Powderhorn

That's right, folks, it was Church Night again.

I had all sorts of ideas for this story, but I increasingly believe that absolutely everything is said in confidence.

The guy who introduced me to the burner scene actually came out for once. We chilled in the parking lot, with his former garage dweller.

So, we're all drinking beers and passing around a joint. Said ex-housemate has gone full-on MAGA, which basically led to me remaining silent. If it's racist or misogynist, he said it.

After spinning our wheels awhile, we joined the group. I spent the better part of two hours accidentally chatting with someone who lived in a van for three years and is looking to do so again.

My friend drives me back to my van with a ladder, and climbs up himself to put my roof vent back on its track. Then, it's back to the warehouse.

All of it was pleasant ... but these nights remind me of what I don't have the other six nights of the week.

In mid-December 2020, federal officials responsible for protecting American elections from fraud converged in a windowless, dim, fortified room at the Justice Department’s downtown Washington, D.C., headquarters.

They had been summoned by Attorney General William Barr.

Over the preceding weeks, Donald Trump’s claims that the presidential election had been stolen from him had reached a crescendo. He’d become obsessed with a conspiracy theory that voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan, had switched votes from him to Joe Biden.

With each day, Trump ratcheted up the pressure to unleash the might of the federal government to undo his defeat.

Barr interrogated experts from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, crammed in beside top FBI officials around a cheap table. He needed the group of around 10 to answer a crucial question: Was it really possible the 2020 presidential vote had been hacked?

ProPublica’s description of the previously unreported meeting comes from several people who were in the room or were briefed on the gathering. Everyone understood that the meeting represented an important moment for the nation, they said. Barr, who did not respond to requests for comment, had walked a delicate line with Trump, instructing the FBI to investigate allegations of election irregularities while declaring publicly there had been no evidence “to date” of widespread fraud.

ProPublica's reporting frequently comes up in this story, but they're on my shitlist right now for their anti-union tactics, so you get this link instead.

Ronald Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman, spoke candidly years ago about why Republicans like tax cuts so much. In his 1986 book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, he confided that tax cuts served the purpose of creating budget deficits that could then be used to justify spending cuts on government programs.

Typically, administrations had only cut spending for a program if it was no longer necessary, and the resultant surplus would then be used as a tax cut to stimulate the economy. However, Stockman turned this on its head by using the tax cuts to create a budgetary crisis that would then require cuts in spending regardless of whether the programs were necessary or not.

In other words, Stockman used tax cuts to create a revenue problem that the Reagan administration could then mask as a spending problem. This is known as “starving the beast.” The administration starves the beast—important government services—of important tax revenues in order to then justify slashing government spending.

Stockman himself admitted the failure of this strategy, since budget deficits during the Reagan administration did not bring down public spending in a meaningful way. This failure, however, didn’t stop the next generation of conservatives from making it a key part of their larger political project. In 2001 and 2003, for instance, George W. Bush pushed through massive tax cuts meant to impose a “fiscal straitjacket” on Congress. This then prompted Bush’s Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 to gut government programs.

There is nothing new under the sun.

I ’m doomscrolling on Facebook — past puppy photos, Paul Schrader recounting his ayahuasca journey, hopeful dispatches from second and third marriages — when a post stops me.

Someone says that he asked Pete Hegseth to drop a bomb on Iran in the name of my dead father.

The past is the present again.

IT’S NOVEMBER 1979. I’M AN eighth-grader in Oak Harbor, Washington state, folding and rubber-banding copies of the Seattle Times and counting the days. My father, Cmdr. Peter Rodrick, leads VAQ-135 — the Black Ravens — an electronic-warfare squadron flying EA-6B Prowlers out of NAS Whidbey Island. His hangar is five miles from our house. But he isn’t here. He’s never here.

He’s deployed on the USS Kitty Hawk, and I haven’t seen him in six months. He missed my 13th birthday and a fairly disastrous year at Oak Harbor Junior High marked by paddlings, not asking a crush to dance with me to “Reunited,” and a school reputation entirely built on my ability to eat five ice-cream sandwiches for lunch every day. But that’s about to change. I’m flying to Honolulu on Dec. 10 to meet him and ride the carrier with him back to San Diego. I know it’s happening because the “Welcome Home” signs have been already painted. They are right here in the garage, next to his shrouded MGB convertible.

Donald Trump has always struggled with the concept of letting stuff go. No matter how absurd, the president can’t seem to give up the need to try to persuade people that his version of events is the reality. So it’s no surprise that after drawing widespread condemnation for his unholy self-comparison to Jesus Christ earlier this week, Trump is doubling down on his holiness.

Trump spent Tuesday night regaling the public with another Truth Social posting spree, capping it off Wednesday morning with a screenshot of an X post featuring an AI-generated image of Jesus Christ embracing Trump. The image caption read: “I was never a very religious man .. but doesn’t it seem, with all these satanic, demonic, child sacrificing monsters being exposed … that God might be playing his Trump card.”

In his own caption, Trump added: “the Radical Left Lunatics might not like this, but I think it is quite nice!!! President DJT”

Anything to cover up the Epstein files.

Back in 2005, a bug report was filed by Kjetil Kjernsmo, then running KDE 3.3.2 on Debian Stable. He wanted the ability to have each connected screen show a different virtual desktop independently, rather than having all displays switch as one unit.

Over the years, over 15 duplicate reports piled onto the original as more people ran into the same wall. And that's not a surprise, because multi-monitor setups have become increasingly common.

The technical reason why this issue stayed open this long comes down to X11. Implementing it there would have required violating the EWMH specification, which has no concept of multiple virtual desktops being active at the same time.

The KWin maintainer Martin Flöser had said as much in 2013, effectively ruling it out for the entire KDE 4.x series. The only realistic path was through Wayland, and that path needed someone willing to actually walk it.

Someone finally did. The feature has now landed in KWin's master branch and is set for a Plasma 6.7 introduction.

Travellers going through some European airports are reportedly waiting up to three hours at border checks because of the EU’s new entry-exit system (EES).

Passengers in airports in countries such as France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Greece are waiting several hours at border checks, the Airports Council International (ACI) body has said.

Olivier Jankovec, the director of the ACI European division, told the Financial Times: “This situation, in the coming weeks and certainly over the peak summer months, is going to be simply unmanageable.

“We are seeing those queueing times now, at peak times, when traffic is just starting to build up.”

The EES came into effect on Friday in the Schengen countries – 25 of the EU’s 27 states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It requires passengers from non-EU countries, such as the UK, to register their personal information and biometrics at the border.

Kinda makes "papers, please" seem quaint.

If you’ve never seen Jim Carrey’s 2007 psychological thriller The Number 23, then congratulations. It is a film about a man who sees the number 23 so many times that he ends up going bonkers. I used to think this film was stupid. However, now I appear to be living it.

My own personal number 23 is a rhetorical device: “It’s not X, it’s Y.” Everywhere I look, there it is. Whenever I hate myself enough to scroll through Facebook’s wilderness of algorithmically suggested posts, I find myself being smacked in the face with sentences such as: “Self-improvement isn’t a trend, it’s a lifestyle shift,” and “The small wins aren’t just moments, they’re the majority of your life.” Once you notice it, it becomes impossible to ignore. This weekend during a Peloton class (I know, shut up), I heard an instructor bark a variation of “this isn’t X, it’s Y”. Yesterday, a character did the same during a TV show I was reviewing, and I dropped a star from its score in retaliation.

You know where this is coming from, don’t you? “It’s not X, it’s Y” is an AI mainstay. It’s one of ChatGPT’s most insidious tells. No matter how innocuous a prompt you enter, AI will always find a way to sneak it into its response. Ask it if you should put more ham in your pasta, and it will tell you: “Ham doesn’t just taste good – it makes everything else taste better.” Ask it if you should chase a bee around your garden and it will say: “Bees aren’t stupid – they’re hyper-specialised”.

It's beyond irritating to me that because LLMs were trained on writing that uses such constructions, being competent at writing now makes me get accusations of using one to create a post or comment.

This isn't really the case on Beehaw, but head over to Reddit, post a cogent, well-reasoned comment, and the knives are out.

I think the most infuriating part is that instead of engaging with the content (I'm there mostly for debate, anyway), they attack the structure and lob accusations. That's not a conversation.

The former US Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen has attacked Donald Trump’s push for lower interest rates, comparing it to the actions of a “banana republic”.

The US president has repeatedly urged the central bank to slash interest rates, in the hope of cutting the government’s borrowing costs on its $39tn (£29tn) debt.

In a post on his Truth Social platform in January, Trump wrote: “We should be paying the LOWEST INTEREST RATE OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.”

Speaking at an HSBC investor summit in Hong Kong, Yellen said: “How often does the president of a developed country express the view that the interest rate should be set to reduce the debt service cost? This is what you hear in a banana republic.”

She argued that inflation can get out of control if central banks fall under the control of politicians whose aim is to borrow more cheaply.

I don't think Trump gives a shit about Treasury debt. He just wants to be able to grift for cheaper.

Snapchat’s parent company plans to lay off 16% of its employees, around 1,000 people, citing “rapid advancements in artificial intelligence”, the social media company told staff on Wednesday in an internal memo. The staff reduction is part of a wave of tech industry layoffs in the past year, with many firms blaming AI for the cuts.

Snap Inc’s layoffs follow demands last month from Irenic Capital Management, an activist investor whose portfolio manager wrote a letter to the Snap Inc CEO, Evan Spiegel, calling on him to reduce costs and headcount while criticizing the company’s current strategy. In Spiegel’s memo to staff, he claimed that the layoffs would move Snap towards profitability and suggested that artificial intelligence could fill the lack of human labor.

“While these changes are necessary to realize Snap’s long-term potential, we believe that rapid advancements in artificial intelligence enable our teams to reduce repetitive work, increase velocity, and better support our community, partners, and advertisers,” Spiegel wrote.

I find it hard to believe he wrote that himself. Also, corporate jargon just keeps getting worse.

The world’s top 100 oil and gas companies banked more than $30m every hour in unearned profit in the first month of the US-Israeli war in Iran, according to exclusive analysis for the Guardian. Saudi Aramco, Gazprom and ExxonMobil are among the biggest beneficiaries of the bonanza, meaning key opponents of climate action continue to prosper.

The conflict pushed the price of oil to an average of $100 (£74) a barrel in March, leading to estimated windfall war profits for the month of $23bn for the companies. Oil and gas supplies will take months to return to pre-war levels and the companies will make $234bn by the end of the year if the oil price continues to average $100. The analysis uses data from a leading intelligence provider, Rystad Energy, analysed by Global Witness.

The excess profits come from the pockets of ordinary people as they pay high prices to fill up their vehicles and power their homes, as well as from businesses incurring higher energy bills. Dozens of countries have cut fuel taxes to help struggling consumers, meaning those nations, including Australia, South Africa, Italy, Brazil and Zambia, are raising less money for public services.

Because of the way they are trained, large language models capture only a slice of human language. They’re trained on the written word, from textbooks to social media posts, and our speech as captured in movies and on television. These models have minimal access to the unscripted conversations we have face to face or voice to voice. This is the vast majority of speech, and a vital component of human culture.

There’s a risk to this. The increased use of large language models means we humans will encounter much more AI-generated text. We humans, in turn, will begin to adopt the linguistic patterns and behaviors of these models. This will affect not just how we communicate with one another, but also how we think about ourselves and what goes on around us. Our sense of the world may become distorted in ways we have barely begun to comprehend.

This will happen in many ways. One of the first effects we could see is in simple expression, much as texting and social media have resulted in us using shorter sentences, emojis instead of words, and much less punctuation. But with AI, the impacts may be more harmful, eroding courteousness and encouraging us to talk like bosses barking orders. A 2022 study found that children in households that used voice commands with tools like Siri and Alexa became curt when speaking with humans, often calling out “Hey, do X” and expecting obedience, especially from anyone whose voice resembled the default-female electronic voices. As we start to prompt chatbots and AI agents with more instructions, we may fall into the same habits.