As someone who eats whole fruits and vegetables, some meat and fish, etc. already, I would like to feel more confident in the following:
- there is no way that any of the fish I am eating was from polluted water or contains any harmful chemicals.
- there is no way that any of the meat I am eating was sick, raised in horrible conditions, had cancer, had significant wounds or puss-producing sores, was fed the feces of other animals, was fed chemicals or hormones, etc.
- there is no way that any of the vegetables I am eating were watered with dirty water or fertilized or exposed to pesticides that are not 100% safe.
So rather than free market capitalism where AWS would have actually lowered prices after investing heavily in a new datacenter-focused line of Huawei GPUs, the US government took steps to stop capitalism and competition, gave NVIDIA lots of free money (USA! USA!) and now prices are going up.
Recall pictures of Bezos smiling at various Trump events.
Everything Trump admin has done so far with tech reduces competition and tries to pick winners. This price increase is just the beginning.
it's truly incredible the harm that the psychological need for "strong man" leaders has on the world. What's even more strange, in my opinion, is that the bumbling and incoherent stuff Trump says is actually viewed by anyone as tough or strong. In my view it shows tremendous fear of directness and accountability. To call it womanish would be an insult to women.
Similarly, how does picking on much weaker countries (some of whom are allies) seem tough to anyone? In my view it's ugly and shows weakness rather than strength.
It's the second (so far bc he hasn't ruled out a third) presidential term for a strongly anti-immigrant / anti-immigration president who has a lot of support domestically.
Immigrants are being chased out of the US in record numbers. Many of my friends with brown skin (second generation immigrants) are worried their kids will be harrassed by ICE, etc.
The sad fact is that there are a LOT of Americans who deeply resent when someone from another country comes to the US, works hard, and earns a prosperous and happy life.
The US is now led by an emotional revenge-driven crusade against the American Dream, against capitalism, against the "melting pot" that fuels culture and innovation. It's a weird kind of revenge idiocracy going on right now.
In case it's not obvious, many of us here are deeply ashamed of what is going on and we will make it right eventually. I'm personally looking forward to the lawsuits that end up paying people mistreated by ICE significant sums of money, give them flights back to the US, etc. The US has a labor shortage and a talent shortage right now, we need the best and brightest, the most hard working, etc., not the lazy ones who think they are owed something and believe the orange clown.
Sorry to ruin your mudslinging, but if you read the second sentence of the linked study, you'll see the American voters' choice of president has nothing to do with this:
> Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades
Not true. The article asserts that immigration policy is a big driver of "stay rates" for immigrants.
Also, I did not assert that either party is "good" on immigration. The US should relax restrictions and allow many more immigrants to enter/study/work/live.
If we really want growth, fully open borders would double world GDP.
Sorry to ruin your ruining, but if you read past the abstract and look at the data, you'll see it tends to correlate with whether a democrat or republican is in office. Immigration policy is also mentioned in the discussion.
> Given these findings, a corollary question is what attracts foreign graduate students to the US and leads them to stay. Prior research points to immigration policy—a subject of perennial public interest—having a large effect on stay rates
His "arguments" on the All-In podcast are always purely persuasive/emotional and never substantiated by fact or logic. Most of it parrots GOP talking points and in my opinion he's a major threat to Silicon Valley legitimacy as he seeks to co-opt existing meritocratic institutional structures and impose his political cronyism/favoritism on them. Very dangerous stuff.
Like most of what Trump does it's 1000% emo and also very stupid. It's proudly anti-democratic and fundamentally disrespectful of American values.
People fall for it because fear of foreign rivals, frustration with a regulatory patchwork, and anti‑“ideological” backlash make a centralized, tough‑sounding fix emotionally satisfying. Big Tech and national‑security rhetoric also create an illusion that “dominance” equals safety and prosperity, short‑circuiting careful federalism and due process.
Yes, it’s extremely complicated. I gave up on fire base for one project because I could not figure out how to get the right permissions set up and my support request resulted in someone copying and pasting a snippet from the instructions that I obviously had not understood in the first place.
It’s also extremely cumbersome to sign up for Google AI. The other day I tried to get deep seek working via Google’s hosted offering and gave up after about an hour. The form just would not complete without error and there was not a useful message to work with.
It would seem that in today’s modern world of AI assistance, Google could set up one that would help users do the simplest things. Why not just let the agent direct the user to the correct forms and let the user press submit?
Yep. The most popular sim well integrated with ROS is Gazebo, a full 3D sim. Very powerful. There’s also the much simpler Stage, limited to 2.5D mobile robots.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil... shows me that, while a lot of people strongly disapprove of Trump, he retains a very strong base of over 40% of likely voters. And his overall approval rating is pretty typical for a US President at this point in their term.
He won last election on a fragile coalition which doesn’t exist anymore today. So, if elections are held today, he’d not only lose but will also get buried deep down.
From that article, I can tell that there are farmers, and farmer groups, who are pissed off for good reason. But Trump carried rural counties by 93%. Given how well his general polls have held up, I am highly dubious that most farmers in most rural counties have turned against him.
Given the way that all media (across the spectrum) have been slipping, I will not take any story based on anecdote as indicative of anything other than the biases of the one selecting the anecdotes. Give me a poll. And the polling shows that his base is strong.
Note for the future. We reveal our own biases when we reject what is said by those who do not share them.
For the record, here are my biases. I hate Trump. I think that he's a threat to democracy, and I wish that red America would wake up and reject him. But I'm painfully aware that the world doesn't work like I would wish. And so I'll look for what I judge to be most accurate. And not for what I want.
You claim that the actual number of rural counties carried by Trump is much lower than the 93% that I said. But my 93% comes from your article. Do you have a reference that disagrees with your own article? If not, then you are insisting on facts that are not in evidence.
You also reject my bringing up that figure as being stuck in the past. But I didn't just stick in the past. I brought in current polls. Polls of his base, which truly do dominate rural counties, show that his support is holding strong. Certainly his support is holding strong among the rural people that I know through my family.
But let's be more specific. According to https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-rural-... last month, Trump's rating has slumped in rural counties from an overall approval of +22% down to +14%. Which means that some minds changed, but a random person from a rural county has probably not turned on Trump. Which is the opposite of your original claim.
Next up, the article brings up various groups that dislike this decision or that which Trump has made. But it is extremely common for us to dislike some decision that a political leader makes while continuing to support them overall. Registering specific unhappiness does *NOT* mean a change in popular support. It just means that there is specific unhappiness.
In fact the single decision that Trump made which caused the most specific unhappiness in his base is the choice to not release the Jeffry Epstein files. From https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-want-th..., about 2/3 of Republicans want them released. But despite most of Trump's base disliking that decision, polling says that they are part of his base.
And no, I'm not looking for selective validation. I'm simply reading the news in a critical fashion. Per https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/, CNN has a left-wing bias, and is only "mostly factual". What that means in practice is that they put a spin on stories that will appeal to left-wing audiences. Left-wing audiences want to believe that Trump's base is turning against him. That's the spin in the article.
But the article offered no fact which would lead me to believe that. And if you want to find out whether people have turned against Trump, the most reliable way to do so is to ask them. "Did you vote for Trump? Would you support Trump now?" Which is *EXACTLY* what a poll does.
My preference for polls is not a preference for the version I want to hear. It is a preference for the best kind of data asking the question that I want answered.
He has the lowest first 100 days polls amongst presidents, beaten only by himself on his first term. On his current & second term, he is losing on what should should be strong issues historically for the gop such as the economy and immigration. His core base is indeed difficult to move but independents are not.
Now that was 100 days, but we are 278 days into his second term now. The polls went down further and polls on issues he should have addressed are not going up.
For a better view of what's normal and compared with presidency of the past:
The first 6 months are usually a honey moon period. The full effect of Trump's policies are still to be felt, and with the current political / economic / legal / etc.. context, the approval ratings won't go up.
But indeed, his core is difficult to move. My opinion on what follows, but I think they attached too much of their identity to the guy and their coping mechanism will be studied for decades to come in political, psychology and history classes.
You shouldn't be citing articles about the first 100 days, when you're given a reference with much more current results.
There are many different pollsters, each of which has slightly different numbers. Here are Nate Silver's average of the polls giving approval for historical presidents at this point in their office who were then polling below 50%. (Obama, at 51.8% just missed the cutoff.)
45.8% Bill Clinton
43.7% Trump (current term)
43.6% Joe Biden
39.1% Gerald Ford
38.0% Trump (first term)
So really, despite how mad so many people are, his popularity is not that low by historical standards.
> You shouldn't be citing articles about the first 100 days
I think we can. This tells his popularity is not as strong as what the claim is. We are in a presence of a significant vocal minority. I will grant that his core base is hard to move, including the farmers who are going bankrupt and harmed by his own policies, and many will rationalize it. As Twain's quote go: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled". Especially when voters are voting based on identity.
Equally, he could do a lot worse than his current numbers and they are not that catastrophic, granted. Comparing to Clinton who did bad in his early 1st term isn't great (for a myriad of scandals that are quite pale compared to recent times), or Biden inheriting a bad economy with a pandemic, while Trump inherited a boosting economy in his first term, and a recovering one for his second. Hence his numbers should be so much better.
Some key metrics to focus is the independants support/approval that he lost in majority, and certain pro maga communities such as the latinos who's families are directly affected. Farmers, who knows how much will swing and wake up after losing it all, but some did already. A trend might start with the economic dominoes slowly dropping.
Overall, I don't think he has normal polling numbers given the context. But we are not in normal times.
- there is no way that any of the fish I am eating was from polluted water or contains any harmful chemicals.
- there is no way that any of the meat I am eating was sick, raised in horrible conditions, had cancer, had significant wounds or puss-producing sores, was fed the feces of other animals, was fed chemicals or hormones, etc.
- there is no way that any of the vegetables I am eating were watered with dirty water or fertilized or exposed to pesticides that are not 100% safe.
reply