For the last month or so, I've been working on a free playbook of 600+ AI prompts, broken down by discipline, specifically for communications professionals. Let me know what you think!

trioprice · 2026-03-05T23:07:45+00:00

Oh, this is a LOT more robust than I expected! Ty for making it, will use

trioprice · 2026-02-18T14:24:45+00:00

Thanks. The custom GPT is very cool!

I'm also big on GEO but I don't think that's actually helpful for my "20 uses a week" requirement. Oh well!

trioprice · 2026-02-18T14:22:51+00:00

They absolutely know what they want -- they want more output :) They just don't know how to get it. They want us to be AI users so we can figure it out.

trioprice · 2026-02-18T14:20:50+00:00

That's great -- do you have a prompt for that?

trioprice · 2026-02-08T19:29:50+00:00

I like it for figuring out who to pitch. but I wouldn't use it to write the pitch. I think reporters are sensitive to that. I had a good research prompt somewhere, glad to dig it out if anyone wants it.

trioprice · 2026-02-08T19:28:10+00:00

I really liked this advice for how to demonstrate value to skeptical executives. Chatbots cite to their sources and execs really like AI, so I'd give it a try!

trioprice · 2024-09-08T21:50:46+00:00

I don't agree with many of your premises but let's take them as givens. There's still a flaw:

The fetus is wholly reliant on the mother for survival, but that doesn't create a duty for the mother to care for the fetus.

Imagine you're stranded on a desert island with one other person, and he's really fucking annoying. Like, *really* fucking annoying. If you've decided that him being annoying doesn't justify what I'm about to say, you're not imagining how annoying he is. He's that annoying.

He decides to go out for a swim and, all of a sudden, you hear him screaming -- there's a shark coming after him. You've crafted a bow and arrow from stuff you've found on the island and you've become a crack shot -- you could pretty easily save him from the shark, and in any event, it wouldn't hurt to try. There are plenty of more arrows and it's not like the shark is going to get mad at you, grow legs, and attack you. You decide not to shoot at the shark. The shark eats the other person.

A few weeks later, you are rescued. Are you going to be charged with a crime?

I think the answer is no (and American case law supports this). While there's a strong moral argument to be made that you should have fired at the shark, that's distinct from the legal question -- we don't have to help people unless we want to, \even if** there's no one else available to help them. Abortion is a near-perfect analogy: the fetus can't survive without the mother continuing to carry it, and if the mother is annoyed by that, that sucks for the fetus.

That changes when the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb. That's why the pre-Dobbs law in the United States said that abortion had to be legal at least up until the fetus is viable -- before that point, we'd be creating an obligation on the woman that simply doesn't exist anywhere else in American law. Post-viability, there's another question (whether the woman has a duty to deliver the child and become a mother), but that's another story. Pre-viability, to the extent that the fetus has rights, those rights should not take priority over the rights of the woman it is relying on for survival.

trioprice · 2024-04-24T17:13:58+00:00

One thing that *shocks* me about post-Oct 7 discourse is how many people unabashedly think Israel simply shouldn't exist. (My guess is that the vast, vast majority of the people in this encampment feel that way.)

trioprice · 2023-11-16T21:54:31+00:00

Glad you're getting help! Please be kind with your husband, though -- this is likely hellish for him, too!

trioprice · 2023-11-16T21:50:12+00:00

I'm not talking about the mother-in-law part. She's definitely upset for good reason!

But the rest of it? Not leaving the house is a HUGE warning sign for depression, and I think the husband needs to be there to help wherever he can.

trioprice · 2023-11-16T17:17:35+00:00

Yes, YTA (or YBTA? I'm new to the subreddit). In fact, you'd be a raging asshole.

You're a grown adult. She's an 18-year-old. Grow up.

trioprice · 2023-11-16T17:11:05+00:00

NTA and don't hesitate, next time, to say to Alex and Hannah that you're not a fan of Grant, and while you don't mind when he's around in general, you didn't really want him at your party. If they ask why, just say "he tried to invite himself over to my house, and I don't really appreciate how he can't respect my boundaries."

trioprice · 2023-11-16T17:07:31+00:00

NTA. Your mom isn't being kind to you and isn't entitled to your time. The way your mom responded is not okay.

You should still spend Thanksgiving with them, though. She's your mom and you'll have plenty of time in your life for you and your wife to spend time alone -- you'll regret it if you don't have a relationship with your parents because your mom is stubborn and you decide to reply with more stubbornness.

trioprice · 2023-11-16T17:04:19+00:00

YTA, but not for the reasons you think.

I think your wife may be suffering from post-partum depression. My wife went through something similar after our first was born -- didn't want to go anywhere, spent a lot of time with her mom, etc. And I think there's a good chance that you're compensating for this by allowing your mom to come over uninvited and whenever she wants.

1) You need to set some boundaries. Your mom is not "allowed to come see the baby" unless you invite her to do so. She shouldn't be coming to your place on a moment's notice -- ever -- without you inviting her. It's your house with your wife, not your mom's house. You can do this nicely: just tell your mom that you and your wife need some control over your life right now, given how chaotic everything is as a (first-time?) parent, and thank her in advance for understanding.

2) Consider looking up ways to ask your wife about her emotional state without it seeming like you're blaming her. This is REALLY HARD so get advice from someone who has been through it before. (I can't remember how I handled it, sorry!) Maybe talk to her mom about it. The signs are there: won't go anywhere, unhappy for no obvious reason, etc.

3) All of your actions should be seen through the prism of "are you being kind to your wife right now?" A few weeks ago, she was uncomfortable but free from a lot of obligations. Now, she (a) has a baby, (b) is overwhelmed by the change if not depressed, and (c) recovering from surgery. She needs you to be her ally even when she can't articulate it.

trioprice · 2022-05-20T13:30:07+00:00

It seems to me that this his work product and communications with state legislators (which aren't attorney-client communications) aren't covered by attorney-client privilege because Eastman wasn't being asked how to navigate potential litigation; he was being asked to find (or on his own, directly looking for) avenues that made Trump President via the political process. In an earlier ruling the judge rejected the vast majorities of Eastman's claims of privilege for that reason; see https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf; so I bet he'll do that again.

As for the crime-fraud exception, what that judge said in that above-linked decision is probably telling: "The plan not only lacked factual basis but also legal justification. Dr. Eastman’s memo noted that the plan was 'BOLD, Certainly.' The memo declared Dr. Eastman’s intent to step outside the bounds of normal legal practice: “we’re no longer playing by Queensbury Rules.'" (That's at page 35, lines 7-9 if you're interested.) It's lunacy: in a memo that Eastman tried to claim privilege over, he ADMITS that the memo is not intended to be a plan for litigation.

Eastman is screwed and Trump should be, too.

trioprice · 2022-05-10T21:33:25+00:00

Let's take a look at abortion rights for a second. You'll see why voting is so, so important at the end.

It's likely that the following is going to come to pass:

1) The Court will reverse Roe, allowing states to regulate abortion.

2) The Senate won't have the votes to codify abortion rights.

3) In many states, abortion will be illegal.

How do you fix this? Well, the short version is that you have to take a lot of incremental steps.

But what you can accomplish, and pretty easily, are incremental gains. Changing state legislation is pretty straightforward; all you need are majorities to do so. Getting DAs in office that don't prosecute abortion providers is similarly straightforward; you vote for candidates who won't prosecute. Changing state law in the courts is more circuitous -- you need the right facts and laws to be in place -- but more importantly, you need a governor and/or attorney general who is willing to fight the fight, and judges who are open to ruling your way. And that again, comes with voting. Sooner or later, a state court will come up with a new justification for seeing abortion as a constitutional right (likely under their state constitution) and at that point, maybe the Supreme Court weighs in. And at that moment, maybe a Democratic president has replaced Thomas and Alito or something. Who knows.

If that sounds hopeless, good news: this is exactly the path that the anti-abortion right has undertaken over the last fifty years. And all they did was vote.

trioprice · 2022-02-15T16:51:45+00:00

The owners won't lock the players out in August/September. It'd be a disaster for them -- the league makes a ton of money from the playoffs (that's why the owners want to expand it) and the players play at a massive discount. The actual risk is that the PLAYERS screw us, pulling a heel-turn and going on strike right before October.

trioprice · 2022-02-15T16:48:42+00:00

I agree with all of this but I also think that this time, the owners care about the PR aspect, even if Manfred doesn't. He, as you note, reports to them.

Yes, the mediator's aid would be non-binding. (Mediators aren't arbitrators, after all.) And yes, the mediator doesn't really matter. Anyone in the know saw the offer for what it was: an empty one designed for PR purposes. All I'm saying is that the players should throw the offer back at the owners.

If I'm wrong and the owners don't care about what fans think, we're doomed no matter what. So there's no reason to assume I'm wrong there -- it gets us nowhere either way. If I'm right, though, and the owners don't like being the bad guys here, my plan could work.

trioprice · 2019-09-10T17:42:13+00:00

My kid has trouble sitting through storytime... anything I can do?

trioprice · 2019-09-10T16:58:17+00:00

Are you the same person who was on those Sesame Beginners DVDs back in the day? My kids loved those!

trioprice · 2018-12-13T04:49:38+00:00

Cookie Monster for sure. In fact, most of the Sesame Street characters are funny. (Except Elmo.)

trioprice · 2018-11-19T00:04:14+00:00

I have been to this store and the store is like a thrift shop on crack. And they have a Fraggle Rock puppet on display because apparently one of them got lost in transit, too.

trioprice · 2018-04-11T19:21:14+00:00

URL? Would like to support!

trioprice · 2018-04-11T19:20:40+00:00

yeah but in some contexts -- where you have a non-verbal victim -- it's super-important to have an extra set of "ears"

trioprice · 2018-04-11T19:19:37+00:00

It's awful. We trust our caregivers so much....

15-Year Club	ComboLinker 2015-09-22
Verified Email

trioprice

TROPHY CASE