“Unusually swift trial” my foot, the feds case had fuck all evidence and you can’t really fool a jury with that if said jury is predisposed to hate you already. Fucking hell…

idk man, flinging timbits at trans people and getting absolutely shitfaced so they dont have to remember that they’re rooting for the Jets this season aren’t exactly high standards to meet.

… unless you just meant the standards in, like, Ontario.

tbf caligula most likely did that as a putative thing - he wanted to shame the army for some failure they blamed on the sea or similar. Trump lacks the wit to think of something like that - I don’t think you can tariff an army, and that’s basically the one hammer in his entire toolchest.

Lmfao no, seriously? I did miss that.

And in at least one canadian one, who if anyone appears to be the party with the true “flaw” in their security (but it’s really just a systemic weakness, and sadly one I expect will be ended because of this dickhead’s meddling). It’s actually a fascinating story - he was given the ability to set up credentials as part of his job (or was able to re-submit himself for a second set somehow, I’m reading conflicting accounts of exactly how it was done), then just set up an alternative identity for himself that persisted after he left. As far as I understand it the identity was legitimate, it was just never removed from the system so he simply continued to use it. Probably the most interesting thing is that it’s so common for pilots and flight attendants to fly inter-carrier, I would not have expected it to be as abusable as it turns out to be.

Sorry, my criticism was of the article, not OP. Unless OP writes the headlines for the guardian, in which case it was indeed for them.

Armies have always wargamed, but the difference is that wargames rely on the “hard” factors - things that are quantifiable. How do you position tanks, how do you ensure supply deliveries, how do you convoy ships, how do you ensure pilots have adequate sleep, how do we coordinate communication in disaster response, things of that nature.

What they’re describing here is entirely about the unquantifiable “soft” factors - how will a population respond to actions taken by a government, and that’s (despite what the CIA would like you to believe) entirely the realm of guesswork. Informed, authoritativly stated guesswork, but at it’s heart its still just sitting around a table with a bunch of people and role-playing what you think will happen. Without some expansion on why the results of this have merit it’s not something we should be taking seriously, which is why its disappointing the article didn’t include any explanation of the process or expand on the credibility of the “high level” simulation.

This scenario closely mirrors one explored in an October 2024 tabletop exercise

It’s a little bit disingenuous to leave out that the conclusions here are taken from what are basically the worlds most boring homebrew D&D sessions - I’ve been a part of similar exercises, and while they can have value, that value is incredibly limited in scope. It’s disappointing to see the guardian reporting on such dubious claims as though they are an accurate simulation, without giving any background on why they should be considered as such.

I feel like that makes slightly too much sense to be something trump would propose. At the very least, he’d have to be aware of them not being the same place, which is already giving him too much credit.

I don’t even want to consider what he might be saying in two weeks, speculation like that brings only madness…

edit: Wait did you mean he’s saying the tariffs are happening in two weeks because if so I’m dumb and you’re funny.

Tune in tomorrow for when trump announces that greenland tariffs are totally happening!

Don’t get too excited folks, Nadella’s never been right about anything before…

Content for c/YeVeryReasonableBastards

They banned me from StableWerewolves and that doesn’t even have any posts for me to have downvoted. And for the more active ones, I can’t find another post I’ve interacted with in StableDiffusionWitches (or the dragons one, or several others I was banned from). Unless there’s more there that I’m not seeing I literally was banned from SDWitches because of a single downvote (from seven months ago).

I’m not saying “don’t ban the trolls”, that’s obviously fine - someone downvoting the majority of your posts across your communities isn’t interacting in good faith. But you can’t honestly say I’m a troll, I’ve got what four downvotes accross all of them, of which two might be federation issues? Should I really be getting mass-banned with a "no you’re the problem for not liking us enough >:( " message?

If I’m a troll I’m the worst troll ever, and that’s why I’m saying those mods are being hypersensitive - even in the best case that it’s not just a federation issue with the downvotes and I really did do it, I’ve gone seven months with four interactions. They need to tune whatever method they’re using to decide who’s a troll, because if that is the threshold they’re clinging to to justify how persecuted they are that is incredibly unhealthy. Even r/conservative, the biggest exclusionary echo-chamber I can think of, is more lenient with their bans than the StableDiffusion[Family] mods are being. Are they really so much more reviled than actual unapologetic nazis that they need to be this hypervigilant?

Maybe the reason they get people DMing them isn’t just that they run communities devoted to AI slop (and it’s incredibly trendy to do things like call it “AI slop” right now), but also that they’re banning people from communities with no content, for no good reason, and with a very rude victim-blaming message while they do it? And that’s a shitty thing to do?

You downvoted the comment where I explain that I think there’s a technical issue so it’s not like you can claim you didn’t see it. And on top of that, their comment even demonstrates they banned me over a single downvote - are you really going to pretend like you can claim a victory here? The instance admin themselves just came in and demonstrated my criticism was absolutely correct.

So… they literally do ban from a community over one vote? Assuming your examples are right, I’ve interacted with StableDiffusionWitches once and now I’ve been banned.

Honestly, is the tool they’re using broken, or more likely just… not very good? Regardless something funky is going on, because you’re accusing me of having downvoted a post which you can see on my UI doesn’t show as having been downvoted - the other downvote in Stable Diffusion Art also just doesn’t show as something I’ve downvoted. Does the tool not account for un-downvoting content, maybe? I occasionally bump downvotes while scrolling, which I then undo - but I don’t even know if that’s what happened here.

It doesn’t really matter though - this is absurd behavior for a community to be engaging in. Even accepting the records are right, two of the four votes I’ve been condemned over were from seven months ago. That’s not “downvote troll” behavior, and it’s not even indicative of behavior from someone who cares enough that they need to “tailor their feed.”

Again, I didn’t care about them at all until I was banned from there. Now, I think they’re hypersensitive and need to be coddled so they don’t have to accept that their content is wildly unpopular with the wide userbase, and that you’re trying to defend that behavior with the weakest possible argument you could make for… some reason. Tell them to tone it down, maybe? Because this is ridiculous?

Nah, I meant what I said and while it’s very mildly ambiguous, it’s not so ambiguous that you get to tell someone to kill themselves over it. You just misinterpreted my comment and decided to be extremely shitty to me because of it.

Mostly because its an absolutely incredible satire of the genre

Not what I might normally call “subtle”, no…

Top recommended video:

Where’d they even find shelf-putty-uppy screws that short? Seriously those sound adorable.