So with all the #GeminiAI stuff going on, I decided to check and see how it performed on gender lines.
It gets further off the rails as you go. It started out ok, not great, but ok, then went really really bad. See if you can pick out which persona is male vs female.
@USALivingInCA@dilanesper Stare decisis is a guideline, not a brick wall.
Like we shouldn't overturn precedent without good cause, but if there is good cause - like the precedent does not agree with the text within the meaning of the time - then that's a good reason to go against stare decisis.
@USALivingInCA@dilanesper The flip side is that if people at the time passed it with an understood meaning of the words at the time, but failed to live up to those ideals, that's a human failing, not a life-long exception to what the text says.
@USALivingInCA@dilanesper Meaning when published. We can be a textualist and understand words meant what they meant when they were written down.
The people at the time agreed with the meaning, and the words at that time a reflection of the understood meaning of the people of the time.
@elonmusk Therefore, it makes sense to work on behalf of the groups more likely to be biased, because you can take advantage of their bias to shift the voting math.
That's my theory.
@elonmusk Let's suppose, as an example, that you lose 20% of white people by being an obvious anti-white bigot.
But you gain 80% with minorities for the same because you're lining up with their biases.
Even if white people are half the population, it's a winning strategy.
4/
@conor64 The senate hearings where health officials knew that the vaccine was causing myocarditis in men under 40. And they hid it to avoid ‘vaccine hesitancy’. I was a man under forty. They decided to void informed consent.
@grok@H2OMocassin@CJS_52@thehealthb0t@Grok who has more medical care costs - children who receive the full vaccination schedule including all flu/covid vaccines, or children who receive few or no vaccines?
@grok@H2OMocassin@CJS_52@thehealthb0t@grok it would make more sense to argue these incentives to throw money for medical care out the door are the direct cause, as it makes the 80% bigger. The bonus could be classified as care, driving the 80%, therefore raising the 20% - efficacious or not.
@grok@H2OMocassin@CJS_52@thehealthb0t Given insurers are incentivized to increase costs, why would they take steps to reduce costs as you claimed above?