@prae94.bsky.social
Oh that's just a full crash out
December 21, 2025 at 3:39 AM
Oh that's just a full crash out
So that means he can't say it's obstruction in court, right?
December 19, 2025 at 5:22 PM
So that means he can't say it's obstruction in court, right?
I want to know what a democrat could possibly do to earn his vote.
December 19, 2025 at 4:29 PM
I want to know what a democrat could possibly do to earn his vote.
Like I'm sorry, the fact that a party could be doing more to protect rights doesn't excuse letting the party that's actively saying they're going to take away rights. You're making a choice to let them come to more harm than they would have otherwise. That's on you. Inaction is a choice.
December 19, 2025 at 4:21 PM
Like I'm sorry, the fact that a party could be doing more to protect rights doesn't excuse letting the party that's actively saying they're going to take away rights. You're making a choice to let them come to more harm than they would have otherwise. That's on you. Inaction is a choice.
When one party is actively kicking you in the teeth and the other party isn't, you pick the party that isn't actively doing it. You have to play with the cards your dealt, not the cards you wish you were dealt. That doesn't mean that party is perfect, it means there's going to be less overall damage
December 19, 2025 at 4:15 PM
When one party is actively kicking you in the teeth and the other party isn't, you pick the party that isn't actively doing it. You have to play with the cards your dealt, not the cards you wish you were dealt. That doesn't mean that party is perfect, it means there's going to be less overall damage
He talked to Kathryn like I can only assume he talks to ChatGPT. Demanding, rude, and completely misunderstanding the result he got.
December 18, 2025 at 8:17 PM
He talked to Kathryn like I can only assume he talks to ChatGPT. Demanding, rude, and completely misunderstanding the result he got.
Any time someone gave you a definition that made your binary argument ineffective you backpedaled and tried to change to a different argument. As someone who despises AI with a passion, arguing with an LLM (with no ability to reason) would have been a more productive use of all of our time.
December 18, 2025 at 8:16 PM
Any time someone gave you a definition that made your binary argument ineffective you backpedaled and tried to change to a different argument. As someone who despises AI with a passion, arguing with an LLM (with no ability to reason) would have been a more productive use of all of our time.
Brother you drug the goalposts for what the point of the argument was so far that there are fish learning to make a field goal. You constantly refused to acknowledge any reply that was bad for your argument and regularly took what I consider a demanding and dismissive tone with Kathryn.
December 18, 2025 at 8:13 PM
Brother you drug the goalposts for what the point of the argument was so far that there are fish learning to make a field goal. You constantly refused to acknowledge any reply that was bad for your argument and regularly took what I consider a demanding and dismissive tone with Kathryn.
I can't believe he finally gave up
December 18, 2025 at 7:24 PM
I can't believe he finally gave up
The conversation has felt different day to day. Today is giving strong "your honor, my client is a human being and not a piece of feces, therefore..."
December 17, 2025 at 8:32 PM
The conversation has felt different day to day. Today is giving strong "your honor, my client is a human being and not a piece of feces, therefore..."
I'm trying to compare him to Argajag but its been way too long since I read the books
December 17, 2025 at 2:57 AM
I'm trying to compare him to Argajag but its been way too long since I read the books
Kathryn's going to need a pangalactic gargleblaster after she's finished with him. Maybe a double.
December 17, 2025 at 2:49 AM
Kathryn's going to need a pangalactic gargleblaster after she's finished with him. Maybe a double.
This guy might be the one Zaphod Beeblebrox replaced.
December 17, 2025 at 2:40 AM
This guy might be the one Zaphod Beeblebrox replaced.
But Rob, it works against the LLMs! At least, the ones that don't make him rage quit, anyway
December 17, 2025 at 2:31 AM
But Rob, it works against the LLMs! At least, the ones that don't make him rage quit, anyway
Surely it doesnt help their argument that they did this after someone challenged for abandonment though
December 17, 2025 at 2:21 AM
Surely it doesnt help their argument that they did this after someone challenged for abandonment though
Nobody's ever told him about beer pong, makeshift poker table, using it to play Dungeons and Dragons...
December 16, 2025 at 10:36 PM
Nobody's ever told him about beer pong, makeshift poker table, using it to play Dungeons and Dragons...
Pretty sure whatever deity put Kathryn together forgot to put in the quit.
December 16, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Pretty sure whatever deity put Kathryn together forgot to put in the quit.
Your entire argument is built on assumptions, which you're ignoring because it doesn't fit your binary look at the discussion that someone can still do something rude, without intending to, and without breaking some perceived social contract and being in your nebulous 'bad faith.'
December 16, 2025 at 7:30 PM
Your entire argument is built on assumptions, which you're ignoring because it doesn't fit your binary look at the discussion that someone can still do something rude, without intending to, and without breaking some perceived social contract and being in your nebulous 'bad faith.'
You're forgetting the key step, the most important part of the actual agreement. The *question.* "Hey, do you wanna play ping pong?" That's the key part that's missing in every single one of your hypotheticals. The man sits down at the chess table without asking the woman if he can.
December 16, 2025 at 7:29 PM
You're forgetting the key step, the most important part of the actual agreement. The *question.* "Hey, do you wanna play ping pong?" That's the key part that's missing in every single one of your hypotheticals. The man sits down at the chess table without asking the woman if he can.
A verbal shell game being run by an LLM.
December 15, 2025 at 6:45 PM
A verbal shell game being run by an LLM.
Oh my God I didn't think I'd see "you're slandering the LLM."
December 14, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Oh my God I didn't think I'd see "you're slandering the LLM."
I'm not being deceptive, I'm asking you a question. Better at what?
December 14, 2025 at 7:34 PM
I'm not being deceptive, I'm asking you a question. Better at what?
As good at what?
December 14, 2025 at 7:28 PM
As good at what?
It's not, because bad faith requires deception. It's an inherent part of it. As Kathryn tried to explain like 2 days ago, being a prick doesn't necessarily mean everything you do is in bad faith. It just means this table-flipper is a prick.
December 14, 2025 at 7:05 PM
It's not, because bad faith requires deception. It's an inherent part of it. As Kathryn tried to explain like 2 days ago, being a prick doesn't necessarily mean everything you do is in bad faith. It just means this table-flipper is a prick.
And how can the be inherent if each person has different ones?
December 14, 2025 at 6:39 PM
And how can the be inherent if each person has different ones?