gtheule.bsky.social
General layabout and nogoodnik. Occasional cat chair and meme.
76 posts
52 followers
79 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Where is the “I reject the premise of your question” option?
comment in response to
post
I think that Teslas are currently self-swapping in the market
comment in response to
post
Not doubting, just wondering where you’re getting that from?
comment in response to
post
Fwiw the kitten was a foster who was adopted into a lovely home of a neighbour. He sat on heads for many years to come.
comment in response to
post
The discourse here is cursed because people are only able to see AI through an ideological lens. For example, if you acknowledge a use case for LLM's, you are validating AI bros, so you have to deny that use cases exist. The definitions don't matter because it's not actually about the AI.
comment in response to
post
I’ve heard this all day today and I totally agree: the OT winner was great but the biggest cheers came from the 2 seconds left tying goal! Wild emotions!
comment in response to
post
Thanks!
comment in response to
post
Admittedly my understanding of the rules isn’t infallible, but I patently don’t understand that non-call. Anyone?
comment in response to
post
Lol. Coward. Thats the safest Con riding in the country
comment in response to
post
With a weaker Conservative showing, sure, but I’m not so sure they take the chance once the Carney honeymoon wears off
comment in response to
post
Winnipeg! Home for the summer, which is also awesome
comment in response to
post
Comeonnnnnnnn
comment in response to
post
To be fair, I hadn’t seen it in years of poll watching either, and I had to ask my brilliant wife (who teaches grad school stats) to explain it to me so I could share it.
comment in response to
post
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
comment in response to
post
The key indicator in a poll reporting is “around the 50% mark” when looking at the confidence interval. That’s going to tell you that the sampling is, let’s call it “not great” which, given that it’s a text messaging poll, is likely. As I understand it.
comment in response to
post
You’re allowed the hours off if your normal working hours don’t give you three hours of voting time off anyway, which won’t be most people - but definitely go vote with whatever time you have!
comment in response to
post
I mean, it’s literally in the title - they are the Crown’s attorneys.
comment in response to
post
Layton 2011; Obama 2008; Turner/Mulroney 1988; and of course, Bartlett 2002 (though I suppose that doesn’t make my “not entertainment” point very well).
comment in response to
post
Not looking for entertainment but there’s no harm in asking that leaders be inspiring
comment in response to
post
It was kind of you to let him in.
comment in response to
post
To hell with unhinged, it’s insulting to her professionalism.
Let alone the confirmation by the Party itself. “The Liberal Party said Sunday evening that some campaigners "regrettably got carried away" with the use of buttons "poking fun" at reports of Conservative infighting.”
comment in response to
post
The number of people in this thread that assume that a CBC Parliamentary Bureau senior journalist isn’t able to identify a Liberal staff member by sight in an Ottawa bar is as unhinged as anything the Right has come up with in terms of not knowing what the hell they’re talking about.
comment in response to
post
The idea that Kate McKenna wouldn’t be able to identify a Liberal staffer in a Parliament Hill bar is insulting.
comment in response to
post
I’m pretty sure that the country voted for someone who said that he’d do that, not that long ago. What ever happened to that guy…?
comment in response to
post
Apropos of nothing else, for anyone seeing this screenshot, reverse mortgages are a deeply bad idea.
comment in response to
post
Maybe. I would expect, though could easily be wrong, that a sizable amount of the normal Emerson traffic - possibly a majority - is commercial and was not going to be able to drop in the short term at all.
comment in response to
post
I mean, I don’t know what you’re up to these days but that “yet” is a pretty ominous statement!
comment in response to
post
Agreed, but a long long way from being a stretch of statutory interpretation. It’s a pretty clear outcome (even if it’s awful).
comment in response to
post
I’m pretty sure the oath isn’t “protect and defend the duly elected President”