Honestly, this is fine. This is a healthy community. If we had an exponential growth curve, the AI bots, clout-chasting influencers, marketers and data-mining scrapers would be all over these instances, and Lemmy frankly has very poor tools to deal with it.

There aren’t the niche communities, I agree that that’s regrettable. But we really do run into scaling problems.

Right, what you said, but I’d remove the part where it increases productivity.

This is still the “faking it” phase of “faking it till you make it.” Their heroic victim narrative requires a criminal conviction, whatever the charge. So yes, they’re desperate, like every con artist is desperate to maintain the facade until they secure the prize.

Yes yes, we all know a conviction won’t disprove the obvious fact that they are hysterical infants in media tantrum, but like when she was still a screeching TV head, their Fox News anchor US Attorney is performing for an audience of one.

This was honestly the ballot item I was most concerned about. If we don’t retake the House in 2026 I’d say we’re pretty much cooked, and this at least keeps us in the game.

I’m surprised Retroid Pocket 5 is a reliable Switch emulator - are there games that don’t run at native speed?

[PSA voice]

Your government cares. If you are starving and plan to do something desperate, dial our Stephen Miller hotline, 1-800-NSF-RATU. National Guard and CBP members with hot weapons and martial law training are standing by.

Trump is truly a man of the people, evidenced by this quick action to address the top concern on a quiz of the people at Mar-a-Lago.

Yes, good point, I should have specified I was thinking of the Spielberg version.

The headline is clickbait and false by omission, even in the text of the article.

When you actually watch the interview, she says she regrets her vote “in terms of food insecurity” but can’t help immediately pivoting to “he’s doing a great job with the border.” (Presumably, his great job at the southern border in…Portland Oregon.) When asked if it will affect her voting decisions, she hems and haws that it “depends” on the administration’s response.

So in reality: She barely regrets one part of her vote but declines to say she regrets her vote overall. I’m guessing she’ll be voting straight ticket for Trump’s third term or whatever her feed tells her to.

And that’s the best she can do for her daughter, a diabetic who is on SNAP. Lots of self-reflection going on here.

At this point Minority Report’s mostly ordered but slightly corrupt-behind-the-scenes society seems almost utopian.

Nope, we’re getting Biff Tannen’s Back To The Future 2 reality as a base, with a free AI dystopia expansion pack.

I think billionaires have thought through the scenario where there are millions of starving, desperate people and law alone can’t protect them. I would imagine they prepare for it like the survivors in a zombie movie, living holed up in a compound, with similar chances of using force-based defense alone. Their defense only needs to fail once to be catastrophic (for them).

I can imagine a regressive taxed UBI that doesn’t financially impact them is a very appealing alternative to that.

CEOs: No, but just imagine the added brand value in being associated with AI, the Hot New Thing Nobody Is Sick Of™!

I mean, I think assuming AI replaces enough jobs to cause unrest, tech and billionaires may end up supporting UBI. But they would do so while also demanding low taxes and receiving that, since they can afford to lobby for it.

In that case, UBI would be mostly derived from workers’ salaries’ and similar regressive tax revenues. Which is exactly why billionaires would be fine with it.

I predict Mamdani will get more than 50% of the vote, but yes, nice to have insurance.

Some of this information was available but read the entire article. It’s very good reporting on just how clear Trump’s intent to break the law was, the extreme sensitivity of the documents, and the clear lies Trump told in response to the raid and demands. Just an example excerpt:

Olsen’s minders then told him about a fourth stack of documents, stored in a separate safe, explaining that only one agent in the field office was approved to handle them. Each of the documents in the safe bore a ticket with coding that described its unique handling instructions — above and beyond the strict approvals for highly sensitive top-secret and sensitive compartmented information.

Olsen got on the phone with his counsel to read the codes aloud, one by one, to determine if he had permission to view them. Some of the documents were so restricted that top Justice Department security officials reacted with surprise to the code names: They had never heard of them before. Some involved special access programs that required the president or a cabinet member to grant approval to view.

The documents that Trump did not turn over - after repeated requests were ignored, after turning over the initial boxes, the false “complete” folder of additional documents, showing the FBI the room with other boxes that was staged after they moved out other incriminating documents - were documents so sensitive that infosec policy required the acting president or cabinet member to personally authorize any request to view them.

If Trump “authorizes” the DOJ to settle his frivolous lawsuit related to the FBI raid, it will be a criminal openly stealing public funds in retribution for catching him red-handed after he repeatedly lied to police, and for nearly but not even making him face consequences. It gives me a headache how corrupt, unethical, and immoral that would be.

It’s not just interest alignment, in my opinion. Pretty sure Trump doesn’t endorse anyone unless there’s a pledge of fealty behind the scenes.

He’s exceeded their expectations, I assume.

Yes, loose phrasing on my part. But agree completely.

This is the point - authoritarian regimes make absurd laws that are vague and impossible to follow, so that prosecution can be fully politically-selective.

They will decide after the fact, without any objective standard, if your legal conduct is “illegal” for loan forgiveness purposes. (Maybe also criminal charges purposes, but I think they’re saving that for next year after we all get used to this step.)

Uh, who wants to tell NBC News that Trump “focusing on” the economy is precisely why it’s in trouble?