taylor

First time I’ve written on a movie. Shoutout to @ajmcwhinney for helping me figure it out.

@GamergateNazi @NBCSAuthentic Don’t worry, Roupp will forgive me. Unfortunately for you, you’ll continue to live your miserable life

@marxsext @NBCSAuthentic Better than a grown man crying over someone writing a bible verse

"There's no hate at all." Giants starter Landen Roupp explained why he wrote a Bible verse next to the logo of his Pride Night hat last night nbcsportsbayarea.com/mlb/san-franci…

@GamergateNazi @NBCSAuthentic Yes a grown man writing special book citations on his work hat because he’s triggered by colors. Clearly Extremely Okay with it

@marxsext @NBCSAuthentic Idk he seems okay with it

@GamergateNazi @NBCSAuthentic Sucks that god planned that for him

@marxsext @NBCSAuthentic He was drafted

@hrJonGant @NBCSAuthentic No, and neither do bible verses, crosses and prayers as the Giants are making very clear

@marxsext @NBCSAuthentic Do gay baseball hats win games?

@Jonathan_Clegg8 @johnsaponaro Just be a professional. The hat is a known thing. It’s a part of the job here. Respect the city and the organization, play hard, and get paid. If you don’t want to be a part of the org, play somewhere you feel more comfortable. Pretty simple.

@marxsext @johnsaponaro Yeah this was my point too, tone deaf from Roupp, man needs to take responsibility for his pitching not be talking about God's plan for his fastball

Fake, performative Christian bs. It’s 1 night. 1 hat. To show that people in the LGBTQIA+ community DESERVE TO EXIST. & these snowflakes make it about them. If it’s “just about God’s covenant,” why doesn’t he write it on every hat? Why not Mother’s Day, MDW or City Connects caps?

@Rocky_Aspire @johnsaponaro I don’t think you watched the game. Three guys who played in the game last night made that statement as they failed at their jobs—again—in front of a large paying crowd on a community night for a bad team.

@marxsext @johnsaponaro Their performance this year is unrelated to the gay pride issue. 60% of the athletes don't support gay pride values. One guy has the courage to make a statement.

@susanslusser Thanks for asking Susan!

The unusual lineup is a factor of LH starting for Milwaukee (Harrison!) and the fact the Brewers tend to split up the games with LH then RH, Vitello says. Not a bad day to get Lee a start off (he performs best when he gets some rest) but he and Eldridge will be in at some point.

@GarlicFryRy @shamgod77 @JackLoder_ It just doesn't make sense tho, Lee got a hit and a run off the leftie opener last night. I'm not really sure there is any real logic governing the line up. Feel like the clubhouse is just in chaos mode

@shamgod77 @JackLoder_ I agree with that. Schmitt too

Eldridge and Lee have been the Giants two best hitters over the last week or so. So, naturally⬇️

@Brandywinebooks @KimberlyLWeir @the_book_land To answer your question, yes, read As I Lay Dying first. Multiple perspectives, a family not doing well. It is much more accessible than The Sound and the Fury, which is another family not doing well told through another multi-perspecive, but more radical narrative structure

@KimberlyLWeir @the_book_land I will definitely get to it one day.

I'm seeing a lot of people sharing 5 American authors they admire. What about 5 American novels? My choices would perhaps be: - Moby-Dick (Melville) - East of Eden (Steinbeck) - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Twain) - The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald) - The House of the Seven Gables (Hawthorne) - The Sound and the Fury (Faulkner) Yes, I can count, but I couldn't leave Faulkner out of the list.

@ll_the_time @Jon_Michael_Lee @BaseballValues I hear you. I think the trade is a gamble on Susac/Rod to win now bc money committed to roster. You’re not convinced and that’s reasonable. Only way to see is to let them play. Thanks for the friendly debate!

@marxsext @Jon_Michael_Lee @BaseballValues - You’re souring on a player after 89 PA who was as valuable as Devers for 2024-2025 fWAR - Replacing him with 2 40 FV prospects with a combined 15 games of MLB experience - Even if they are better offensively, the gains are outweighed by the extra runs allowed on defense

Today the #Guardians acquired C Patrick Bailey ($43.6M surplus trade value) from the #SFGiants in exchange for LHP Matt Wilkinson ($3.0M) and a Competitive Balance Round A Pick ($5.0M). The deal is rejected by our model as an underpay by Cleveland.

@ll_the_time @Jon_Michael_Lee @BaseballValues Yes. My argument is around roster construction. They are getting better hitters more at bats for more years at less money, another lefty prospect, and a draft pick up strengthen the farm. They are losing a good player that is not helping them win right now and a fit elsewhere

@marxsext @Jon_Michael_Lee @BaseballValues So by your argument a team that scores 4.75 runs per game but gives up 4.5 is better than a team that scores 4.5 R/G and gives up 4.25…

@GiantHotTakes Urgency is definitely the word. Honestly this is the kinda move that should wake up the vets. They have to know there they’re the reason. And for the young guys, sets the standard. Bailey is a better fit elsewhere so good luck to him

The urgency is up in San Francisco. Say what you want about it Buster Posey, he has operated with a level of urgency (maybe to a fault) that we haven’t seen in a long time. Wonder what he does with the Adames and Chapmans of the world. Start winning games!

@mike_petriello Giant have two rookies to win a job and a serviceable backdrop at catcher what are you talking about

I think this is another SF deal I don't like for either side? I don't like it for SF: No, Bailey wasn't hitting, but hoooo boy that catching depth is scary thin I don't like it for CLE: You gave up a (late) first rounder for Austin Hedges when you have Austin Hedges at home?

@ll_the_time @Jon_Michael_Lee @BaseballValues The stats are one thing but his fit in the team is another. Bailey is an excellent catcher for a team that can hit and score runs but is not a fit on a Giants team that struggles to do that.

@Jon_Michael_Lee @BaseballValues Bailey was as valuable as Devers from 2024-2025 in terms of fWAR. You’re souring on the best defensive player in baseball after 80 plate appearances

person at the bar saw me watching intensely watching baseball on my phone and asked if it was an important game and i had to be like “not really”

@Devon_Eriksen_ @LynAldenContact Respectfully, the notion “artificial person” contains a serious and troubling contradiction. In my view, one is a person or they are not. By this standard, we create people all the time very easily, so what. The question of creating special people by technical means is eugenics

Every "AI can't be people" argument I've heard so far boils down "AI can't do X." ... Where "X" is something that people can't do, either. Humans also cannot instantiate qualities by mapping them. I can think and talk about gravity all day, and spacetime will not bend. The modern word for the act of changing the object just by manipulating the symbol is "magic". And, with faint apologies to all you weird hippy chicks out there with the ankh necklaces and fairies tattooed on your butt, no, magic doesn't work. If if did, we would have figured out how to do something useful with it by now. So, if you demand that the LLM be able to work magic before you deem it a person, well... you designed the test in order to get the answer you wanted, didn't you? Now, obviously, the current generation of LLMs can't do all sorts of things humans can do. They're toys. Sometimes useful toys, but toys nonetheless. We're not talking about them. We're not just talking about LLMs at all. We're talking about hypothetical software entities that trip whatever switch in our brain that makes us say "this is someone, not something". Other people like to call it "consciousness", but I don't assume it's limited to being aware of something, so I call it "personhood". It's really hard to argue about whether software can have it without deciding exactly what it is. Which we have yet to do. But we do know there's something important that humans have (unless they listen to their smartphone speakers in public), dogs have some of, but not as much, and mosquitos don't. So far, by listening to other humans argue about this, I've divided them into four camps, each with a hypothesis about what personhood requires. They are: 1. A Magic Soul From God. This isn't a serious position that can be defended, it's just something a lot of people believe because they haven't ever typed the name "Phineas Gage" into a websearch engine. That doesn't mean that people can't be souls after they die, or that god doesn't exist. It just means that right now, when you are alive, personhood occurs in your physical brain. Somehow. 2. Something Something Quantum. As explained by Depok Chopra, in 1995, on the Oprah Winfrey Show. This one isn't as easily falsified, but its big problem is that it isn't required, and so Occam's Razor slices it neatly away. It makes extra assumptions without first showing that those assumptions are actually necessary for anything. 3. Big Pile of Transistors. This is the niche theory, and I've only heard it from about two people, that personhood is merely a function of computational complexity, and that any system with enough state-space to represent the universe will do so, and hence be people. I include this one just to be complete. Almost nobody buys this, and for good reason. To buy this, you have to start arguing weird metaphorical stuff about how the internet is sentient. 4. Sufficient and Correct Computation. This hypothesis is that personhood is the name we give to the particular set of computational powers that humans have, and that our inner experience of consciousness is just the way that system (us) experiences itself. The idea is that you need not only have a certain amount of computational power, but it needs to be organized in a certain way. Only two of these theories are serious: Something Something Quantum (SSQ) and Sufficient and Correct Computation (SCC). And, of course, SCC is the one that I currently buy, because it requires the fewest undischarged assumptions. To prove SSQ true instead, you would have to first prove that the human brain uses properties of the quantum realm for computation, which no one has done. They've only speculated somewhat breathlessly about it. Then your work would not be finished, not even halfway. Because remember, we are not talking about what personhood is in humans... we are talking about what personhood requires. We're not debating whether software can be people using the exact same techniques the brain uses. We're debating whether software can be people at all. So you would also have to prove that those quantum physics operations were absolutely necessary for personhood — that they could not be duplicated in any way by a conventional computing system, however large and complex. Then you would still not be finished. Because you would then have to prove that no artificial construct could ever, under any circumstances, use that spooky quantum physics stuff in the same way that an evolved human brain does. Good luck with that. Because you'd be arguing evolution can not only make things we can't, but make things we never could. Those are three extremely high hurdles to clear. And since we have yet to make any progress even on the first one, there is zero actual evidence for SSQ. Which is why I take SCC as my default assumption. Does this mean LLMs are people? Of course not. Does it mean LLMs even can be people? I don't think so. Personhood is not just the ability to use language. It encompasses several other powers, like executive function and a world-object model. To build an artificial person, we'd have to create those capabilities as well, and wire them all together. We're not even close to that. But it's probably not impossible. We just have a lot more work to do. LLMs aren't people. Not even exceptionally stupid people. They're more like one tiny slice of the brain of smart person, demonstrating only one of the many capabilities that a person has. We have yet to build the others.

For the first time in 25 years of Gallup polling, more Americans say they sympathize with Palestinians than with Israelis, per Axios.

Grok what happens when US forcefully opens the Strait so Iran strikes Gulf oil production infrastructure?