parineum

That information is certainly in the training data.

Your initial implication is that left wing accounts get banned while right wing accounts don't (an already spurious point), despite right wing accounts being notorious for botting.

That implies that left wing accounts shouldn't have been banned because they are not notorious for botting.

With the next reply, you hedge and say that the right "outbots" the left. That weakens your initial point that the left wing account bans are unjustified.

However, my initial reply was in response to the claim that it's "widespread knowledge" that the right outbots the left. That is not knowledge I consider to be self evident and I was assuming/asking that you got that knowledge from left leaning sources.

Outbotting and implying it's a problem with the right, specifically are two very different things.

> Even with the widespread knowledge that the right is notorious for using bot accounts...

Are you, by chance, of the left?

I'm sure you're abstaining from using AI, for the climate of course.

How much less flooding would there be right now without climate change?

It doesn't represent the risk to gerrymandering at all. There are no error bars in voting patterns based on 4 year old data.

Part of the reason this next cycle is looking so bad for Republicans is _because_ of the gerrymandering they tried backfiring on them because they cut the lines too close to try and gain more seats.

> There is no evidence. Mostly because Well being cannot be really quantified

Isn't there a baseline saying well being is declined?

How would that stop El Nino?

The the majority want what you're proposing? I doubt it.

You're third sentence is funny in contrast with the first two.

The "notoriously poor lifestyle" is a oft repeated meme and you're blanket implications of "additives" being causal without naming anything specific or having any sort of evidence supplied. Relying, instead, on the common "knowledge" that's memed around the internet as being self-evident.

The US also has the best healthcare in the world, it's just expensive. People from all over the world come here for treatment.

Welcome to democracy.

> that can change the meaning you actually intended

Laws aren't made by one person. When everyone votes on them, they agree on the language because of how they interpret the words on the paper. The meaning is what the words on the paper say, which is interpreted by different people to mean different things before they even become law.

> does it really add up to economy as whole

Yes.

I don't want to pick on you but this is a major pet peeve of mine. A lot of people view the economy as a fixed size of value. As a result, when someone is a millionaire, they consider that million dollars to be something extracted from others. That's a very Feudal view of economics. What's usually the case is that millionaire add a million dollars of value by creating a more valuable product from raw materials.

This example is an easy example. Before Nvidia, there was just a pile of silicon and copper worth $20. It doesn't take $80 to turn that thing into something that is worth $100. The value within the economy increased.

Most of economic activity is growth. There is economic activity that isn't growth, which is what rent-seeking is.

Change the laws.