Oh, definitely. Not just possible, they weren’t even looking for that. They were entirely looking for what the debate did to preferences and opinions directly about the candidates.
I mostly brought it out as an example of the headline not capturing the whole message of how it impacted voters. Or didn’t impact, rather.
So what were the advantages? The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner, or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I’m not sure you know how political affiliation or “people” work. Being a member of the party for decades vs being a member for months matters. Those are called “connections”, and it’s how most politicians get stuff done: by knowing people and how to talk to them.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with. Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves. It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.
The Obama campaign is a good example. He didn’t have the connections that Clinton did, so party leadership favored her. Once they actually voted, he got more so leadership alignment didn’t matter and he was the candidate. He then worked to develop those connections so that he and the party were better aligned and work together better, and he won. Yay!
So what rules did they break for Clinton? What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?
Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”
Like what? Did she get votes for him thrown out?
People have been saying for years that she had an advantage and so it wasn’t fair, but those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat, and then claiming it’s unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
True. But they were going to have the same criticism of Biden regardless.
It’s part of the reason I didn’t even watch. Looking over the polling, the debate didn’t really change anyone’s opinions on anything to any significant degree.
People keep saying Bernie could have won, but he didn’t beat Clinton.
Does it really count as “lucid” if you enunciate your lies, fabrications, misrecollections about… everything?
I did two full loops once while I was learning to drive. I wasn’t confident enough to merge over without a lot more room than the people around me were willing to part with, so I just stayed in the lane, took the next ramp and cycled through.
Then it happened again.
Fortunately it was my dad and not like, an instructor who could grade me or something.
It’s an online discussion. I’m not going to go price shopping for average circumcision costs by state broken down by insurance coverage.
Random urologist lists cash and insurance prices for infant circumcision? Done, that’s the range I’m using.
It’s a delightful PR gimmick by a most definitely not a tech company, since there’s not much cutting edge technology going on in the world of “flamethrowers are perfectly legal in America and that’s our business model”.
In addition to strapping a flamethrower to a generic quadruped robot, they also strapped one to a drone.
I can honestly tell you I did not search very hard. First results for how much it cost said $500 cash price, and up to $4000 as billed to insurance. I picked a number in the middle.
Honestly it didn’t seem that weird to me that removing skin from the genitals of a newborn would be along the same price as non-invasive outpatient surgery.
Or your joke was just so unfunny that it wasn’t recognizable as a joke and was mistaken for your honest opinion.
If no one laughed at your joke, maybe it’s because it wasn’t funny.
Like how we don’t say that blue glass is blue because it’s really just the light that’s blue?
Appearing blue when looked at is what it means for something to be blue.
If you’re gonna be that type of pedantic, just jump straight to “nothing has color but light”.
That’s what they’re saying. The typical cost is $20k-$50k, with all but ~$3k covered by insurance.
If insurance doesn’t cover it it’s now $1200 out of pocket.
Making it illegal would be better, but that requires convincing people. Even if you approve of circumcision, you’re still not going to be surprised when your insurance company drops what you consider to be something important.
Robots.txt isn’t even a rule, it’s a request.
“Please do not ask for the following content if you are a robot”.
If you don’t want someone to look at your content, you ultimately have to not give it to them, not just ask them to not ask.
CEOs of companies that are adjacent to technology desperately want to ensure that their company isn’t seen as “outdated”, almost more than they want to actually not be outdated.
So when a technology comes that everyone in tech leadership is saying is the bestest, they want to make sure everyone knows they’re totally with it, whatever the cool kids are talking about.
Hype train goes chugga chugga.
As the hype train slows, they still need to be onboard, but they set expectations based on what their people are actually telling them.
So this is the CEO yelling to do something, and then the news slowly percolating back from the tech people that they can, but only a handful of projects can do so in a way that makes sense, has impact, and doesn’t disrupt a timeline or budget in a way that requires shareholder disclosure.
Everyone ate it too. The mockery was because
If you hate someone, anything they do can be something you use to express your hate, even if you do it to.
So, I definitely think that society has a tendency to want to “fix” behavior traits that are difficult or annoying, but I think there are also a lot that are actually problematic.
For example, with my ADHD, I get stuck doing stuff I don’t like doing at the expense of stuff I do enjoy. Just last night after my meds wore off, I got stuck watching YouTube videos of mediocre standup comedy instead of leaning over a bit and grabbing my book that I’m extremely into and very much want to find out what happens.
The definition I like most, which isn’t out of whack with what the standards tend towards, is something that’s:
If it’s causing the individual stress, or it’s clearly causing problems in their life, it’s something that should be addressed. Sometimes the easiest way to address it is just an environmental accomodation, like self directed learning, a pair of headphones, or permission to excuse yourself for a moment. I had a workplace unknowingly (to me and to them) accommodate me by putting down some anti fatigue mats where I would pace to a comical degree every day.
A big issue in my book is that disorder is an overloaded term. Colloquially disorder means “broken”, and it doesn’t mean that clinically.
A person with a learning disorder who can be helped by putting them in a more self directed learning environment still has a disorder that needs accomodation because they’re not performing to the standards of their peers.
There’s also a distinction between “mental disorder” and “neurodevelopmental disorder”, with the disorder of mental disorders being the biggest one associated with the word “disorder”.
I think it’s good that people like you ask these questions, because that’s part of what helps push society towards an understanding that many of these disorders are really just a very wide spectrum of differences from a rough average, and that our world needs to just be a little more flexible for people who do it a little different. It’s caused a lot of more modern primary education systems to be more flexible and trained in the benign accomodations that some kids need, for example. (My nephew also has ADHD and he’s having a much better experience in school than I did, of only because they were like “some kids with ADHD just have terrible handwriting, instead of endless drills, here’s your Chromebook you do all your work on now”)
In the end, I think we need to be able to categorize things in order to be able to know how to fix up people’s environments when that’s the right answer. We also need to be aware that sometimes the environment isn’t the best fix, and that a medication can be the best way to help a person.
For your example, I would say the individual has “crazy tall disorder” which has some easy environmental accomodations (Padded corners on cabinets), individual accomodations (teaching them proper lifting techniques and posture early since height and bad backs go hand in hand), and occasionally medical intervention (gentle back strength exercises, back and knee braces, closer monitoring of cardiac function for the truly extremely tall).
Categorization helps us better understand how things are related, what the bounds on the spectrum are, and what accomodations can be made that help the most people, and when it’s something that needs more focused attention.
It’s not the categorization that’s the problem, it’s the stigmatization or inflexibility that causes issues.
Sure! Unfortunately, it was purely a joke and has no helpful qualities that I can think of.
Your prefrontal cortex is the very front edge of your brain, and it’s (very generally because brains are complicated) responsible for problem solving, decision making and stuff like that.
It’s the part of your brain that makes the call to actually remove the blanket.
These are called “executive functions”.
It’s also very associated with a lot of parts of personality expression, so while it’s not where “you” are, damage to it has a more pronounced impact than other parts of your brain, so sometimes people treat it like it’s “you”.
It picks which tasks to do based on that reward system I mentioned in my original comment. It doesn’t directly control which task it’s pointed at trying to solve, so it can come up with a plan to do what’s needed, and then discover that the first step is “bad” and it should keep doing what it’s doing.
That’s the little man sitting at a desk who knows it’s all fucked. Did all the work and then was directed to ignore it, knowing that was the wrong call. Something else is in charge of that reward process (kinda), and you can’t “reason” with that process.
No. There are tests for the types of functional behavior differences that comprise ADHD, but they can’t really be administered outside of a moderately controlled setting.
Stuff like saying a list of words and seeing how many you can recall in a fixed time can’t really be done reliably in a quiz.
There are tools that can say “based on what you answered, there’s a high/low probability you’d benefit from further consultation”. They’re basically “how often do you interrupt?”, “how often do you zone out?”.
Basically a structured way of “what I’m hearing you say is …”. “Based on how you describe yourself as ADHD as hell, you might benefit from asking someone about that”.
Self assessments can be wrong about what they suggest you ask about. If you have a concern or behaviors that you do that upset you or cause problems, then that’s worth addressing and following until you get help, but it might not be what you thought. Or the doctor might have been mistaken, since they’re also fallible, but hopefully the more objective tests can lend objectively to their conclusions.
Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous. The emails that were stolen show people being mean, but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything. Or does someone making a shitty suggestion and then a higher ranking member of the party saying “no” not fit the narrative your drawing? Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?
In context, Sanders told CNN that if he was elected, she would no longer be the chair person. The internal comment was “this is a silly story. Sanders isn’t going to be president” at a time where he was already loosing.
She did. Eight years ago.
Tldr, party leadership preferred Clinton over Obama. Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn’t have much impact.
Oh please. It’s even in the bit that you quoted: new to the party. I act like he was new to the party because he was, and his campaign was run by people who didn’t know the party structures. When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.