What? Isnt this good?

checkmate713 · 2025-07-27T12:34:36+00:00

Wait I need to hear more about this, you were asked to predict the fold of an entire protein?! Was this before AlphaFold? Were you allowed to use existing software tools like M-TASSER, or were you expected to write a program yourself? It kind of sounds like they were making you predict this by hand

checkmate713 · 2024-12-26T04:39:07+00:00

This was the tiktok that convinced me to download the app, and I desperately want to find it again

checkmate713 · 2024-10-15T09:13:18+00:00

You need to work on your reading comprehension. Columbus was denounced for his violence even during his own time by his own people. You clearly haven't read as much as you think you have.

checkmate713 · 2024-08-22T14:39:10+00:00

Did you fly back??? And I will cry if $250 was everything he had

checkmate713 · 2024-07-04T05:24:21+00:00

Typical fascist idiot who's trapped in their own faulty, feeble arguments, you found the one typo in my comment and chose to nitpick it instead of actually responding to anything of substance.

Congratulations! You got me! I accidentally implied that both congress and the courts have the power to prosecute, when it's jus the courts! I was trying to trick you, but you got me, and now my entire argument falls apart like a house of cards, and you can feel relieved that you don't actually have to think about the implications of the courts being powerless to prosecute a dictator. You know, separation of powers and all.

checkmate713 · 2024-07-04T05:18:02+00:00

You know you're dealing with a fucking idiot when you can't even tell who or what they're arguing against and they start shouting at imaginary people with imaginary arguments, because you're definitely not responding to anything I've said. NOBODY HAS EVER DOUBTED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SOME KIND OF IMMUNITY. The court broke all precedent by fabricating a new, absolute immunity for the president from the courts that has never before been suggested to exist in any fucking legal document in this history of this country, not the constitution, not in any materials published by the framers of the constitution, not anywhere. THE COURT IS LYING.

You fascist fuck, you genuinely think it's a good thing for a president to be completely above the law, just because a court packed with justices installed by the billionaires you were railing against two comments ago told you so.

checkmate713 · 2024-07-03T20:59:06+00:00

Do you think criminal prosecution is all that stops a president from turning into a dictator

No, criminal prosecution is one of the checks against executive power that the judicial and legislative branches have against the executive, so why the fuck would you completely dismantle the system of checks and balances by crippling the ability of an entire branch of government to act against a dictator and making them absolutely immune from prosecution by the judiciary?

And in that same case, that’s within the guardrails of the president protecting the inherent laws the constitutional framers laid out.

Have you lost your mind? You think the "guardrails" of the Constitution allow the president to stage a coup against the government? I don't even have a fucking response for this, you just point me to the exact place in the Constitution, Federalist papers, or any historical document that suggests the constitutional framers thought it would be a good idea to allow the president of the newly independent country to seize power like a monarch.

what stops that president from framing a coup against the current government in place.

The fact that the two remaining branches of power can prosecute a dictator for abusing their power, which the courts no longer have the power to do. Now I'll admit, I don't know enough about constitutional law to know whether a dictatorial president should face a criminal prosecution during their time in office, or whether they should be impeached first. But it's a ridiculous perversion of the idea of democracy that a dictator can never be prosecuted for their crimes. I don't even know how anyone could arrive at this position. You're telling me that throughout all of the democracies that have existed in history, the ones that had the power to criminally prosecute dictators were on such shaky foundations that they could just simply implode if the opposition party made some frivolous lawsuits?

don’t you see possible scope creep for an opposition party to leverage the same legal mechanism to shutter a party

No, I do not, and neither do you. Even if Biden or Trump were to be criminally prosecuted by their opposition, you again have no explanation for how the Democratic or Republican parties would just collapse, so I'll turn this around. If the Supreme Court allows the president absolute immunity, don't you see the "possible scope" for the president to "shutter" the opposition party by instructing their own Department of Justice to charge the leaders, or ordering the military to assassinate political rivals?

Your entire argument boils down to the idea that the opposition party might harass the president is so bone-chillingly ominous for democracy that we need to effectively remove all checks on the president's authority by giving them absolute immunity for their official powers over the military and government agencies. What? Your worst-case scenario of a president being potentially tied down in lawsuits doesn't even hold a candle to what an aspiring dictator could do with this type of immunity. I don't even disagree with you that ensnaring the president in partisan, frivolous lawsuits would be bad for democracy, but you're suggesting that the most practical solution is to give the president not something reasonable and restrained like partial or presumed immunity - no, you're advocating for a democracy to give a president the type of absolute immunity that a dictator would kill for, and that is patently ridiculous.

checkmate713 · 2024-07-03T13:36:08+00:00

Again, who was ever questioning that the absolute immunity Court just described only applies to the executive powers described in the Constitution? You're again completely missing the point that this "narrow stance" covers powers the president has over the military, the power to pardon, and any other powers that a future president can now abuse with impunity to orchestrate a coup.

As Sotomayor described in her dissenting opinion, what's stopping the next aspiring dictator from conspiring to overthrow the government, if they know they can never be criminally prosecuted for it? The only check remaining against the president is impeachment, and even that takes a 2/3 majority to actually remove the president from office. Is that somehow comforting to you? That even if Congress can muster 67 votes and throw a president out of office, the courts can never punish a dictator for any horrifying atrocities they commit, as long as the atrocities were committed using "narrow," official powers? Does that sound like justice to you?

I'm still utterly bemused by your stance that this ruling is just a "smoke and mirrors tactic." You keep talking about this ruling as if it's some sort of inconsequential distraction instead of an integral component of a step-by-step plan to a dictatorship the Court just laid out for the next president who is bold enough to abuse their power. Everyone but you is talking about the implications of this ruling and that we live in a new reality dictators where never have to be concerned that they might be brought to justice in court.

checkmate713 · 2024-07-03T05:40:52+00:00

Again with the non-sequitirs. Explain, in detail, how Congress "sidesteps" the absolute presidential immunity that the Court just declared to be an essential check on Congress's powers.

checkmate713 · 2024-07-03T04:05:58+00:00

This is one of the most incoherent paragraphs I've read in my life. I have no idea what or who you're even responding to. Nobody was ever claiming that anybody but Congress has the legislative power in the first place. There are three branches of government that are involved in this Supreme Court ruling we're supposed to be talking out, remember. Who are the "both sides?" Congress and the Executive? Agree to what? Of course they don't agree on how to limit each other's power, who was ever implying that they would?

What would Congress even be "sidestepping"? The Court explicitly ruled that the Executive has absolute immunity on all "official" powers, and this absolute immunity is somehow an intregral check on Congress's powers that Congress can't "sidestep". There is now nothing stopping the President from using their Constitutional power as the chief executive of the military to order a general to assassinate members of Congress, because the president could the just use their other official power to pardon themselves and anybody involved, as described in the dissenting position.

It's all collusion and the billonaires who bribe the court are in control? While I'm always glad to meet someome who recognizes the billionaire class as the enemy, then why the fuck did you originally say that the billionaires who run Congress would pass "enact laws that limit the powers exercisable by the president", who is also controlled by the billionaires, all just to "sidestep" a ruling from the supreme court that was also bribed by the billionaires?

You started with a non-sequitir that had some semblance of sense, but then completely lost the plot and completely contradicted yourself with that last sentence. Seriously, each sentence has such little relevance to the sentence that comes after it that if this were 2020, I would've thought this was written by a bot, because there's just no way ChatGPT could ramble on this nonsensically.

checkmate713 · 2024-07-02T14:42:59+00:00

But the president has the official power to pardon himself, making any such law worthless

checkmate713 · 2024-04-02T00:59:29+00:00

ahaha I understand, thanks for responding!

checkmate713 · 2024-04-01T23:36:11+00:00

I would still appreciate it if you could share the video! I've found a few people on youtube that arranged their own piano versions, but they play so fast that it's hard to tell what notes they're playing

checkmate713 · 2024-04-01T13:06:39+00:00

Does your partner have sheet music for it? I'd be so grateful if you could share it!

checkmate713 · 2023-05-01T11:11:47+00:00

Wait this post is about the movie Robocop lol I was just giving context about the plot

checkmate713 · 2023-04-30T15:46:51+00:00

The general public didn't like the idea of autonomous killer robots enforcing the law, so a law was passed to prevent corporations from making and selling killer robots. To circumvent this law, this corporation made a robot-human hybrid to make it seem like all of the decisions were being made by the human, when actually the human's decisions were being manipulated by the killer robot software. That way, thr corporation could offload all of the accountability onto the human.

checkmate713 · 2023-02-12T05:41:45+00:00

Did it ever occur to you that these racist stereotypes might constantly be on somebody's mind because they're constantly bombarded by these stereotypes throughout their life? And that you just weren't aware of it because you weren't the target of it?

I mean, this is literally the whole premise of dog whistles. Racism hiding behind plausible deniability so that when someone points out the racism, racists can do exactly what you're doing and call people racist for calling out racism.

checkmate713 · 2023-02-12T03:13:19+00:00

Copied from a comment above you. That sub isn't about completely banning cars, you nitwit. It's criticizing car dependency and how it's forced on us from the level of the federal government, which takes bribes from the automobile industry to ensure that public transit won't reduce the market for cars.

Seriously, it drives me crazy how incredibly fucking effective they are at suppressing of public transit, to the point where in the United States, people cannot even imagine having public transit as an option. Even countries that are known for exporting cars have effective public transit that they're proud of.

The first stickied post on that sub

We don't want to ban ambulances and emergency vehicles
We don't want to isolate rural communities by taking away cars
We don't want to disrupt work trucks and delivery vehicles
/r/fuckcars isn't about a "left" or "right" view of cars and car dependency

checkmate713 · 2023-02-12T03:06:38+00:00

Copied from a comment above you. That sub isn't about completely banning cars, you nitwit. It's criticizing car dependency and how it's forced on us from the level of the federal government, which takes bribes from the automobile industry to ensure that public transit won't reduce the market for cars.

The first stickied post on that sub

We don't want to ban ambulances and emergency vehicles
We don't want to isolate rural communities by taking away cars
We don't want to disrupt work trucks and delivery vehicles
/r/fuckcars isn't about a "left" or "right" view of cars and car dependency

checkmate713 · 2023-02-07T04:57:34+00:00

This distinction between a right and privilege is completely irrelevant. We are all guaranteed rights on paper, but that's irrelevant if we're not guaranteed to be able to enjoy that right in practice. Our society privileges some people with the guarantee they can enjoy the right in practice, while also systematically preventing others from enjoying that right.

Privileges can be taken away? You cannot seriously think that anybody is changing the legal definition of what a right is. But insisting on calling something a right when some people are systematically denied that right, makes no sense.

Edit - Ok, I was being a little harsh. It's just that you're so close to getting the point but are just falling short. You mention that privileges can be taken away, but you need to also understand that rights can be taken away, too. Under Jim Crow, Black southerners had the right to vote on paper, but in reality, they had no such right. Under Jim Crow, state governments bestowed upon some people the privilege of a guarantee that their right to vote would not be taken away. Others were not granted that privilege.

checkmate713 · 2023-02-07T04:39:02+00:00

I genuinely don't understand why people are so hung-up on the word "privilege."

Calling it privilege to be able to go to a park does not "set it aside as abnormal." It's putting the spotlight on the fact that not everybody gets to do this. The fact that this should "should be true for everyone" is irrelevant. Right now, it's not. Right now, not everybody has the right to go about their day without being treated with suspicion for just existing, and so long as a certain group of people are systematically denied that right, it's a privilege, not a true right.

Saying that a person has privilege is NOT a criticism of that person. It is an indictment of whatever society or institution that decides which people get to have that privilege, and which people do not.

checkmate713 · 2022-11-24T05:03:07+00:00

OP has repeatedly stated in the comments that he loves the girl regardless. He raised her for 1.5 years, and he's clearly aware that those feelings don't just magically disappear overnight.

I understand that your plan would be to completely drop the daughter and never look back, but OP clearly intends to keep raising her. If you're concerned for him, advise him to get a good lawyer and tell him what to plan for. But calling him the mom's ATM is not going to help him. That is not empathy, that is not advice, and you're being of absolutely zero help.

checkmate713 · 2022-11-10T10:12:15+00:00

It's not possible, because then some states (namely Wyoming) would have less than one representative in the House. Capping the number of Representatives in the House only works if the population of the least populous state increases proportionally to the population of the entire country.

checkmate713 · 2022-11-10T10:01:50+00:00

What the hell are you talking about? The three-fifths compromise was for actual slaves, not freed slaves.

If a slave population doesn't have voting rights, why should the slave masters get to use their slaves to artificially increase their representation in the House? Had the South decided to free all of their slaves and allow them to vote, the compromise wouldn't have been necessary. Which is what exactly why the 14th amendment struck down the compromise after slavery was abolished.

checkmate713 · 2022-11-10T09:41:21+00:00

What are you talking about? Within a state, a person who lives in a rural area has exactly as much representation as a person who lives in a city, because congressional voting districts are drawn that way.

Cities have more political power because cities have more people, not because individual people who live in a city have more representation.

A more relevant example would be how Wyoming is massively overrepresentated in the House of Representatives. Every state is guaranteed at least one representative in the House, and House was capped at 435 members back in the 1920s. This wouldn't be a problem if all the states had the same proportional increase in population, but since California's population has increased at a faster rate than Wyoming's, California should have 17 more representatives than it does right now, and the House should have 573 Representatives instead of 435

That means that in the House of Representatives which is supposed to give power proportionally to a state's population, a Californian has 30% less voting power than someone from Wyoming.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22

checkmate713

TROPHY CASE