In the policies section of the page you link, there are a number of positions that are typically associated with “progressive” politics.

They’ve gotten used to it in different political circumstances. But as people start to see how an authoritarian and vindictive fascist government works with surveillance tech to invade and endanger people’s lives, attitudes to things like always-on cameras may start to shift.

Well at least there are all kinds of checks and balances to prevent big tech and the US Government from abusing this information, right? Thank goodness we have no reason to worry about it being used for political surveillance and identifying who to send to foreign concentration camps, or anything like that.

But think of the constant, total surveillance opportunity for Apple, and how this could help them win favor and contracts from the fascist US government!

In the current US political climate, giving everyone glasses with always-on cameras run by big tech companies seems particularly dangerous.

It’s true. I remember it fondly as a very optimistic year.

Certainly there’s a lot of strategic voting going on. But you don’t see the Liberal (centrist) seat count increasing as the NDP goes down: the gains are all with the Conservatives. If it were a matter of progressives deciding to just consolidate with Liberals, you’d expect to see the Liberal seat count go up as the smaller parties went down. To me this suggests either that some people are flipping directly from left to right or that there is a general rightwards drift, with right-wing Liberals going over to Conservatives and left-wing strategic voters filling in some of the gap they leave for the Liberals. In either case it’s concerning that when the Conservatives fielded their most far-right leader so far, their share of the seats went up.

Yes, we narrowly avoided going down the Trump route this time, but I don’t find this picture particularly encouraging (NDP, Green and BQ are the three most progressive parties):

Source: National Post

It’s not straightforward to understand that, since this is a chart of seats not votes, and you can get weird effects with first-past-the-post and strategic voting, but it certainly looks like the electorate is moving rightwards at the expense of progressives.

Not sure whether you’re joking, but no, the subject of “loose [sic] a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying” is “They” from the beginning of the sentence. Surprisingly, the whole thing hangs together grammatically.

I think it’s that, and also that he’s serious about annexing Canada. Whether he can convince anyone else to be serious about it is another question, but we shouldn’t get complacent.

I need to remind you that only people from USA can vote in the USA elections and that not everyone you’ll find online is from USA. Have a good day.

I was addressing my fellow Canadians, because the Canadian election is today. Ironically, it seems you assumed I was an American talking about the USA.

I think of Donald Trump and Elon Musk, masters of aimlessness, crisis and noise, firing all those experienced people who have been quietly and competently managing government departments for years or decades. This only looks like progress to fools.

Yes. Trump can’t spell.

Vote!

Edit: I’m addressing Canadians.

President Donald Trump has said pollsters that have shown his approval ratings sliding in recent weeks should be investigated for “election fraud.”

Responding to the polls, Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday: “They are negative criminals who apologize to their subscribers and readers after I win elections big, much bigger than their polls showed I would win, loose a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying for the next cycle, only worse.”

It’s not an election, and I hurt myself reading that deeply moronic quote. How is this man in charge of anything?

Yep, for some of us Clippy never went anywhere.

I keep a Windows 2000 machine with Office 97 for distraction-free writing, but I might try this. WordPerfect for DOS was always a pretty relaxing way to write.

No motive has been given, although police have said they are “confident” it was not an act of terrorism.

I wonder what makes them confident of that. It certainly resembles a terrorist attack.

I wonder how much his actions were about believing in the Russian cause and how much about rebelling against his CIA parents.

Is there even any suitable “confidence” measure within the LLM that it could use to know when it needs to emit an “I don’t know” response? I wonder whether there’s even any consistent and measurable difference between times when it seems to know what it’s talking about and times when it is talking BS. That might be something that exists in our own cognition but has no counterpart in the workings of an LLM. So it may not even be feasible to engineer it to say “I don’t know” when it doesn’t know. It can’t just straightforwardly look at how many sources it has for an answer and how good they were, because LLMs have typically worked in a more holistic way: each item of training data nudges the behaviour of the whole system, but it doesn’t leave behind any sign that says “I did this,” or any particular piece of knowledge or behaviour that can be ascribed to that training item.