the software industry as a whole is all-in on AI (LLMs in particular).
makers are trying to stuff it into every nook and cranny they can find.
As noted, the costs are enormous. So using AI everywhere is the only prayer of actually making any money from it.
And for non-AI software companies, it's a matter of not looking like they are less than cutting edge. It's folly, except in a few narrow cases. But here instinct is powerful in the industry.
Brighter minds than mine will surely chime in to explain why this is not a matter of concern.
I think what you mean is, more credulous minds than yours.
At current valuations AI would have to bring in $400 per year per US resident for the AI companies to produce a decent return on investment. Which isn't happening in the foreseeable future.
"Bubble" is exactly what we're looking at. The question is when, not whether, it will pop. And how big an impact that will have on the economy overall. Personally, I'm going nowhere near stock in any company which is big into AI. But then, I've been avoiding bitcoins like the plague, too.
I understand that this is the first time the assigned DOJ attorney has ever done a prosecution.
Well, as I understand it, the reason she got assigned is that DOJ professionals looked at the case and concluded that there was nothing to it. So they declined to prosecute. The Attorney General had to find someone inexperienced enough (or foolish enough) to try to take the case forward.
Whether or when that is Bondi's response depends on whether the Senate gets around to a vote on the resolution. Not to mention if they make some kind of amendment which then requires it go back to the House for concurrence. Lots of ways to slow walk the whole thing.
But yeah, once the whole thing is done, Bondi can claim "ongoing investigations." Put one extremely junior and ultra-MAGATrumpist staffer to work reading thru the whole file. Could easily be "on-going" for years.
... more Democratic votes in that district won’t win the seat, but those will be votes to re-elect Ossoff to the Senate.
But consider, if a strong candidate could move the district from 65-35 last time to 60-40 (or better), and then we see the sort of blue wave election in 2026 which looks increasingly possible? Might actually happen. Probably temporarily, but still worth doing if it happens.
The point being, wj, that he wasn’t securing a seat for the Democrats by voting with Republicans on critical issues, but that probably won’t get through the radical centrism or whatever it is that makes you want to defend the guy.
No. The point being that, in a very narrowly divided Senate, a vote which can change who is majority leader, and thus in control of what business gets done, is important. Having someone who provides a critical vote on that is important. Even if he sometimes, or even routinely, doesn't vote the way you (or I!) would like on various issues.
I'm not defending the guy. I'm arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there's certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don't, save your invective for the other side. Screaming "treason!" is counterproductive.
Manchin screwed his own party not long before deciding not to run for another term and his senate seat is now held by a Republican. How is that supposed to be good for Democrats?
Gosh he got vilified for years by party activists. And then decided not to run again. What a stunning surprise. Why would anyone pass up a chance for more of that? /sarcasm
wonkie, I'm not clear why you think getting moderates elected doesn't work. Do you mean that, when in office, it doesn't make it easier to get stuff done with bipartisan support? Or do you mean that running moderates doesn't improve the chances of winning a general election? Or something else?
Currently, there isn't a whole lot of bipartisanship on offer, so that wouldn't be a reason (in my opinion) to favor running a more moderate candidate than you'd prefer. On the other hand, in a purple to somewhat reddish district, a more moderate candidate seems like it provides better odds of winning the seat. Certainly, I can't see an argument that a less moderate candidate would be more likely to win in such a district.
The Manchin calculus–betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes–never worked.
I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
Would it have been nice if he'd been on board on a few (let alone a lot) more things? Sure. But a) he was on board with some things that, however imperfect, would not have passed at all, and b) he was one more vote to keep control of the Senate at times (e.g. 2021-2024) when the Democrats "majority" was the VP's tie breaking vote. No Manchin, no control.
Well, technically the Epstein Files were (and are) a MAGA hobbyhorse rather than a GOP one. Or maybe the conspiracy theory enthusiasts among the MAGAts.
I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
I'm not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism. It feels more like a rational response to the entirely predictable howls of outrage. The point of the exercise, after all, is to:
1) Get SNAP money flowing for the next year, get Federal workers paid again, etc.
2) Either get the ACA subsidies restored or, more likely, make it starkly, unmistakably clear who is responsible for the price hikes.
3) Avoid wasting time and money on primary battles, since the goal is to win general election battles.
Now if you think that the Republicans would cave on ACA subsidies, and do so fast enough to avoid the disasters for real people flowing from the lack addressed by the first point? Sure, there's lots to criticize. Just start by explaining why you think the Republicans would cave any time soon. Because, unless you can do that, criticism is nonsense.
But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.
I agree. I would say immediately after a) the House concurs to the Senate bill and b) Trump signs it.
Until then, the Republicans have, or might think they have, a chance to perhaps wriggle out of the trap. But once that happens? They're toast.
No doubt they will be endlessly inventive trying to recover. But their only real escape would be to restore the subsidies. Which their fanatics wouldn't countenance. And Trump would veto if it somehow got thru Congress.
I generally have little time for those who see conspiracies everywhere. But it occurs to me to wonder...
Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?
Start with the fairly safe assumption that the Republicans in Congress aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. If the Democrats don't stand up and announce that they've neatly mousetrapped the Republicans here, the idea that it might be happening is unlikely to occur to them. Especially if there are loud complaints about "caving in" and "betrayal" from Democratic activists -- which we are hearing.
So the Republicans cheerfully pass the continuing resolution that just passed the Senate. And loudly declare victory (which Trump is incapable of not doing). Then, February rolls around. The government shuts down again. The differences being that this time SNAP keeps going (per this bill), critical Federal workers get paid, etc. Of course, health insurance premiums continue to skyrocket. And elections come ever closer, close enough that voters may even remember whose fault that is.
Did the Democrats saw all this coming? I don't know, and certainly don't expect an announcement. But, as politics goes, this ain't rocket science. I note that Schumer only had votes for cloture from Senators who are retiring or otherwise not subject to primary battles next year. Which avoids wasting resources on those. Spend the money on those districts that the Republicans gerrymandered into smaller (supposed) Republican majorities.
without having any idea which approach is more correct.
Not going to be possible to tell soon, if ever, what the actual outcomes of the various possible scenarios would have been. Lots of speculation (including mine), mostly dressed up as certainty. The most we can hope for is some 20/20 hindsight on how what was done played out.
What is not going to come out of all of this is any kind of extension of the ACA subsidies.
My point was, that extension wasn't going to come out regardless. Those Republicans in Congress (on their own, let alone driven by Trump) simply are not going to extend those until the increased insurance costs generate howls from their own constituents. And they never were. There simply is no plausible scenario where that would happen before spring. Because, even if the Senate Republicans were somehow brought to agree to it, the House simply wouldn't concur.
Whether they allow a vote next month on those subsidies, as agreed, or not, it's fairly certain that an extension will fail to pass. And when it does, it will be defeated stand-alone -- no other spending distractions. (Of course, the Congressional Republicans might surprise us all. But I figure it will be months before they can bring themselves to act.)
GftNC, you have to understand. For some, the options were a) cave in like this (their phrasing, not mine), or b) hang tough a tiny bit longer until the Republicans cave. If those were indeed the choices, their rage over option a) would be well placed.
But those weren't actually the options. Instead we had
a) accept a continuing resolution for the next couple of months, get some relief for a whole lot of Federal workers, and pick up the fight again in January. There is, after all, no chance the GOP will be in any better position then than now. Oh yes, and get a couple of elected Democrats seated finally.
Or
b) hang tough, no matter the collateral damage. While a lot of Federal workers go bankrupt, SNAP money runs out (for real), and a lot of people see their health insurance premiums skyrocket -- except they hear a lot about how the Democrats wouldn't let a bill to fix it even come to a vote.
Be clear, getting ACA funding done wasn't going to happen either way. (At least not for several more months minimum.). But this way, it's starkly obvious that the Republicans have sole ownership of the mess.
Pretty clear where this is going. First, it isn't going anywhere unless Johnson is willing to bring the House back into session to vote on the changes from what they previously passed. In which case . . . Epstein Files! And if he won't, no cover about "if only the Democrats would let the Senate vote." They totally own the mess.
Second, assuming it passes, then what. First, a lot of Federal employees who were stuck working without pay, or were furloughed, get their family economies patched up thru the holidays. Also, the new funding bill only runs thru the end of January. Which means that we probably see another shutdown then -- lest voters forget this shutdown by the time voting starts.
Oh yes, there will be the usual wailing and rending of garments from the left. Because, the very idea of something less than total victory is anathema. But then, strategy and tactics: not a core competency there.
My bet is that the Democrats end up with a big boost out of this, come next November. And that's assuming (and frankly, it's a heroic assumption) that, some time next spring, the Republicans in Congress get themselves together without another shutdown at the end of the fiscal year, i.e. next fall, right before the election.
At heart, MAGA's problem is one of definition: who counts as Amurikans? Ramaswamy obviously feels that he qualifies. (No clue what his personal definition is. Maybe "anyone Trump supports is in"?) Others, using different definitions, differ. And not just about him.
The thing is, there are lots of definitions. And a movement based on exclusion is in trouble without a single, unified, definition. A charismatic figurehead can, with work, paper over the differences, at least for a while. But MAGAworld looks to be losing their unifying leader, so the fractures over definition are appearing. Put another way, the knives are coming out.
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have. They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
Certainly they are different. The question is, are they distinguishable? I'm not sure that they necessarily are? Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
Put another way, is real empathy required? Or can it be simulated convincingly?
And I don’t think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had -- all it takes is having seen someone else experiencing it. Or showing how it looked when a third party did. Great actors do it most convincingly, but even journeyman level actors can do a pretty convincing job.
Are singers any different from actors in that regard? I'm willing to be convinced, but it may take some doing.
Can an AI generated pop star understand your broken heart?
I read that, and my first thought was The Monkeys. A totally made-up-for-television group. In other words, about as authentic as an AI generated pop star.
My next thought was that lots (most?) pop stars are performers, and their songs are generally written by someone else.** If one person writes the music, another person writes the lyrics, and a third performs the song? Which, if any, have to understand your broken heart?
** There are exceptions. People who write and perform their own stuff, at least mostly. But they are just that: exceptions.
How can a person show compassion and empathy to strangers while supporting politics that denies it to undeserving Others?
I'm not entirely sure How. But it's hardly unusual for people to hold different views regarding the abstract and the particular. Regarding "those people" and "this person."
Currently, a lot of people here have problems in the abstract with immigration. But they don't make the connection between the immigration issue in the abstract and that nice young lady who helps grandma with her housekeeping and her shopping. Said nice young lady being an obvious immigrant, complete with accented English and occasional issues with words that any middle school kid would know.
At most, they manage a rationalization of "but she's different." Even though she isn't, except to the extent that every person is different from every other. I'm not sure it is even possible to bring someone to realize that the abstract, the general case, is more like the specific individuals he knows.
Perhaps someone with a stronger grounding in psychology than I can say how many specific cases someone needs personal knowledge of before their view of the abstract will change. I am sure that it needs personal knowledge. Just being told that immigrantion impacts food prices, because much everybody who works in agriculture, whether picking vegetables or butchering beef? Only works if you know some of those folks, your children (or grandchildren) attend school with their kids, etc.
Both Democrats won, which is noteworthy in itself because no Democrat has won a non-Federal statewide election in 20 years or so, but more noteworthy are the margins, which are currently 62-38.
With Governor Kemp being term-limited, 2026 could be exciting in Georgia. And that's before figuring in the impact of whatever wave might manifest nationwide.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Pop!”
the software industry as a whole is all-in on AI (LLMs in particular).
makers are trying to stuff it into every nook and cranny they can find.
As noted, the costs are enormous. So using AI everywhere is the only prayer of actually making any money from it.
And for non-AI software companies, it's a matter of not looking like they are less than cutting edge. It's folly, except in a few narrow cases. But here instinct is powerful in the industry.
"
Brighter minds than mine will surely chime in to explain why this is not a matter of concern.
I think what you mean is, more credulous minds than yours.
At current valuations AI would have to bring in $400 per year per US resident for the AI companies to produce a decent return on investment. Which isn't happening in the foreseeable future.
"Bubble" is exactly what we're looking at. The question is when, not whether, it will pop. And how big an impact that will have on the economy overall. Personally, I'm going nowhere near stock in any company which is big into AI. But then, I've been avoiding bitcoins like the plague, too.
On “Your quest begins now!”
I understand that this is the first time the assigned DOJ attorney has ever done a prosecution.
Well, as I understand it, the reason she got assigned is that DOJ professionals looked at the case and concluded that there was nothing to it. So they declined to prosecute. The Attorney General had to find someone inexperienced enough (or foolish enough) to try to take the case forward.
"
Whether or when that is Bondi's response depends on whether the Senate gets around to a vote on the resolution. Not to mention if they make some kind of amendment which then requires it go back to the House for concurrence. Lots of ways to slow walk the whole thing.
But yeah, once the whole thing is done, Bondi can claim "ongoing investigations." Put one extremely junior and ultra-
MAGATrumpist staffer to work reading thru the whole file. Could easily be "on-going" for years.On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
... more Democratic votes in that district won’t win the seat, but those will be votes to re-elect Ossoff to the Senate.
But consider, if a strong candidate could move the district from 65-35 last time to 60-40 (or better), and then we see the sort of blue wave election in 2026 which looks increasingly possible? Might actually happen. Probably temporarily, but still worth doing if it happens.
"
The point being, wj, that he wasn’t securing a seat for the Democrats by voting with Republicans on critical issues, but that probably won’t get through the radical centrism or whatever it is that makes you want to defend the guy.
No. The point being that, in a very narrowly divided Senate, a vote which can change who is majority leader, and thus in control of what business gets done, is important. Having someone who provides a critical vote on that is important. Even if he sometimes, or even routinely, doesn't vote the way you (or I!) would like on various issues.
I'm not defending the guy. I'm arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there's certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don't, save your invective for the other side. Screaming "treason!" is counterproductive.
"
Manchin screwed his own party not long before deciding not to run for another term and his senate seat is now held by a Republican. How is that supposed to be good for Democrats?
Gosh he got vilified for years by party activists. And then decided not to run again. What a stunning surprise. Why would anyone pass up a chance for more of that?
/sarcasm
"
If you want something different, but still creepy:
https://archive.ph/8Px6C#selection-2091.157-2091.192
Just show some of these "conversations" with someone who is impressed with ChatGPT.
"
wonkie, I'm not clear why you think getting moderates elected doesn't work. Do you mean that, when in office, it doesn't make it easier to get stuff done with bipartisan support? Or do you mean that running moderates doesn't improve the chances of winning a general election? Or something else?
Currently, there isn't a whole lot of bipartisanship on offer, so that wouldn't be a reason (in my opinion) to favor running a more moderate candidate than you'd prefer. On the other hand, in a purple to somewhat reddish district, a more moderate candidate seems like it provides better odds of winning the seat. Certainly, I can't see an argument that a less moderate candidate would be more likely to win in such a district.
"
The Manchin calculus–betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes–never worked.
I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
Would it have been nice if he'd been on board on a few (let alone a lot) more things? Sure. But a) he was on board with some things that, however imperfect, would not have passed at all, and b) he was one more vote to keep control of the Senate at times (e.g. 2021-2024) when the Democrats "majority" was the VP's tie breaking vote. No Manchin, no control.
"
Well, technically the Epstein Files were (and are) a MAGA hobbyhorse rather than a GOP one. Or maybe the conspiracy theory enthusiasts among the MAGAts.
"
I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
I'm not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism. It feels more like a rational response to the entirely predictable howls of outrage. The point of the exercise, after all, is to:
1) Get SNAP money flowing for the next year, get Federal workers paid again, etc.
2) Either get the ACA subsidies restored or, more likely, make it starkly, unmistakably clear who is responsible for the price hikes.
3) Avoid wasting time and money on primary battles, since the goal is to win general election battles.
Now if you think that the Republicans would cave on ACA subsidies, and do so fast enough to avoid the disasters for real people flowing from the lack addressed by the first point? Sure, there's lots to criticize. Just start by explaining why you think the Republicans would cave any time soon. Because, unless you can do that, criticism is nonsense.
"
And yes they would have to keep this quiet,
But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.
I agree. I would say immediately after a) the House concurs to the Senate bill and b) Trump signs it.
Until then, the Republicans have, or might think they have, a chance to perhaps wriggle out of the trap. But once that happens? They're toast.
No doubt they will be endlessly inventive trying to recover. But their only real escape would be to restore the subsidies. Which their fanatics wouldn't countenance. And Trump would veto if it somehow got thru Congress.
"
I generally have little time for those who see conspiracies everywhere. But it occurs to me to wonder...
Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?
Start with the fairly safe assumption that the Republicans in Congress aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. If the Democrats don't stand up and announce that they've neatly mousetrapped the Republicans here, the idea that it might be happening is unlikely to occur to them. Especially if there are loud complaints about "caving in" and "betrayal" from Democratic activists -- which we are hearing.
So the Republicans cheerfully pass the continuing resolution that just passed the Senate. And loudly declare victory (which Trump is incapable of not doing). Then, February rolls around. The government shuts down again. The differences being that this time SNAP keeps going (per this bill), critical Federal workers get paid, etc. Of course, health insurance premiums continue to skyrocket. And elections come ever closer, close enough that voters may even remember whose fault that is.
Did the Democrats saw all this coming? I don't know, and certainly don't expect an announcement. But, as politics goes, this ain't rocket science. I note that Schumer only had votes for cloture from Senators who are retiring or otherwise not subject to primary battles next year. Which avoids wasting resources on those. Spend the money on those districts that the Republicans gerrymandered into smaller (supposed) Republican majorities.
Hmmmm
On “When virtues become vices”
without having any idea which approach is more correct.
Not going to be possible to tell soon, if ever, what the actual outcomes of the various possible scenarios would have been. Lots of speculation (including mine), mostly dressed up as certainty. The most we can hope for is some 20/20 hindsight on how what was done played out.
"
Well said, Marty.
"
What is not going to come out of all of this is any kind of extension of the ACA subsidies.
My point was, that extension wasn't going to come out regardless. Those Republicans in Congress (on their own, let alone driven by Trump) simply are not going to extend those until the increased insurance costs generate howls from their own constituents. And they never were. There simply is no plausible scenario where that would happen before spring. Because, even if the Senate Republicans were somehow brought to agree to it, the House simply wouldn't concur.
Whether they allow a vote next month on those subsidies, as agreed, or not, it's fairly certain that an extension will fail to pass. And when it does, it will be defeated stand-alone -- no other spending distractions. (Of course, the Congressional Republicans might surprise us all. But I figure it will be months before they can bring themselves to act.)
"
GftNC, you have to understand. For some, the options were a) cave in like this (their phrasing, not mine), or b) hang tough a tiny bit longer until the Republicans cave. If those were indeed the choices, their rage over option a) would be well placed.
But those weren't actually the options. Instead we had
a) accept a continuing resolution for the next couple of months, get some relief for a whole lot of Federal workers, and pick up the fight again in January. There is, after all, no chance the GOP will be in any better position then than now. Oh yes, and get a couple of elected Democrats seated finally.
Or
b) hang tough, no matter the collateral damage. While a lot of Federal workers go bankrupt, SNAP money runs out (for real), and a lot of people see their health insurance premiums skyrocket -- except they hear a lot about how the Democrats wouldn't let a bill to fix it even come to a vote.
Be clear, getting ACA funding done wasn't going to happen either way. (At least not for several more months minimum.). But this way, it's starkly obvious that the Republicans have sole ownership of the mess.
"
Pretty clear where this is going. First, it isn't going anywhere unless Johnson is willing to bring the House back into session to vote on the changes from what they previously passed. In which case . . . Epstein Files! And if he won't, no cover about "if only the Democrats would let the Senate vote." They totally own the mess.
Second, assuming it passes, then what. First, a lot of Federal employees who were stuck working without pay, or were furloughed, get their family economies patched up thru the holidays. Also, the new funding bill only runs thru the end of January. Which means that we probably see another shutdown then -- lest voters forget this shutdown by the time voting starts.
Oh yes, there will be the usual wailing and rending of garments from the left. Because, the very idea of something less than total victory is anathema. But then, strategy and tactics: not a core competency there.
My bet is that the Democrats end up with a big boost out of this, come next November. And that's assuming (and frankly, it's a heroic assumption) that, some time next spring, the Republicans in Congress get themselves together without another shutdown at the end of the fiscal year, i.e. next fall, right before the election.
"
At heart, MAGA's problem is one of definition: who counts as Amurikans? Ramaswamy obviously feels that he qualifies. (No clue what his personal definition is. Maybe "anyone Trump supports is in"?) Others, using different definitions, differ. And not just about him.
The thing is, there are lots of definitions. And a movement based on exclusion is in trouble without a single, unified, definition. A charismatic figurehead can, with work, paper over the differences, at least for a while. But MAGAworld looks to be losing their unifying leader, so the fractures over definition are appearing. Put another way, the knives are coming out.
On “Weekend Music Thread #04 John Mackey”
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have.
They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
Certainly they are different. The question is, are they distinguishable? I'm not sure that they necessarily are? Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
Put another way, is real empathy required? Or can it be simulated convincingly?
"
And I don’t think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had -- all it takes is having seen someone else experiencing it. Or showing how it looked when a third party did. Great actors do it most convincingly, but even journeyman level actors can do a pretty convincing job.
Are singers any different from actors in that regard? I'm willing to be convinced, but it may take some doing.
"
Can an AI generated pop star understand your broken heart?
I read that, and my first thought was The Monkeys. A totally made-up-for-television group. In other words, about as authentic as an AI generated pop star.
My next thought was that lots (most?) pop stars are performers, and their songs are generally written by someone else.** If one person writes the music, another person writes the lyrics, and a third performs the song? Which, if any, have to understand your broken heart?
** There are exceptions. People who write and perform their own stuff, at least mostly. But they are just that: exceptions.
On “People and poliltics”
How can a person show compassion and empathy to strangers while supporting politics that denies it to undeserving Others?
I'm not entirely sure How. But it's hardly unusual for people to hold different views regarding the abstract and the particular. Regarding "those people" and "this person."
Currently, a lot of people here have problems in the abstract with immigration. But they don't make the connection between the immigration issue in the abstract and that nice young lady who helps grandma with her housekeeping and her shopping. Said nice young lady being an obvious immigrant, complete with accented English and occasional issues with words that any middle school kid would know.
At most, they manage a rationalization of "but she's different." Even though she isn't, except to the extent that every person is different from every other. I'm not sure it is even possible to bring someone to realize that the abstract, the general case, is more like the specific individuals he knows.
Perhaps someone with a stronger grounding in psychology than I can say how many specific cases someone needs personal knowledge of before their view of the abstract will change. I am sure that it needs personal knowledge. Just being told that immigrantion impacts food prices, because much everybody who works in agriculture, whether picking vegetables or butchering beef? Only works if you know some of those folks, your children (or grandchildren) attend school with their kids, etc.
"
Both Democrats won, which is noteworthy in itself because no Democrat has won a non-Federal statewide election in 20 years or so, but more noteworthy are the margins, which are currently 62-38.
With Governor Kemp being term-limited, 2026 could be exciting in Georgia. And that's before figuring in the impact of whatever wave might manifest nationwide.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.