natecheese

Where did you get "it costs literally 12 cents a box"? Is that a random number for effect or do you have some insider knowledge and know that for sure?

Either way is fine with me, just curious because it seems like a very small amount after paying for the raw materials, the workers wages, the shipping costs, and the grocery store overhead, etc.

Anyone interested in a local llm should check out Llamafile from Mozilla.

Trump's all about using strong emotional language without actually saying anything. Using vague language so that you can interpret it however you want is kind of his trademark.

Rush Limbaugh was also a master of it, and conservatives have convinced themselves he was a great man too.

Between this match, the Wolves bottle job yesterday, and Maidstone's deep run this cup has been amazing.

Pulling for Coventry to keep the dream alive.

I think the issue is that there is sexual imagery of the person being created and shared without that persons consent.

It's akin to taking nude photos of someone without their consent, or sharing nude photos with someone other than their intended audience.

Even if there were no stigma attached to nudes, that doesn't mean someone would their nudes to exist or be shared.

So your point is that Russia does try to interfere in American and other foreign elections, they just aren't very good at it?

The electoral college makes it easier for foreign actors to influence American elections. Instead of convincing 3 million people to change their votes from Clinton to Trump in order to effectively influence the election, the entities spreading FUD only need to influence a few thousand in key swing states.

From your Brookings article:

The bottom line is that the Mueller report clearly shows that the Russian information operations were highly adaptive to the political context in the United States, followed a seemingly well-thought out strategic plan akin to a marketing or public relations campaign, involved direction from Russian intelligence, and were incredibly effective in infiltrating American media while influencing public debate around the 2016 election.

The article from the Nation is a poorly sourced opinion piece from someone who seems to have a very poor understanding of how the Russian intelligence works. The key "gotcha" in the article is that IRA is not a Russian government agency, rather a private company run by Russian individuals.

This isn't in contradiction to the Mueller report, it's common for Russian intelligence (and other intelligence agencies around the world, including CIA and other American intelligence agencies) to use private corporations to carry their agendas. As pointed out by the Brookings article Russian intelligence directed the actions of IRA, even though IRA and its employees weren't directly employed by the Russian Government on paper.

Also unnecessarily hostile.

I've read the Mueller report and nothing in there supports your claims, which makes your statement even more confusing.

From the Wikipedia article on the Mueller report:

The report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".[4][5][6] Investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.[7][8][9]

More importantly:

However, the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies myriad links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[17]

You're being unnecessarily hostile. There is a lot of ambiguity in the statement as I outlined my comment.

If you can clarify the point they were trying to make that would be great, if not you're proving no value to this conversation.

The point you're trying to make here isn't very clear.

Are you saying:

1. That Russia didn't try to interfere with the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections?
2. Or are you saying that Russia did try to interfere, but they were incompetent and couldn't actually do it?
3. Or are you saying the Muller report clearly stated that there is a deep connection between Democrats and Russia, and only a much weaker connection between Russia and Republicans?
4. Something else entirely or some combination of all of these?

I watched some of it, all I saw were specious arguments that I'd expect to hear from goth teenagers at the mall. Maybe tankies find this kind of stuff compelling, rational people probably won't.

One person doing something bad? You clearly didn't read the article.

And to suggest that our scientific research institutions shouldn't be scrutinized or there isn't room to improve the process is a little naive.