PhilipTheBucket

joined 1 month ago
[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Honestly that sounds like more work than Trump or the current crew of leadership wants to do. I think what they're planning is more likely to be just to keep blowing up fishing boats and blustering until (a) Venezuela caves or (b) they get distracted and just abandon the effort for some other equally pointless and violent activity.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I also think it's very bizarre their constant complaining that the suspect isn't "cooperating."

What is it that they expect him to do? I have a guess, of course. The way it usually works (after the suspect initially agrees to talk with them without a lawyer, creating all kinds of problems for themselves), is that they build the case, and the lawyer who's now in touch with the client finally has a chance to tell them to shut the fuck up going forward. My guess is that they really want him to "cooperate" with building their case for them, and he's not, and that upsets them because it's giving them real problems.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 9 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

If we assume this random YouTube man is credible, and I see no reason to doubt him, the DOJ can't even tie suspected Kirk killer to the actual killing of Charlie Kirk.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 37 points 2 weeks ago (21 children)

Some kinds of progressive don’t see electoralism as worth their time.

...

You gotta do that last year, or a little while later, after people have forgotten. Trying to say it doesn't matter who wins elections right now is... not going to be convincing.

It's actually exactly like what happened with vaccines. We had so many years living in a society which didn't have active urgent throw-you-in-the-camps-for-no-reason tyranny that people stopped believing it was really real, and they're still out confidently saying it's not worth taking basic easy steps to prevent.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'll take that as a no lol

Talk to you next time I guess

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, I get it. I don't think it is necessarily bad research or anything. I just feel like maybe it would have been good to go into it as two papers:

  1. Look at the funny LLM and how far off the rails it goes if you don't keep it stable and let it kind of "build on itself" over time iteratively and don't put the right boundaries on
  2. How should we actually wrap up an LLM into a sensible model so that it can pursue an "agent" type of task, what leads it off the rails and what doesn't, what are some various ideas to keep it grounded and which ones work and don't work

And yeah obviously they can get confused or output counterfactuals or nonsense as a failure mode, what I meant to say was just that they don't really do that as a response to an overload / "DDOS" situation specifically. They might do it as a result of too much context or a badly set up framework around them sure.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 28 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I had a feeling that all the blowing up fishing vessels might be rooted back in Trump wanting Venezuela to accept "deported" migrants.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 10 points 2 weeks ago

More or less as soon as I typed it I realized, you know what, that's a stupid question, I would be very very surprised if they don't get paid.

I still feel like the fact that it impacts their workplace directly, is the reason they freak the fuck out about it and start actually trying, in a way they usually don't when someone else is getting kidnapped to an ICE facility or losing their workplace or home or family or life.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 14 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Does congress still get paid during a shutdown?

I genuinely don't know the answer to that question, but if the answer is "no," then I think we've uncovered a significant clue. Personally I feel like a huge part of the top Democrats' horrifying fecklessness on all of these type of issues is that, at the end of the day, they'll be fine, and you can sometime divine their priorities by seeing what does make them start sweating and working hard to avoid.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah. The aftermath was pretty telling too, about all kinds of things.

  1. NATO didn't back up Türkiye on the issue, which kind of put Türkiye in a fuckin' rough spot. This led to a little bit of a falling out, and is indicative that NATO is full of old ministers in safe offices who don't have a real strong concept of loyalty among a few other things.
  2. Erdogan turned on the pilots involved and made them the scapegoat shortly after, which is indicative that Erdogan's a piece of shit.
  3. Russia didn't mind at all. After Erdogan made some performative gestures of making-nice, they turned right back around and started doing thriving business with Türkiye, they're still smuggling oil out through them to this day. This is indicative of how Putin perceives power and respect. All those aforementioned NATO ministers who are doing careful "escalation management," he perceives as a massive bunch of limp wankers, whereas if someone just shoots down his planes with their expendable pilots, he's like "Jolly good nice to know you've got some backbone in a scrap" and he's fine with you. There was nothing of how Türkiye is trying to start World War 3 by shoving back against his testing.
[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social 26 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I developed a system with one person I was dating that if she was ever just unpleasant for no reason at all, I would stop whatever else was going on and make a priority to feed her right away. She figured it out after a few times (while we were redirecting from what had been happening and into getting food), and she was sort of conflicted between being even more angry "how dare you I am not some kind of Skinner box experiment don't change the subject while I am giving you hell for (whatever)" and admitting that yes okay that is a very good strategy let's eat and I will probably become happy.

Fair point. Human endeavors operate a lot by habits and mental models though. People generally will push back harder against government censorship when it happens if they've already got it firmly in mind that "hate speech" is a bullshit category that needs not to exist. Once you start to say that hate speech shouldn't be allowed for example on Substack (which I think is the majority view now), it becomes a lot easier for the government to ban it (which I think is precisely what's happening, both in the US and in Canada apparently).

 

Anas Zayed Fteiha, a Palestinian photojournalist in the Gaza Strip, filed a legal claim seeking an injunction against global publishing giant Axel Springer, which he accuses of violating his constitutional rights by falsely portraying him as a Hamas propagandist in Germany’s largest tabloid, BILD.

The filing against a European news organization is a first-of-its-kind legal strategy for a journalist working in Palestine. “I want to prove the truth cannot be erased by false allegations,” Fteiha told The Intercept.

Fteiha’s legal claim, submitted in the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, stems from a BILD article published on August 5 under the headline “This Gaza photographer stages Hamas propaganda.”

The BILD piece singled out Fteiha, alleging he fabricated images of starving Palestinians to push a Hamas narrative. To underscore this charge, BILD published a picture showing Fteiha kneeling to photograph people in Gaza holding empty pots in front of a metal barrier. BILD framed the scene as an attempt to exaggerate the levels of hunger in Gaza. Later in August, a United Nations-backed body declared a famine in Gaza.

The article claims Fteiha staged the photo and describes him as a “journalist” three times, always in quotation marks.

“In fact it was a genuine moment of human suffering,” Fteiha told The Intercept.

“I could be targeted simply because false reports about me were published.”

Fteiha was at the food distribution site as a freelancer for the Turkish news agency Anadolu and published a range of photographs online from that day. To Fteiha, BILD’s reporting is part of a campaign to discredit Palestinian journalists, he told The Intercept.

“Falsely accusing me of staging propaganda exposes me to threats and undermines the supposed protections afforded to journalists,” he said. “It means I could be targeted simply because false reports about me were published.”

Fteiha is seeking an injunction proceeding, an emergency procedure aimed at reaching a quicker resolution than a typical lawsuit. If granted by the court, the injunction would require Axel Springer to correct the statements in the article that he alleges are false and would oblige the publisher to cover the costs of the legal proceedings brought by Fteiha.

Axel Springer has not responded to questions from The Intercept. A BILD group communications spokesperson said that the company has not yet received Fteiha’s filing and therefore cannot comment on it.

Fteiha’s legal action could test whether German courts are willing to hold one of the country’s most powerful media outlets accountable for defamatory coverage that critics say has fueled the dehumanization of Palestinians. Just days after Fteiha was singled out in the August article, BILD ran the image of Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif — who was killed by an Israeli strike hours earlier — with the headline: “Terrorist disguised as journalist killed in Gaza.” The phrasing was later revised to “Killed journalist allegedly was a terrorist.”

That article, too, is mentioned in the filing: “It seems that [Axel Springer] is promoting a narrative portraying journalists in Gaza as accomplices of Hamas.”

Fteiha’s claim, filed by German press lawyer Ingrid Yeboah with support from the European Legal Support Center, rejects BILD’s assertions that Fteiha staged or manipulated his images and that he masquerades as a journalist. It argues that the BILD reporting includes “gravely defamatory and life-threatening statements” that constitute a violation of Fteiha’s “general right of personality” under German constitutional law, which protects individuals against defamation.

BILD never sought Fteiha’s comment before publication, his filing alleges, despite claiming otherwise in the article. BILD’s communications director Christian Senft told The Intercept: “As a matter of principle, we do not comment on our sources or editorial processes.”

The article, the filing says, insinuates that Fteiha deliberately withheld photos showing men at the food distribution site in order to distort reality and bolster a “constructed narrative” serving Hamas.

Yet before the BILD article was published, Fteiha had already posted several images from the day in question — depicting men as well as women and children waiting for food — as a report by Der Spiegel showed.

The filing argues that BILD deliberately withheld this fact in order to maintain its narrative that a Gaza-based journalist was spreading Hamas propaganda.

BILD further attempted to link Fteiha to Hamas, he alleges, by citing an Instagram image he co-published that reads “Free Palestine” — describing this as Fteiha’s “mission” — and by framing his freelance work for Anadolu as “subordinate to Turkish President and Israel-hater Recep Tayyip Erdogan.” Both examples, the filing argues, were wrongfully presented as evidence of political extremism intended to delegitimize Fteiha.

Before the BILD article came out, the liberal news outlet Süddeutsche Zeitung, or SZ, published a piece titled, “How real are the images from Gaza?” BILD referred to the article as it questioned the authenticity of photos taken by journalists in Gaza. The SZ article consulted experts and published the same image of Fteiha photographing civilians behind a metal barrier.

Although SZ did not mention Fteiha by name, the article — together with BILD’s — was quickly amplified on social media by Israel’s foreign ministry. Pointing to the German coverage as proof that Hamas manipulates global opinion, the ministry branded Fteiha an “Israel- and Jew-hater” serving Hamas.

The U.S–Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation quickly joined in, followed by major Israeli outlets such as The Times of Israel, Ynet, and the Jerusalem Post. Israeli President Isaac Herzog echoed the fabrication narrative as well, holding up the photo of Fteiha at a conference in Estonia and citing German press reports. “It was all staged,” Herzog declared.

Christopher Resch, a spokesperson for Reporters Without Borders Germany, said that German media appeared eager to amplify Israel’s campaign to delegitimize a Palestinian journalist.

“Newsrooms should always — especially when it comes to war reporting — apply the highest professional and ethical standards and never report carelessly,” Resch said. “If media reports can be used to legitimise criminal decisions by the Israeli military, one can assume they will be used.”

Fteiha’s legal action followed an application for a cease-and-desist order that Yeboah filed on September 1 demanding that BILD retract the contested statements and cover Fteiha’s legal costs, while reserving the right to seek further damages.

Axel Springer’s lawyer Felix Seidel rejected that request in an official letter on September 4, arguing that “after reviewing the facts and legal situation, [we] inform you that we do not intend to comply with the demands of your client.”

According to the filing, the BILD article violated multiple standards of German press law. The filing alleges the story contained false claims, including that Fteiha had not distributed the images in question and was merely posing as a journalist. It further argues that under German law, suspicion reporting is only permissible if backed by careful research, a minimum factual basis, and a clear indication that the allegations are unproven. It notes that the subject must be given the chance to comment before publication — all requirements that, the filing says, BILD ignored.

Fteiha continues to work in Gaza despite the Israeli military’s heavy bombing and imminent ground invasion of in Gaza City. “I believe my role as a journalist is to bear witness to what is happening and to convey the truth to the world — no matter the cost,” he told The Intercept.

 

The Trump administration has already added nearly $40 billion in new federal subsidies for oil, gas, and coal in 2025, a report released Tuesday finds, sending an additional $4 billion out the door each year for fossil fuels over the next decade. That new amount, created with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer, adds to $30.8 billion a year in preexisting subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The report finds that the amount of public money the U.S. will now spend on domestic fossil fuels stands at at least $34.8 billion a year.

The increase amounts to “the largest single-year increase in subsidies we’ve seen in many years — at least since 2017,” says Collin Rees, the U.S. program manager for Oil Change International, an anti-fossil fuels advocacy organization and author of the report.

The U.S. has been subsidizing fossil fuel production for more than a century. Many of the tax subsidies logged in the report — including a tax break passed in 1913 that allows companies to write off large amounts of expenses related to drilling new oil wells — have been on the books for decades.

Fossil fuel subsidies have proven notoriously difficult to undo, even with a determined administration. After campaigning on ending tax breaks for Big Oil, President Joe Biden’s 2021 budget pledged to raise $35 billion over 19 years by eliminating certain fossil fuel subsidies; one of his first executive orders tasked agencies with getting rid of those subsidies. (“I don’t think the federal government should give handouts to Big Oil,” he said at a press conference announcing the order.)

But the phaseouts of these subsidies were nixed during climate legislation negotiations with then-senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who was the key swing vote in the Senate at the time and a recipient of fossil fuel money with lengthy ties to the coal industry. Meanwhile, the Inflation Reduction Act — the resulting compromise between Manchin and Democratic leadership, which was passed in August of 2022 — gave additional boosts to the fossil fuel industry in the form of subsidies for oil-and-gas-friendly technologies, like carbon capture and storage and certain types of hydrogen made with natural gas.

“What happens is you have these policies in place, and then you have a constituency that strongly advocates and lobbies for them, it becomes harder and harder to unwind them, which I think is the situation that we’re in today,” says Matthew Kotchen, a professor of economics at Yale University, who was not involved in the new analysis.

That cycle is continuing in the new administration. Fossil fuel companies spent millions of dollars getting Trump elected last year; one report from the advocacy group Climate Power puts the total number at $445 million. Those companies are seeing benefits as the administration pursues an aggressive deregulatory agenda, hobbles renewable energy projects, and downplays the importance of climate change. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the president has taken to calling oil CEOs following their appearances on TV.

“It’s no secret that Trump and the Republicans are on the side of the fossil fuel industry and very much vice versa,” says Rees. “The fossil fuel industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars getting Republicans and Trump elected. They then presented their wish lists. Nearly everything on those wish lists was fulfilled, and in fact, they got a bunch of additional goodies that weren’t even in those wish lists.”

The new research builds on past work from Oil Change International, which last did the math on national fossil fuel subsidies in 2017, finding then that $20 billion was going out the door to the industry each year. To compile the new report, Rees and his colleagues combed through a variety of federal governmental sources on the amount of money going to the oil, gas, and coal industries each year.

The question of what, exactly, constitutes a federal subsidy is the topic of some debate. Environmental groups tend to have a broader scope in tallying up public money spent on fossil fuels, including federal money not distributed directly to oil companies. Conservative groups, meanwhile, take a much narrower approach. (For its report, Oil Change International used the definitions of subsidies set by the World Trade Organization in calculating domestic funding to fossil fuels.)

Due to a lack of transparency across the federal government, the calculations in this report are “likely to be an undercount,” Rees says. “There’s probably some things that we missed — some corners of the budget that are funding fossil fuels in different ways.”

The $4 billion in new yearly subsidies comes largely in the form of allocations contained in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed this summer. One of the biggest new subsidies — an expansion of the tax credit for carbon capture and storage — is, ironically, related to provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Trump campaigned on reversing. (The One Big Beautiful Bill Act did, however, crack down harshly on tax credits for wind and solar, carrying out part of Trump’s campaign promise.)

Carbon capture and storage is the process of capturing CO2 emissions and injecting them deep underground. The oil and gas industry has for decades injected CO2 underground to help recover difficult reserves that don’t respond well to traditional drilling methods. Environmentalists have long argued that the logic of replicating an oil and gas technique as a climate solution is seriously flawed — especially considering that a company could reap a climate tax credit from injecting CO2 that will then be used to create more fossil fuels.

In the original Inflation Reduction Act, which significantly expanded the existing carbon capture tax credit, there was a price differential baked into the tax credits: Producers got more money per ton of CO2 they sequestered underground without any oil production involved, and less for CO2 used specifically to produce more oil and gas. But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated this differential, allowing producers to collect on the full credit even if they are using CO2 to produce more fossil fuels. The total expansion of tax credits for carbon capture in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the analysis found, could send out more than $1.4 billion of public money to oil and gas companies each year.

The types of federal subsidies addressed in this report are just one kind of boost the government gives dirty industries. The analysis does not address state and local tax breaks for fossil fuel companies, nor does it add up international financing from publicly funded U.S. entities to overseas fossil fuel companies and projects. (Just before he left office, President Biden backed a limit on funding for dirty investments made by the U.S. Export-Import Bank, a part of the executive branch that facilitates the export of U.S. goods and services. President Trump promptly encouraged the Bank in April to resume funding for coal projects abroad.)

The fossil fuel industry also benefits financially from not having to address the negative side effects of their products: Coal companies don’t have to deal with the health impacts from people breathing polluted air, for example, while oil and gas companies don’t need to think about damages from extreme weather juiced up by climate change caused by their product. Kotchen, the Yale economist, calculated in a 2021 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that a small handful of U.S. oil, gas, coal, and diesel giants, by not having to pay for the damage they cause, get $62 billion in what he calls “implicit subsidies” per year.

I asked him if, given the major environmental rollbacks overseen by the Trump administration, he’d expect that figure to increase if he redid his analysis in 2025. “The environmental externalities are higher, and production has gone up,” he says. “I think [the number] would be a lot higher.”

view more: ‹ prev next ›