According to Axios, Neguse is seeking the assistant speaker position. Definitely the sort of position you don't want to be on the wrong side of the actual speaker for. So I imagine he'd "reluctantly accept" the position, but not campaign for it.

That's not really a fair comparison, because "Chinese" is not a slur; it's the preferred adjective (just like "Brazilian").

I do think it's a bit racist though, because it specifically exoticizes/others Chinese people/things.

I once knew a Mexican girl who went by "China" ("Chinese" in Spanish) because she was born with blonde hair, which makes no sense except that "Chinese" is used as a synonym for "weird".

One option for Android is Waterfox + UBlock Origin

Who would buy a color TV to see silver slippers though?

Prop 40 is not a good way to tax billionaires. A wealth tax is extremely messy. To institute an entirely new approach to taxation would create years of accounting and legal headaches, and only help short term.

And it's hard to overstate how shortsighted a single-time tax is.

The parliamentarian does handle a lot more than just budget reconciliation (e.g. who gets to speak when), but I'm not aware of any recent controversy besides that.

I think "the parliamentarian" is sometimes used as a synecdoche (or in ignorance) for Democrats' unwillingness to break senate procedure -- or the law -- in general.

In the Senate there are a bunch of rules around what can be passed without being subject to a filibuster (effectively what can be passed with >50 votes rather than >60). The parliamentarian is basically a referee who decides which bills (and parts of bills) these rules apply to, and is appointed (not a senator).

A common case is that the budget cannot be filibustered, so senators try to put stuff into the budget bill to get it through, and then the parliamentarian says "no, that's not a budget item".

None of these rules are legally binding, so some get upset when Democrats abide by them.

For additional context the current parliamentarian is Elizabeth MacDonough , appointed by Harry Reid (D) in 2012.

They are not. The majority leader is not the parliamentarian.

tl;dr: "type shit" (distinct from "{X}-type shit") is an affirmation, akin to "right on"

It doesn't say they are paying him more, just that they are structuring things in a way he can sell stock but keep his control. A relevant excerpt from Meta's investor update (bold mine):

Meta intends to file an amended and restated certificate of incorporation in Delaware to establish the Class C [non-voting] common stock, with an effective date of January 19, 2027. The Board has also declared a one-time stock dividend of one share of Class C common stock for each outstanding share of Class A common stock and Class B common stock, contingent upon, and to be paid after, the effectiveness of the amended and restated certificate of incorporation.

If I understand correctly, each existing share is effectively split into a voting share and a non-voting share (which the market will price, probably each at around half the original value). Google did this in 2014, and GOOGL (voting) shares are worth about 2% more than GOOG (non-voting) shares.

Luckily nobody outside of a car has eyes or this would be pretty terrible.

I wish the Hastert Rule would die. It's one of the most anti-democractic principles in Congress (among some fierce contenders).

Well, "vitrified" literally means made glassy, and the process involves melting the silicates in the clay, so there are some similarities.

For manslaughter you would need to show it was either in commission of another crime or via negligence.

you’re not supposed to enjoy life’s pleasures or joys “too much”

That's a rather puritanical view. I would say the dangers of pleasure are similar to the dangers of heroin -- the problem is not enjoying it too much, but becoming single-minded in its pursuit.

As for sin in heaven, I guess you would not want to because all of your deepest needs are met without sin.

A common image of heaven is a bunch of saints playing harps. Nowadays this looks boring; imagine instead a giant jam session with everyone rocking out.

AI has no initiative, it must be prompted. It does not decide anything.

"Prompting" is somewhat specific to LLMs. It is not the only source of direction for an AI. But fair enough. The AI doesn't "decide" to make number go up. It just does it. Or to make it LLM-specific, the most probable set of tokens produced by its network are self-instructions for the destruction of humanity.

AI won’t be Skynet/Ultron for the foreseeable future.

How far can you see into the future? AI doesn't have to be brilliant to destroy us; look how much power and destruction human idiots are capable of. At any rate I was not arguing that we were in the end game, just that it is in fact easy to provide a plausible way that AI could destroy us.

Step 1: AI earns money
Step 2: AI pays people to kill each other

That is probably sufficient, but AIs also have deception, blackmail, threats against family, direct action, and other tools at their disposal.

And I agree with the Count -- AI doesn't have to decide humanity should be destroyed; it just has to decide to make number go up.

Buffalonian bison [that] Buffalonian bison bully [, likewise] bully Buffalonian bison

(Buffalonian is the demonym for residents of Buffalo, NY)

Small clarification -- Lindsay Ellis released her video on Nebula last Friday (Aug 21), originally titled: "Yeah, but is Dolly really THAT great?"

She renamed, briefly prefaced, and released it on YouTube following Parton's death.

These were actually a thing. Search for "shockers" here:

https://penny-arcade.info/the-strange-the-unusual

(Note: not Penny Arcade the comic; aren't domain names fun?)