okay well, when one doctors something generally you're trying to pass it off as though it's unmodified. When you redact something, you're being explicit that something is removed. Make sense?
Even if the list had no apparent omissions, how could you verify it wasn't doctored? Generally, we don't tend to consider redactions as the same thing as doctoring.
Q: [...What] does Tiffany have of yours and what does Tiffany have of Marla's?
DJT: Well I think that she's got a lot of Marla, and she's [a] really beautiful baby and she's got Marla's legs; we don't know whether or not she's got [motions to his chest] this part yet, but time will tell.
Trump said (well, heavily implied) that the party who pleads the 5th is guilty, not that other parties not present are also guilty.
There's a practically infinite amount of bullshit coming out of Trump's mouth we can criticize so easily; I don't see why anyone would feel the need to transparently mince his words to invent more.
To steelman him for a sec -- just as it's good to call out your own team when they do something wrong, it's also a virtue in many people's minds to acknowledge when the other side does something good. You can say the rules are different if the other side are fascists and we just have to punch them, but (a) I don't think that it was clear to everybody in the first weeks of Trump's presidency exactly how fascist things were going to be (this was when he'd gotten ceasefires don't forget) and (b) I still wouldn't consider it a cancellable offence either way, even if it's misguided liberal behaviour.
Anyway, such behaviour tracks with being a liberal, and I'm not at the point yet where I'm wanting to cancel people for being liberals.
FYI it's not like he's pro-MAGA or anything. He's a known liberal supporter in fact. All he did was tweet that Gail Slater was a good nomination. Personally, I think it's a good thing to praise one's political enemies on the rare occasion they do something good. Here's an article with a deeper look.
Well yeah, we know that. But if it were as incontrovertibly known about Trump as it is about Epstein, we wouldn't be asking for the release of the Epstein list to prove Trump is guilty.
OpenAI's new model was able to get 5 out of 6 questions (a gold medal) on the 2025 International Math Olympiad. I am very surprised by this result, though I don't see any evidence of foul play.
it took me a while to understand that the guinea pig(?) in the window is meant to be the reflection of the one outside. Because the surface is roughly parallel with the viewer, the one outside is pointing to the left, so the flipped pig should also be pointing left.
As pointed out on hackernews, this is likely attributed to (a) decrease in desktop usage by non-linux-users, and (b) the gaming hardware industry embracing linux (steam deck etc.)
My initial thought was that it's surprising that the engineer is using i whereas the mathematician is using j. But I know some engineers who are hardcore in favour of i. No mathematicians who prefer j though. So if such an engineer were dating a mathematician of all people who used j, I could see that being ♠ .
basically every country that '"matters"' implements some form of the DMCA