The last panel looked off, so I think it is edited from the original comic: https://jakelikesonions.com/post/184087753999/drug-sniffing-cats

My thoughts, ended up being longer than I meant, but here:

Paying attention to the loudest voices, you will think we’ve split into two societal groups: those who use AI and think it’s absolutely perfect and will save humanity (“sheep”), and those who deny it has any uses whatsoever, is morally abhorrent, and is going to end mankind, either through war or through decay (“luddites”).

Most people will be in the middle. We will slowly learn what LLMs are good at doing, and what’s it bad at doing, and it’ll be messy. People will lose their jobs, but then some companies will realize that AI can’t actually replace those people, and some services/products will get dramatically worse/enshittified. Others will begin making a living through the use of AI, some adding great value to society and others just creating slop that a small but big enough fraction of the masses will consume to keep it around. People who are smarter at separating the good from the bad will laugh at both the luddites and the sheep.

One or two AI companies will fail and there will be massive turmoil and fallout for them. But most will either slowly reduce expectations or succeed moderately over time. Generalized AI will turn out to be way harder than some thought, and consciousness a way bigger leap from LLMs than predicted. There will be a loud push to implement safeguards, and it will be mostly ignored by politicians. However, there will be some progress on energy and water concerns, leading to large differences between countries/US states in terms of regulation. AI will turn out to be mostly bad for kids.

There will be several huge successes - a huge medical cure/vaccine, or an amazing technological invention/improvement, probably some kind of multi-disciplinary discovery. The people who drive it to completion will acknowledge it wouldn’t have occurred without AI, but humans were mostly responsible, but the media will claim that AI invented it out of whole cloth. There will also probably be some high-profile failures, like car crashes or critical server outages, maybe even leading to deaths. Luddites will seize upon them as if they’re apocalypses, and sheep will dismiss them as anomalies. The truth will be in-between. Most people’s lives will not change drastically.

They’re minerals, Marie!

What is the charge? Eating a succulent meal?

Wow, Miez has a gorgeous home, with plenty of space to play and look down on others from above! So nice of her to let you live there!

Vielen Dank!

A møøse ate all of my pøtatoes

This is utterly adorable! Such a dapper gentleman you have!

What is this scene? Vaggie looks like she’s on a pirate ship! Maybe from when she’s singing the duet with Camilla in season 1? Whatever it Takes I think? I’m just trying to remember why she would be on a pirate ship, but sometimes the animation goes by so fast I miss things

Yes to the filibuster, no to the quorum. Although I think you might be using quorum incorrectly. If you mean these as 1 question, about simply removing the filibuster and setting the minimum threshold for passing a bill to 50 votes, then that happens automatically, although it’s actually 51 votes without a tiebreaker.

Answer here, my personal opinions below. The filibuster is a Senate rule, not a law, and can be changed by a simple majority vote of the Senate. It does not require approval by the house or president. Changing or creating exceptions to the filibuster has been done several times over the years, from budget acts to disapproving actions of the executive branch. More recently, it has been removed for approval of federal judges. Harry Reid, a Democrat Senate Majority Leader got rid of the filibuster for approving federal judges, not including Supreme Court justices. Republican Mitch McConnell followed up a few years later by removing it for SC justices.

Without the filibuster, any business (well, almost any) such as approvals, bills, etc. requires a simple majority of Senators voting, assuming they have a quorum. If there are no absences or vacancies or abstentions (Senators there but not voting), that’s 100 Senators, so 51 votes needed. If there are only 95 Senators voting, you would only need 48 votes (half of 95 is 47.5, so 47 would not be enough). If there is a tie (50-50, for example), the Vice-President (technically acting as the President of the Senate) can break ties, so a bill could only pass with 50 Senators voting yes, rather than 51, if you add in the VP’s vote.

Quorum of the Senate is not a Senate rule. It comes from the Constitution, which says that a quorum is a majority of the full Senate (always 100). Vacancies are not counted. This means at least 51 Senators have to be physically there for any business to proceed. Changing it would require a constitutional amendment.

In my opinion, Harry Reid’s filibuster removal was somewhat understandable, as Republicans really were obstructing judges, but it was nonetheless a political mistake and backfired horribly, opening the door for Republicans to eventually follow-up by removing the filibuster for SC justices and take firm control of the court. Removing the filibuster for ALL business, including laws, would have similar risk. John Thune, the current Republican Senate Majority Leader, has resisted doing so, despite pastor from Trump. I disagree with Thune on almost everything politically, but respect the backbone/wisdom of keeping the filibuster in place. In general, a good rule is “never give yourself political power you wouldn’t want your political opponents to have.” I kind of feel the same way on the quorum question, but I think that’s not exactly what you were asking. No one really has a major problem with quorum rules, excepting rare intentional absences.

Mawp. Mawp. Mawp.

That describes the entire Star Wars Expanded Universe. Every character was critically important to the survival of the galaxy! Some strong books, some weak ones, and its ridiculous storylines all look phenomenal compared to the travesty of Disney canon, IMO

True, but I liked how they referenced Glup in the early Yuu’zhan Vong books by the asking about how he basically was the only reason Tattooine survived the Desolation! Nice nod to previous characters

We’re not there yet, but I could see a bit more fear-mongering smashing us into V For Vendetta territory

Cat: Yes, this is very nice, but where’s the plain cardboard box it came in?

And their Instagram, before the motorcycle pics so you have to login or cheat, is https://www.instagram.com/cobabeda99/

National Treasure is a mediocre movie that I will always watch the shit out of. It is the perfect balance of ridiculousness and action, and just always brings me joy.

Better than jumping the shark

What does lamo mean? I understood the rest, and yes, my back hurts.

When I was younger, I assumed that trans people wanted to transition because they felt their personality wasn’t their “assigned at birth” sex. And thus, because of society’s expectations that “men should dress and act this way” and “women have to do/be this,” a lot of people who didn’t meet that would be trans. But as I met and talked to more people, both trans and agender/genderfluid/etc., it does seem like those with body dysphoria actually feel uncomfortable in their bodies, and want a different body. But I’ve never actually asked any trans friends about it, because it does feel too personal, even though some of them are very good friends.

So, my question: if there were no gender norms or societal expectations, would you still want to transition? Would that answer change if surgery/hormones aren’t desired, and you instead do want to keep the body you were born with?

Yeah, but can it play Doom?