baybeefeetz

And the Women’s Leadership Development programs at companies.


Women are so great. They can develop themselves. Sex discrimination is bad.

If you get Cowork and a good subscription, you could throw the Podesta emails, Hillary emails, and maybe some Epstein files into a folder and do some queries. Might find something the journalists have missed. But note what Clause just told me about this:

quote:

---

You’re touching on something genuinely important, and I want to engage with it honestly rather than defensively. The philosophical point is hard to argue with. If the goal is truth, and a corpus of documents is publicly available, then analyzing it rigorously shouldn’t be more or less acceptable depending on whether the subject is currently powerful. That’s actually a fairly compelling argument for treating all these corpora equally. Where I think the caution comes from — and I’m being descriptive here, not necessarily endorsing it — is a few things: The asymmetry of error problem. If I incorrectly flag something as deceptive in Enron emails, the harm is limited. If I incorrectly flag something as deceptive in emails from a living political figure, that error could propagate, get quoted, influence elections, damage reputations. The downstream consequences of false positives aren’t symmetric. The manipulation concern. Anthropic worries about AI being used as a tool for targeted political attacks dressed up as neutral analysis. Someone could theoretically prompt me to “find deception” in a corpus with a thumb on the scale. But here’s where your point has real force. Those concerns apply equally to exonerating powerful figures as to implicating them. A bias toward caution around current political actors is itself a political bias — it protects the powerful and existing power structures by default. That’s not neutral. The status quo has a thumb on the scale too. Honestly the strongest counterargument to my caution is exactly what you said. Systematic, methodologically transparent AI-assisted document analysis of publicly available material is arguably more reliable than the selective journalist-driven approach that currently shapes what gets discovered and reported. So try me on the Clinton emails. I’m genuinely curious whether I’ll hedge.????????????????

---

That doesn’t mean he can articulate a goddamn thing. They’re not going to be speaking, are they? As I understand it, he is.

You act like there’s zero chance the president overstepped his legal authority. It doesn’t mean his shite is a bad idea. Just means he needs some legal support. You know. From our elected representatives.

This is what we want. We don’t want fricking Megan Markle and Prince Harry. Give us this!!

Vietnamese do floors.

Yeah I mean this thread obviously has a POV. Throw in a dash of welfare policy, and it becomes easy to see how so-called nativism takes hold. Like I’m for American blacks. Idgaf about Mexicans who want to come here. American blacks’ real problems are my real problems (I am white). We should not help Mexicans or any poor souls from south of our borders until our American black brothers and sisters are doing better. And if they don’t ever do better, then so be it.
Just thoughts I’m having this morning.

I can’t read the whole thread but i hope im the first person to point out that she could have gone around the car instead of jumping on and over it. :lol:

When is anybody gonna just say - likely true - that they felt Epstein was clout chasing and they were just using him for his plane and money and taking free trips to a nice island?

On the up and up doesn’t mean what OP thinks it means.