and she has not earned their trust.
"Accountability?"
So, she's going to clarify that she obviously meant what she obviously meant, and that clarification/apology will be deemed as sufficient, or alternatively will further be pecked over for something to further willfully misinterpret.
So is it now just impossible to express the idea that everyone's life matters because of some people on twitter?
Apparently we should all follow prominent racists on twitter so we can not accidentally use similar wording as they did, despite the actual meaning being obvious from context.
Instead of actually focusing on actual policy to benefit the same people who have been allegedly slighted.
you are not a presidential candidate
presidential candidates literally have people whose job it is to keep their candidate from saying things that sound like they're kinda sorta endorsing the viewpoint of racists
like i said
this is a minor gaff that only reveals someone in Clinton's camp went "whoops"
and that's all
personally I don't even really think Clinton needs to apologize or address this, except maybe with her staff
some might disagree with me, and that's their prerogative
I think she could, and it's not a bad idea per se
but eh
Yes, and I am saying that the process of people picking shit apart with deliberate misinterpretations, especially ones based on twitter hashtags of a tiny minority of racists that everyone should be ignoring anyways, is bad, and people should feel bad for doing it.
Style over substance politics is harmful, because it takes debate away from "what specific policies could most effectively increase black economic participation," and turns it into, "OH EM GEE! Hilary said 'all lives matter' which, her Secretary of Twitter should know was the 216th trending hashtag one day, and really means the opposite of what you might think!"
Mostly I just hope that modern politicians don't adopt the internet obsession with personal feelings of grievance being more important than governance or policy in my lifetime.
Unfortunately, it's already an issue. This stupid bullshit merits a NYT piece, so...
It is barely a piece.
Funny reading the whole line it seems to be tied to something completely different.
I don't know.
My knowledge of shit like this is below zero if it is tied to twitter.
Didn't even realize it was a counter slogan.
Funny it didn't pop on any of my news feeds or politico or any of my normal sources. Just a short article talking about some backlash on social media and like a couple short interviews.
it's amusing that you didn't get a long form questionnaire about how much you care about black people for posting this :bzz:
Wait what?
I am confused?
Like as stated before I don't go on twitter at all.
I knew the Black Lives Matter from the actual protest more than anything else.
i was alluding to pony's post at me a few pages back for saying the same thing
Posts
Hulu?
i'm sorry spool
i have wiped my memory core of all clinton facts pre2014
she is the glorious people's champion and will lead us to glory in this life or the next
don't be fooled
this is how he's trying to get you
tricksy
what about the criticism that your butt is too big to fail
I thought burial was p pops
I don't like socialists because they can't keep toilet paper on store shelves.
this is a grotesque example of inefficient big government thinking
i would simply fire all our nuclear warheads at ourselves, achieving my goal instantly with no further expenditure
vote for me, 0% taxes forever
nnnngh
my brain
no you're thinking of libertarianism
I live in Canada.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
The greatest secret is that it isn't free.
You have paid for it already.
right right
it's: everybody else likes my stuff for free!
If you promise to only aim the warheads at all the people on the other side of the political aisle from me you have my vote, sir!
no vanguard his brain has already suffered too much
its ok tho lol america
This is great, thank you!
It gets better
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
criticism? my butt is beyond failure and shall only become more so as it increases in mass
butt failure is behind us
Eh? Why?
#entropy
it's amusing that you didn't get a long form questionnaire about how much you care about black people for posting this :bzz:
If it were, Obama would not be rounding out his second term right now.
I do think that it is the mindset of a large minority of the electorate, and perhaps the most active one in midterms, but broadly Americans don't think that way.
We're very good at ignoring the fact that certain politicians do believe that, though, for the sake of balance.
The thing that brought me closest to aneurysm during the ACA debate was every night seeing an oldster on medicare at a town hall meeting ranting about socialism.
...does
does anyone else smell
burnt toast
Wait what?
I am confused?
Like as stated before I don't go on twitter at all.
I knew the Black Lives Matter from the actual protest more than anything else.
Did they have tea there though?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
i was alluding to pony's post at me a few pages back for saying the same thing
Yes but it was Lipton.
it says so on the sign real americans can't lie