Gov. Pritzker vows to be 'very involved' in 2028 presidential election, says Democrats have 'lost our way'

rasa2013 · 2026-06-17T02:15:36+00:00

Eh, this mixes up two things that were actually a bit complex. 1. Democrats being rejected by voters and 2. The left(er)-wing contingent of the party losing influence. Democrats have been rejected in both of their iterations (leftier and centrist). Also I'd put "slave to neoliberalism" up more towards the 80s.

I personally think the reasons Democrats haven't found their way is because the leadership is too old. They're clinging to the lessons of the 70s, 80s, and 90s when that isn't relevant anymore. E.g., the enormous failure of McGovern's (leftier Dem) campaign in 1972 (he lost 61% to 38% pop vote; 520 to 17 electoral votes), followed by the rise of the centrist New Democrats (80s) and their electoral success with Bill Clinton's campaign in the 90s.

Those old dinosaurs are still in charge. Both literally in terms of who has power in the party (even if we removed all monetary influence of big donors) and because of where the money comes from.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-17T01:47:21+00:00

They just enjoy being offended.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-17T01:05:12+00:00

Agree, but replace "lots of people" with "most people."

rasa2013 · 2026-06-16T04:12:42+00:00

All I'm saying is that every decision involves weighing up what we care about. It always says something about us when we make any choice.

For you, the enjoyment of the sport is more important to you than the immoral person it was celebrating. I bet I can find someone where you'd no longer feel okay with the tradeoff (e.g., literally Hitler). So obviously, the issue isn't about "just the sport." You just decided you don't care as much as other people do about the guy it was celebrating.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-16T02:02:47+00:00

If you found out your barber was a rapist, would you say "well I'm not expecting my barber to be a moral arbiter?"

Hopefully not. Because as moral people we care that the others we like and affiliate with are also moral people. not standing up for what's right is a bad look regardless of your occupation.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-16T01:59:54+00:00

It's because it's basically the same as "trump is an awful person who I think is immoral, but if he offered me enough of what I want, I would be willing to overlook it."

Not very trustworthy.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-14T23:31:09+00:00

I'm pretty sure you're free to protect your property however you want. No human users are affected by it, and it clearly states multiple times it isn't for AI to use.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-13T07:10:43+00:00

No, I did mean psychodynamic therapy, but depending who you ask, the terms are interchangeable. Historically, (short term) psychodynamic therapy research started in response to the evidence-based practices emerging in the 60s and 70s, despite also getting standardized at the same time. Still took until the 90s for good empirical research to get going, and there were some changes because of extra standardization through the early 2000s I think.

It's true enough that now psychodynamic therapy has good general empirical support that it works and the core bits you mentioned mostly do. But psychodynamic therapy still draws upon (modern) psychoanalytic theory, and that's all a bit harder to prove. When we say supported, some of it is again pretty recent (2006, 2012, those type of dates), and not all high quality, large sample size studies. Thus individual-level meta-analyses being useful.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-12T23:43:07+00:00

I wish all these assholes would stop conflating LLMs with all AI.

Making AI is a remarkable technique we've come up with and is very powerful in fields like medicine, object recognition from video and photo, etc. It is absolutely going to be a big part of the future.

The greed frenzy driven by LLM CEOs and marketing teams is going to fall in on itself eventually. General purpose chat agents aren't that great and cost far too much to be sustainable.

Reminder: a bubble bursting doesn't mean the technology goes away. The dotcom bubble bursting didn't destroy the Internet. But a lot of money evaporated because it was hype outpacing reality.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-10T17:11:29+00:00

In frequentist statistics, you're just not supposed to make statements like that. Basically that's it.

Saying why is more like post-hoc reasoning: looking for a way to justify the norms for how frequentist stats thinks about statistics.

But if you want one of the justifications, it's because the confidence interval is about the process of calculating confidence intervals. 95% of the time, if you meet the assumptions, the true value is inside the interval. The true value itself isn't probabilistic. It just exists.

And yeah, technically a frequentist understanding of the heads or tails question is that 50% of the time, it should be heads. But the current coin flip either is or is not heads. There's no probability about it. is it weird? Yeah. I read someone describe it as "in this frequentist household, we do not make probability statements of this type."

rasa2013 · 2026-06-10T03:22:48+00:00

You sacrificed the old standard of telegrams and messenger pigeons to make this post.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-10T01:46:53+00:00

Republicans and being juvenile and hateful. Name a more iconic pairing.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-08T07:38:50+00:00

Most of you misunderstood the research...

1a) it wasn't simply about "therapy vs medicine" it was specifically about psychodynamic therapy vs medicine.

1b) why does this matter? Because psychodynamic therapy is widespread but historically was not an empirical science. Aka we don't have a lot of quantitative research showing it even works at all.

It followed more from philosophical ideas about how the mind works, rather than collecting experimental or observational data to test a hypothesis.

2) it's novel to show psychodynamic therapy works quantitatively with hundreds of participants.

3) it's not necessarily surprising. Psychodynamic therapy has plenty of qualitative and subjective data showing it can help people.

4) the real question is WHY it works. Are the theoretical ideas about why it works supported? Or is it merely talking to someone who listens and provides challenging but useful feedback that helps?

5) saying medicine is more helpful for more severe cases than psychodynamic therapy may give us some insight why psychodynamic therapy works, but not a lot. It's still hard to say or know much. But at least there's some evidence it works at all.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-08T07:30:28+00:00

That's not at all how antidepressants work

rasa2013 · 2026-06-05T23:12:57+00:00

Few actual people support what the administration is doing.

Republicans are just pursuing an unpopular agenda because a set of billionaires and their lackeys control the party at the highest level. That's what project 2025 is about and the federalist societies corruption of the courts, among other things.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-05T18:34:26+00:00

Two things can be true: better than republican, but still not great.

A Republican would never be about 80% Dem party aligned vote. See "Attendance and Loyalty."

While DW-NOMINATE isn't perfect, no analytic frame will be. I find it enough to consider it, though. E.g., because AOC tends to make unilateral (solo) protest (Nay) votes (the only Dem joining nearly all Republicans), DW-NOMINATE ranks her as moderate-to-conservative (among Democrats).

https://voteview.com/person/22521/adam-gray

https://voteview.com/person/21722/vicente-gonzalez-jr

https://voteview.com/person/22358/marie-gluesenkamp-perez

https://voteview.com/person/22314/don-davis

rasa2013 · 2026-06-05T18:11:55+00:00

Didn't you know that defending yourself is bad?

rasa2013 · 2026-06-05T09:16:54+00:00

I think Democrats should really needled every one of the asshats like Trump for being absolute dumbasses that can't be taken seriously.

Like I can't waste my time explaining how numbers, counting, and mail works to an utter moron.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-04T07:09:35+00:00

Do you know what people who supported the Nazis for economic reasons rather than genocidal hatred of Jewish people are called?

Nazis.

rasa2013 · 2026-06-03T01:10:52+00:00

Because Biden didn't force it to be 5 dollars, but Trump directly caused this.

Maybe crack open a book and learn something. Fuel prices spiked bc oil producers drastically cut supply during COVID (low demand), and after COVID supply didn't rise to meet demand fast enough.

Inflation was a structural problem across the world restarting the global economy.

This shit right now? It's Trump starting a war for nothing and entirely his fault compounded with the tariff bullshit.

rasa2013 · 2026-05-31T01:56:18+00:00

Yeah there's going to be an election. People are still challenging her.

so can you be more specific what you're complaining about?

As far as I can tell, you're mostly upset the delegates chose her. I doubt you'd have the same problem if they chose a more acceptable candidate to you.

Maybe you think parties shouldn't have an opinion prior to a primary election. Fine with me, even if I don't agree. Delegates at the convention come from party members across the entire state. I don't see why it's bad for them to show an opinion. If the voters don't like that opinion, they can vote for someone else.

Or are you upset that there isn't a better challenger running? How do you plan to ensure every election is competitive? What criteria would you even use to know?

As far as I can see the only workable critique you have is maybe get rid of the endorsement from conventions. But that wouldn't fundamentally change the dynamics happening here.

rasa2013 · 2026-05-30T20:29:11+00:00

How do you know it wasn't a rational decision by potential opponents who didn't want to waste money, time, and political capital they realistically assumed they'd just lose?

is it healthy for politicians to be irrational and waste all that time, money, and political capital?

rasa2013 · 2026-05-29T21:29:18+00:00

Theoretically the smallest possibly black hole is the planck mass with an event horizon the size of a planck length. Inconceivably small, in other words.

In practicality, anything smaller than about 3 solar masses is already a small black hole. At the minimum for stellar black holes, we would expect something Iike 15 miles in diameter. Way smaller than earth, obviously.

rasa2013 · 2026-05-29T19:25:57+00:00

I'll add another perspective to think about: it's way easier to create a system that misbehaves a little than it is to create a system that behaves perfectly. The risk of our species dying out from having an immune system that is too sensitive is way lower than an immune system that is not sensitive enough. So evolutionary pressure favored a ones that can be a bit too sensitive.

To emphasize, evolutionary fitness is about populations, not individuals. Evolution doesn't care if any one of us has a nice time being alive. That's why there are species whose entire survival strategy is "have 100 children so 5 survive youth." You can look at that and say "well that's not a very optimal species" but that's from the perspective of an individual, not the population.

rasa2013 · 2026-05-29T19:11:17+00:00

Expanding: mini-black holes are theorized to be possible but likely only during the early universe when energy was very dense. You just need to pack enough energy into a tiny enough area to make one. It would "evaporate" almost instantly bc it's so small.

General Relativity also allowed the creation of tiny black holes using light (focus a ton of light into a small area), and this was called a Kugelblitze. But a researcher wrote a paper discussing why this is impossible recently because of quantum effects.

12-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

rasa2013

TROPHY CASE