Mniot

I enjoyed watching the X-Files as a teenager, but I keep wondering if it wasn't responsible for a bunch of current-day brain-poisoning.

Inside the US, there's a pretty substantial amount of pro-Russia propaganda. For years the NRA was a dominant force in politics and it was completely compromised by Russia. The current US president is a Russian asset. Etc etc.

Israel is by far the larger threat to us elections

I'm not sure about "by far", but it doesn't really matter. Two things can be true at the same time. Israel and Russia are both significant threats to the US, both have obtained substantial control over US politicians, and both are threats to their neighbors.

And also there's overlap because Israel and Russia are partially aligned. (See for example how reluctant Israel has been to offer any support to Ukraine.)

I'd assume that somewhere later it explains what "N/A" and "*" mean here, but you can see that "Under 55" picks Sanders while "50-64" picks Clinton. So my guess is that "N/A" means that the size of that group is too small for them to have confidence in it. When they combine the two columns together, there's enough (that's why there's data show in "Under 55").

Like (I'm just making up numbers), maybe they determine that they need 100 respondents to have any statistical power. And they got 70 in the 18-34 group and 87 in the 35-49 group, but 103 in the 50-64 and 450 in the 65+.

You can see a hint of this in the sampling error, also: the larger number on 50-64 means that was the smallest of the groups shown. Meanwhile "55 and Older" is clearly a larger group than "Under 55".

Probably, "*" means "no responses". They don't want to say "0%" because they know it's not true that there are literally zero younger voters who had no opinion, but none of the people they surveyed answered that way. That's another hint that the group is small.

They polled them. I can make out under your line that "Under ?5" (presumably "55") is 53-45 in favor of Sanders. But the smaller age breakdowns were too small.

Is this a deliberate avoidance of polling younger voters in order to boost Clinton? Or did they try polling evenly but their methodology is outdated and skewed older? Or are they getting an accurate sample of voters and the boomers are just vastly outnumbering everyone else? I don't think the answer is clear.

But I feel like drawing your circle in a way that obscures the "Under ?5" demographic which did favor Sanders and then saying that they didn't poll the demographic that favors Sanders comes off as shady. Like the pollsters, it's not clear whether it's deliberately misleading or a simple accident.

I've always liked playing under-powered or useless or cursed characters. But you have to make sure the whole group is into it. Just because I want to play the germophobic sword-fighter who can't be in melee range doesn't mean anyone else wants to be part of that story...

Polls like this look are based on name-recognition. Harris is the first (and only) name a lot of people will come up with when asked "who should be the Democratic candidate?"

She doesn't seem interested (she hasn't been working on keeping her name in the news like Newsom has), so she'll fall off the polls as other people climb.

I'm not sure what you're trying to show here? That younger voters preferred Sanders? That's on there, but your red circle is mostly covering it.

It works against the general population, if this particular one doesn’t, don’t get too busy strutting, there is almost certainly something else that does work on you.

That is very well put! I feel like I've talked to so many people who see one ad that doesn't land and say, "ads don't work on me."

java naturally produces verbose stack traces

I always think of Java as the absolute gold standard of stack traces. Sure, in any given debugging session I don't care about most of the stack. But across all sessions, I've used all parts of the trace and I wouldn't want anything elided.

JS is my least-favorite because it provides a stack-trace so I get tricked into thinking it'll be useful. But since it doesn't cross callbacks it provides no depth.

Set your expectations: networking is complex and the configuration you're hoping for is particularly complex. It sounds to me like you're looking for a split-horizon configuration where local traffic stays local but internet traffic is routed over VPN. But also you want that configuration only for specific apps.

It's not the *arr programs that are tricky, it's that any service you try to configure this way will be some of the hardest sysadmin work.

The turbo-hell part is that the spam comments aren't even being written for humans to see. The intention is that ChatGPT picks up the spam and incorporates it into its training.

I worked at a company that sold to doctors and the marketing team was spending most of their effort on this kind of thing. They said that nowadays when doctors want to know "what should I buy to solve X?" or "which is better A or B?" they ask ChatGPT and take its answer as factual. They said that they were very successful in generating blog articles for OpenAI to train on so that our product would be the preferred answer.