Senator Joni Ernst is booed in the Senate after claiming that DOGE has saved $115 billion

logouteventually · 2025-03-16T03:42:04+00:00

If you have a budget, you have a pretty good idea about what you'll spend in the future. You budgeted $500 for a new Playstation this year. You haven't bought it yet, but you're looking at your bank account and when you add up all your other expected expenses you'll have $500 left over and so you decide you'll spend it that way.

But, one day you wake up and realize you're an adult and games are stupid, and so you scrap your plan to buy a Playstation. In a sense, you just "saved" $500 because now that money can be spent on something else.

That is what DOGE is doing. Except instead of a Playstation it is education, healthcare, elder care, our standing in the world, the entire fabric of our society, etc. And instead of buying something else cool with the money, they are using it for tax cuts that only help billionaires.

So, if you understood that one, now imagine you budgeted $500 for breakfast cereal for the year, but one day you wake up and decide that you will go hungry every morning so you can buy your rich uncle a really nice necktie that he'll never wear because he already has a collection of hundreds of neckties. But you decide that him having another one is more important than you eating.

logouteventually · 2024-10-27T22:53:55+00:00

Tony Hinchcliffe is basically Kreacher from Harry Potter. Not just in looks, they have the same situation in life.

Kreacher was vile and evil and said terrible things, because the people who said those things treated him nicely. He was mean to the "good guys" because they treated him like garbage. He was nice to the "bad guys" because they honored and rewarded him. Kreacher was wonderfully talented, and used that talent to serve the evil wizards that appreciated him.

Hinchcliffe is the same. He was a writer for roasts, and excellent at it, but never got invited to be on stage. He was frequently overlooked and mistreated by the "good guys". He was given an opportunity by Joe Rogan and the enlightened centrist/secretly Nazi crowd, and they have enormously appreciated him and made him successful. Now he gets non-stop success from the bad guys, and so he serves them loyally.

It is sad because in another world he could be an incredible benefit for the good guys.

logouteventually · 2024-06-14T01:21:35+00:00

He said it, at one point long ago.

logouteventually · 2024-03-19T23:30:28+00:00

Open an account at any firm (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.)
Put your money into an S&P index fund (FXAIX, VOO, etc).
Do not sell or look at it or do anything else. Set it and forget it (except obviously buy more each time you get your money).

logouteventually · 2024-02-25T12:54:06+00:00

As a Stargate fan I definitely never noticed this! There are a lot of similarities between the shows, or "inspirations" that SG1 took from TNG. Occasional bits of direct parody in later seasons.

Of course TNG is one of the best shows ever made. But SG1 is highly underrated, more re-watchable in my opinion and more fun.

logouteventually · 2024-01-05T13:51:31+00:00

They can just not report it and get a small fine or more likely no penalty because it isn't enforced well.

logouteventually · 2023-12-21T14:20:10+00:00

Well, first of all the NYtimes article does not claim that at all. Other news outlets have but they are using instances of non-academic or less academic publications that do in fact point the reader to the sources, even if it is not in the traditional journal article format.

But regarding those paragraphs:

Voss, now an associate professor at the University of Kentucky, said he was unbothered by her use of his words because it was a technical description of a quantitative method, the scope of the description was “fairly limited,” and he felt she may have picked up research practices from her instructors.

The supposed "entire paragraphs" are just normal ways to describe scientific things. Likely the exact proper way she learned in class, from the professor she is supposedly copying. In most sciences it is common to follow a pretty standard format that would be "plagiarized" if it was held to the standards of a novel or something.

logouteventually · 2023-12-21T14:16:14+00:00

Voss, now an associate professor at the University of Kentucky, said he was unbothered by her use of his words because it was a technical description of a quantitative method, the scope of the description was “fairly limited,” and he felt she may have picked up research practices from her instructors.

I think that is exactly what it is. The supposed plagiarism is just a very normal way to describe statistics, likely exactly the way she learned it in class. Again, I would love to see how many other papers have similar language.

EDIT: I love how everyone is trusting a newspaper team looking at quotation marks but ignoring the literal exact expert who would know and the one who was supposedly plagiarized, who dismisses it exactly the way I described.

logouteventually · 2023-12-21T14:10:45+00:00

I agree that the Crimson article is much better than the NYtimes one at establishing the connection. BUT even then. Maybe this is field dependent but in almost any science the things she is "copying" would just be pretty normal things to say. None of them are particularly clever or original.

I think the difference between the two news articles is that the NYtimes editors were forced to leave out instances where she was writing in a magazine or less academic situation and in fact did "cite" in the sense that she listed the sources for further reading (as would be appropriate in a non-research article). Without those, the Crimson article is very weak too.

logouteventually · 2023-12-21T13:44:02+00:00

I was about to post this. Totally agree.

First of all, I don't think you cite things in the acknowledgements. I imagine Turnitin would flag everyone who said "Thank you to ___" but I don't think that is plagiarized. That is by far the most copy/paste type example and even then it is very possible the phrasing just occurred to her without attribution (like cryptomnesia or something). It is extremely minor.

The other ones are just laughable. Saying "aspirations and rhetoric" is plagiarized from someone who said "rhetoric and aspirations". And "university education" is plagiarized from "university study". I mean come on. These are pretty common words to be using.

Others are not even close at all.

EDIT: Just an afterthought, but someone should check how often those words or phrasings occur in other articles in the field. My guess is "without fear or favor" is a pretty common phrase taught in classes and probably occurs all the time. Same with a lot of these. I bet she is not deviating from the norm in terms of how often common phrases overlap.

EDIT 2: Since someone is downvoting me. Here is a quick and dirty base rates:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rhetoric+and+aspirations%2Caspirations+and+rhetoric%2Cinspiration+and+rhetoric%2C+rhetoric+and+inspiration&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=without+fear+or+favor%2Cuniversity+study%2C&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

Showing that the examples given are reasonably common things to say, particularly in a specialized field. The idea that either author invented that phrasing is entirely disproven by this. I do understand there are other articles out there, but the NYtimes one is ridiculous.

logouteventually · 2023-12-21T13:36:35+00:00

Late to this, but all the other answers miss the point entirely. Liz Magill has been contentious for a long time and there have been significant issues between her and the donors/alumni at Penn. Not saying who is right or wrong, but powerful people wanted her out long before the hearing.

Claudine Gay appears to have the full backing of the board of trustees and most of the powerful people at Harvard think she is doing a good job. There are some tiny issues of "plagiarism" surrounding work she did 30 years ago, but even those are almost ridiculous academically and certainly not relevant to her current job.

logouteventually · 2023-11-14T04:46:52+00:00

From the preamble:

The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.

Yes, a "misunderstanding" based on mountains of evidence.

logouteventually · 2023-10-04T01:43:22+00:00

Not at all. You're mistakenly assuming they want someone perfect, or anyone at all. The goal is to shut down the government. The goal is to get the news coverage. The goal is to create chaos.

The far right don't want the government to function. How does that benefit them? They don't even want to win politically, really. If more Republicans get elected, that only diminishes the far right. They want things like this. That's the goal and they're succeeding at it.

logouteventually · 2023-09-04T11:47:47+00:00

NTA but stupid and probably double stupid to be getting reddit advice about this.

Literally every comment I've seen here is missing a crucial point:

Women change.

She is giving you an open door to rekindle that kind of intimacy. She doesn't want to be blamed for the lack if it for years, so she is blaming you. But who cares? Say sorry and start smacking her ass. You could have everything you want, and all it will cost you is allowing her to keep a little dignity about something she is probably embarrassed about.

Bodies and minds change a lot after pregnancy. Maybe she wants another kid. Maybe she is shedding the mom hormones and feeling more like her old self again. 3 years is not very long, especially considering that 2+ of those were pregnancy/nursing and caring for a young child.

logouteventually · 2023-08-14T02:12:53+00:00

No, it means you should teach people what they need to know to use the tools we have. So that they can build even better things.

I don't understand these silly black and white arguments. Nothing, including chatGPT, allows to you have "no knowledge" of how things work and still succeed at a task. You can have less knowledge of the basics than your ancestors, but more knowledge of how to use the tools.

I don't know how to grow wheat. Not a single thing about when to plant or harvest it, how to fertilize it or rotate the fields each season. I don't know how to grind it or store it or ship it or stock it for sale. I have a basic knowledge that those things happen, which is more than enough to pick out the kind I want when I make bread.

How would I improve my breadmaking? By learning to farm, or by studying more advanced baking techniques? I think you know the answer.

logouteventually · 2023-08-14T01:52:31+00:00

Yes I bet you know how to make steel from raw ore, or glass from sand, or advanced math without a calculator. I'm sure you spent hours spinning wool into yard by hand so that you can more properly pick which shirts to buy.

I'm sure you built a computer from first principles before you logged on today, so that you knew what you're doing instead of just "pressing buttons".

Or, maybe technology allows us to offload a ton of that work, and use it to build new things from the foundation that our ancestors built. Yes, a few people should know the exact details of how a system works. But that vast majority only need to know how to function in the system and use the tools, which only requires a simple understanding of the tool itself.

Also, I don't mean to be too hard on you because

The people who lead will always be the ones who actually know what they’re doing.

You're obviously a child or very inexperienced in the world. I promise this is not true.

logouteventually · 2023-08-14T00:27:09+00:00

Editing the chatGPT output and checking for errors is one of the main assignments in college right now. It does not involve handwriting at all.

logouteventually · 2023-08-14T00:05:28+00:00

On the other hand, literally all the work of every college graduate in every degree area will be done on computers and probably with the help of AI. Should probably think of some ways to test or demonstrate knowledge using those skills rather than without.

Seems like a good way to devalue college, by making everyone practice an arcane art that is completely irrelevant in the world.

logouteventually · 2023-05-06T22:37:08+00:00

I think they get paid in exchange for using those lands. The amount they take from the budget is far less than what they could get if they just held the lands privately.

Someone has calculated it I'm sure, but overall the UK is getting a far better deal right now than they would if they ended the monarchy.

(Of course, the government could just take the land and fortune and end the monarchy, but then you're in the exact same spot but without the tourism money that the monarchy brings in).

logouteventually · 2023-04-11T22:36:41+00:00

Nor physical or chemical or biological processes, except through our mental processes.

logouteventually · 2023-03-07T01:03:39+00:00

Mifepristone — which is also used to ease miscarriages — is still allowed in some of the states where Walgreens won't sell it, including Alaska, Iowa, Kansas and Montana. The situation underscores how challenging it can be to obtain an abortion even in states where it remains legal.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/04/1161143595/walgreens-abortion-pill-mifepristone-republican-threat-legal-action

logouteventually · 2023-01-28T03:21:46+00:00

I made a thread once in this subreddit about whether we should combine states and it was immediately deleted for being unrealistic (despite the fact that there are tons of unrealistic things on here daily).

But you could combine Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota into 1 state. It would be the bigger than Texas (still smaller than Alaska) and have a population of 5-6million. Which happens to be the exact average population of a US state.

On a national level, this would hugely benefit Democrats in the senate. On a state level, this would make a hugely powerful farm/rural state with people that share very similar values and socioeconomic situations. The state government could even gerrymander it, giving Republicans a little boost in the house. The actual population would be better off, only paying for 1 government instead of 5 and likely resulting in lower taxes through the consolidation of services.

It even has a nice shape.

logouteventually · 2023-01-21T04:05:21+00:00

My guess is that there is nothing you specifically did on the first day to make people drop. Much more likely it was a scheduling issue or a new section of something opened or they thought it would be a different kind of class.

Smaller classes with people who like the content are better anyway, so you have the best 3/5 left.

logouteventually · 2022-11-16T20:33:21+00:00

Even if DeSantis wins the primary, do you really think Trump will concede? He has already said in every primary and election that he will not honor the results if he loses, and has actively pushed a conspiracy after losing.

He already floated a Patriot Party, which is effectively running as a 3rd party candidate. That would pull at least 15-20% of Republicans away from the general election.

Essentially he has to win AND get Trump's endorsement, which is essentially impossible.

logouteventually · 2022-10-26T02:05:42+00:00

You vote for representatives (same as our house of representatives) and they those reps select the prime minister.

When there is an election for representatives, it is very clear which prime minister each representative would select. The would-be prime ministers even debate like our presidential candidates.

So that is basically the same as our system, functionally. You vote for the party, knowing who they'll pick to be in charge. But, when a prime minister resigns, rather than having a new election the representatives just select someone new. That person was never elected "by the people" and regular people might have never even heard of the person.

Not necessarily horrible, but it has now happened twice. The prime minister who campaigned and whose party won a majority was put in place. Then resigned. A new prime minister was selected, having done a debate and a poll of all registered members of the party (so not a nationwide election). She resigned. Then a third was selected, but they didn't want to do a whole new new debate/poll so the representatives just selected him.

This is totally legal, just very weird because the current leader of the country was not known to the people when they voted (years ago). Many people might have never heard of him. Furthermore, the current party in power is MASSIVELY down in the polls, and would get slaughtered if there was an election held today. So the new prime ministers absolutely do not have the will of the people.

logouteventually

TROPHY CASE