

Are there still people out there moaning that “Americans won’t vote for a woman,” despite, y’know, Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote in 2016?


Are there still people out there moaning that “Americans won’t vote for a woman,” despite, y’know, Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote in 2016?


Interesting that it’s turning out so similarly, then.


No, they just believe that they are God’s chosen people. Totally different.


Hey, wasn’t this supposed to be an actual dome? The demented, old dingbat described it as a literal dome.


So, essentially the same as a company spokesperson!


Forget the spokesperson, just ask Google AI directly:

AI on Google Search, including the AI Overviews in search, does not provide summaries on topics involving Donald Trump and dementia. This is due to risk aversion, sensitivity to political topics, and recent legal challenges. Instead, these searches return a list of traditional web links.
Reasons for the lack of response
- Risk of misinformation: AI-generated conclusions about a public figure’s health could spread misinformation. The mental acuity of Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, the oldest presidents in U.S. history, is a topic of public discussion.
- Avoiding political sensitivity: AI models often have restrictions on sensitive or controversial topics to avoid biased responses. Google and other tech companies are cautious about how their AI products respond to election-related or partisan queries.
- Legal history with Trump: Google’s handling of Trump-related content may be influenced by recent legal and political issues. In 2025, Google paid a $24.5 million settlement in a lawsuit related to the suspension of Trump’s YouTube account.
- Inconsistent application of AI summaries: Some users report that searches about other politicians, like Barack Obama or Joe Biden, may return an AI-generated response, though this varies. This inconsistency has led to criticism that the AI applies selective censorship.
Google’s statement A Google spokesperson stated that AI Overview and AI Mode do not always show answers to all queries, especially sensitive or complex ones. The company suggests that users rely on traditional search results in such cases.


Armenia and Cambodia are screwed.


Here’s the crux of the difference of opinion: No, Pres. Harris would not have been talking about luxury hotels on the rubble of Gaza. Israel, however, has been talking about it for years. The U.S. President has very little influence over Israeli intentions, and whether the U.S. President talks about it sounds like an objection based on style rather than substance.


Best President since Jimmy Carter is a low, low bar. We forget that Carter was a neo-liberal who threw labor under the bus. Because the Presidents since have been so right-wing, he looks like a leftist in the rear view. And throwing the working classes under the bus is one of the major reasons we’re here now.


Can we start delivering those 2,000lb. bombs that the U.S. gives to Israel one by one, to Netanyahu’s house, by airmail?


Fascinating how the subtext is always that we should feel comforted because a mass-casualty event that’s a normal part of the system that kills and injuries people every day isn’t terrorism.
“Oh, that’s just the machine crushing orphans. It’s supposed to be doing that.”


There are multiple meanings of “support.” There’s an endorsement meaning, which can be explicit or tacit, and there’s an aiding meaning. The Democrats may not explicitly endorse it, but the Biden administration certainly did tacitly endorse it by directly aiding it. And most of the party has been tacitly endorsing and aiding it for decades.


Huh, that’s really odd conclusion to draw from Democrats literally supporting genocide. Harris couldn’t even be bothered to come out against it during the campaign even when they knew their support was a losing issue.


It’s a simple moral calculus, don’t you see? You must always vote for Hitler and help him kill 5,000,000 people, if the alternative is somebody who’s going to kill 5,000,001 people.


This was obviously the outcome no matter who was elected. Israel has always been very clear about this.


Thanks. That is what I’d expect, and highlights the disconnect I saw in this comment chain: I think what some other folks were trying (less-than-artfully) to say is that there’s a difference between what one might expect case-insensitive means as a computer programmer, and what one might expect case-insensitive to mean in human language. All three of those should be the same filename in fr_FR locale, since some French speakers consider diacritical marks to be optional in upper case. While that might be an edge case, it does exist. English is even worse, with a number of diacritical marks that are completely optional, but may be used to aid legibility, e.g. café, naïve, coöperation. (Whether that quirk is obvious or not, or whether it outweighs any utility of case-insensitivity is not something that I have a strong opinion on, though.)


I don’t have Windows here to test, so I keep wondering, are all of these forms the same?
It depends how you define it. I first installed Slackware at work on a retired IBM PS/2 in '94 or '95, because somebody was working on MicroChannel bus support. (That never materialized.) Later, we checked out Novell Linux Desktop, maybe Debian, too. At a later job, we had some Red Hat workstations, version 5 or 6, and I had Yellow Dog Linux on an old Power Mac.
At home, I didn’t switch to Linux until Ubuntu Breezy Badger. It was glorious to install it on a laptop, and have all of the ACPI features just work. I had been running FreeBSD for several years, NetBSD on an old workstation before that, and Geek Gadgets (a library for compiling Unix programs on Amiga OS) before that.


Yeah, nobody’s buying this bullshit.
Linux requires tinkering and Windows doesn’t? Is that some alternate-universe version of Windows? In my experience, the difference is social/psychological. When Windows fucks up, “everybody uses it,” so the blame falls on the masses, not the user, who was just going along with what’s normal and expected. People sort of mentally elide memory of the Windows fuck ups, because that’s just how Windows is.
Linux is different and weird, and you have to stray from the herd to use it. Straying from the masses is scary, because when Linux fucks up, it’s your fault for being contrary. That threat to one’s place in the social order is quite memorable. Hence the reluctance of Windows users, who hate it, to even consider trying another OS that they know nothing about.
I never switched from Windows. I never used Windows as my main OS. I had an Amiga, then learned Unix on SunOS, so I was used to being weird. Once I got a PC, I used FreeBSD. It did require a lot of fiddling back in those days, and when I got tired of that, I switched to Ubuntu, which was amazing in that it Just Worked™. (Aside from manual installation of the Windows driver for the PCMCIA WiFi card with NDISWrapper.)
(I still do tinker with it, and sometimes break it, but the base OS has been rock solid. I noticed the other day that my main PC was installed with Ubuntu 18.04, and upgraded to 24.04.)