I've vibe coded multiple helpful apps and websites for recording data. But longer term, I'm building with its help an internal research system to organize, search, compare, analyze, and esp reuse all the large amounts of data my firm produces, with the public materials without constantly starting over in separate ChatGPT or Claude conversations.
Similar to you, the things I have truly vibe-coded (having looked at <5% of the code) are largely data focused. Data labeling, organization, etc. These applications are extremely janky, I'd never ship them to users. The UI is mediocre at best. The functionality hardly better. But the point is to get data out of them. The code is a means to an end and not a product in itself. Building a custom dataset builder in just a couple hours of work is really powerful.
This is really light on details. What exactly is this? Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I think intellectual freedom is a cornerstone of democracy and freedom. We should want people to have freedom of thought. The headline makes it seem like some crazy right wing nut job, indoctrination camp, but don't we want people to have free intellectualism?
perhaps they will provide usefull training in how to read the room, and when to duck
as I think those are generaly usefull skills no matter what you are talking about.
Charlie Kirk was killed by someone because he had an apathy for gun violence in education which, inevitably, then happened to him. In a way, the death of Charlie Kirk is an almost perfect encapsulation of his own beliefs.
If we are to listen to Charlie Kirk, then we must acknowledge that his death was merely a freak accident, and the price of freedom in this country. We should do what Charlie would want us to do, and move on.
How is this a strawman? To quote Charlie Kirk, "I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational”
Maybe you should better understand the beliefs of people you willfully support? Is it not a bit embarrassing for you that strangers understand your proponents better than you yourself?
Regardless, there's something me and Charlie can agree on. His death was worth it.
You're really struggling with nuance. Yes, he judges the 2nd amendment dangers an acceptable tradeoff. That's a reasonable belief. He doesn't conceptualize school shootings et al as "freak accidents". That would be a ridiculous belief; it's a strawman. Neither is his death a freak accident. It's purposeful malignance.
Furthermore, I'm not a Charlie Kirk supporter. I don't agree with him on many or most things. I find many of his beliefs odious. The difference between me and you, is I don't think his death was worth it. It reflects a sickness in our society. A sickness that you are embracing. This Iowa university program seems directionally good, opposed to this sickness, and it was a shame that they are planning on making it mandatory.
Oh I don't embrace the sickness at all, I'm just pointing out that Charlie Kirk most definitely did embrace the sickness. He said it himself, many times and in many different ways.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. Well.. you should have taken it up with him, past tense. Nothing that can be done now.
"debate bros" are known for their bad faith arguments and lack of any real intellectual curiosity. They make a mockery of honest discourse. It isn't a compliment.
They shouldn't be killed for it. The allergy to even bad faith debate which apparently so incensed his shooter is a problem. Again, this is why I think it wasn't unreasonable he might be this center's namesake.
I disagree that someone unwilling to engage in good faith debate should be made the namesake of a "Center for Intellectual Freedom" because at the very least such a person is a bad example what such a center should stand for and represent.
Also, Charlie Kirk was a white supremacist and a bigot. His bad faith debate shtick was a vehicle for accelerating his racist views, which he was very successful at, and the only reason anyone wants to name this center after him is to glorify him as a martyr to that cause, in other words, for the sake of white supremacist propaganda. The party very much wants Charlie Kirk to be their Horst Wessel. That's what this is about, it's a grift.
Negative reaction to this isn't due to anyone having an "allergy to even bad faith debate" (which, itself, and ironically, is exactly the kind of bad faith debate we're discussing) but because reasonable people don't want to see buildings named after neo-Nazi shitposters.
So, I can't find anything on Wikipedia at least about Kirk being a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist, and I'm not sure what you mean by unwilling to debate. (Like did he turn down debates or...?) But I can see how the optics of having someone with his views named on the center might be bad.
Still, I find it hard to get past the fact that: he was killed because of what he believed, not because he endangered anyone, not in self defense. Can you not see the connection to this center?
>So, I can't find anything on Wikipedia at least about Kirk being a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist, and I'm not sure what you mean by unwilling to debate. (Like did he turn down debates or...?)
You know exactly what I'm talking about, you're just feigning ignorance and I'm not interested in playing the game.
>Can you not see the connection to this center?
There is no connection beyond white supremacists wanting to turn someone who was, at best, a mid-level right-wing influencer into a martyr for their beliefs in order to normalize those beliefs and galvanize hatred and retribution against their enemies. Which they tried to do but it all burned out in a few days of right-wing hate speech on Twitter.
But if you're looking for a political activist killed for their beliefs, there are plenty to choose from - MLK Jr., Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Manuel "Tortuguita" Terán, Sean Kealiher, Joe Hill, Yanar Mohammed, Muhsin Hendricks, Harvey Milk, and others. People who actually tried to advance the freedom of actually oppressed groups, instead of the grudges of white men.
I'm not responding further to this thread. I'll give you whatever gotcha reply you have at the ready and bid you good night.
>You know exactly what I'm talking about, you're just feigning ignorance and I'm not interested in playing the game.
Ironically this is a "bad faith shtick." You made a claim that has no basis in reality and failed to back it up. Charlie Kirk was many thing, but a neo-Nazi he was not.
He called for the military to use "lethal force" against migrants at the southern border. He also repeatedly demanded "Nuremberg-style trials" for medical providers who offer gender-affirming care.
In the sense that it doesn't work? Well it definitely works, gender affirming care like TRT helps men all the time. Breast implants help women after breast cancer related mastectomies. Vaginoplasty also commonly helps traumatic rape victims, too.
Or, do you mean debunked as in debunked in helping people with gender dysphoria? Because that's wrong too, we know that gender affirming care leads to less suicide in that population.
Because suicide is so rare and the number of people receiving gender affirming care is so low it is nearly impossible to get population sizes to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in suicide.
We can instead show a statistically significant reduction in depression, anxiety, and suicidal thinking. In every other medical context this is used as a strong shorthand for "reduces suicides." It is completely reasonable here as well.
The research community is happy to use "reduces suicides" as shorthand for "reduces depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation in statistically significant amounts." It is only in this one context that people insist that this is somehow misleading and therefore actually gender affirming care is evil.
But okay. Imagine that in this circumstance it really is the case that gender affirming care doesn't reduce suicide rates (rather than this just being difficult to collect data about). It merely reduces depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation in people. Oh no. That still sounds good to me.
He's not me, but from our understanding it reduces suicide as he explained.
Also, you pulled the 95% number directly out of your asshole. Most people don't give a shit if someone gets hormones prescribed by a doctor. You care for reasons that are unclear and you have failed to explain. I'm guessing because they're stupid reasons, and you know it, and you don't want to embarrass yourself so you figure you can just not say anything and hope nobody notices.
It is so incredibly rich to be talking about a "substantitive argument" when you haven't even brought AN argument. You just said "uh it don't work" and "durr people don't like this" and then refused to elaborate further.
Yes, you should stop responding because obviously you are far out of your depth and liable to humiliate yourself.
Having “some gun deaths every single year” was a cost worth paying. The alternative, under gun control laws preventing school shootings, is not “rational”.
State legislators in Iowa are mad that faculty lean left. So they created this institute that expressly hires conservatives and has conservative leaning curricula. But students would rather take a history class from a historian than some reactionary weirdo who thinks that all historians are communists. So the university is mandating students to take courses from this program.
This is the opposite of free intellectualism. It is faculty hired for their political beliefs and curricula created for political ends and mandatory enrollment so students must be exposed to these ideas whether they like it or not.
I think this would be tough for a lot of people ... that's 10 hours of exercise. I walk 5+ miles a day which takes me roughly an hour and a half. I'm only getting five to 7 hours.. Not sure I have the time in the day to add another three.
This is deeply troubling, parents should not have to press so hard on such issues. I've had a growing feeling that schools, and teachers, have been pushing far too much on isolating parents from decision-making about their children.
> The University of Washington today announced that it is part of a multi-pronged grantmaking strategy from Ballmer Group aimed at drawing more people into careers in early childhood education in our state — including by providing more than 1,500 scholarships over the next eight years.
> Ballmer Group is providing a set of gifts totaling more than $43 million to fund scholarships, leadership development and advocacy across multiple organizations, reducing the financial barriers that prevent talent from entering the early childhood workforce. The gifts ensure Washington can successfully implement the Fair Start for Kids Act and build racially diverse leadership in the broader policy field.
> The Ballmer Group has quietly emerged as a major player in the world of education venture-philanthropy, committing more than $250 million to K-12 related efforts during 2017 and 2018. As a limited liability corporation, the group is free to make charitable donations and for-profit investments—none of which have to be publicly disclosed.
> The Ballmers have also gotten on board with the trend of merging charitable giving with venture-capital investments and calling it all philanthropy.
> Those elements of the couple’s approach are reflected in their hefty investment in Social Solutions Global, to help the for-profit company develop nonprofit case-management software that will be able to integrate with the student information systems used by most K-12 school districts.
> By structuring the Ballmer Group as an LLC, the Ballmers have certainly given themselves more levers to pull in service of their goals, said Reckhow, the Michigan State professor. But they also seem to have embraced the notion that billionaires working to reshape public policy and service delivery don’t need to be transparent about what they’re doing.
> Officials from the Ballmer Group, however, told Education Week they would not commit to publicly disclose all the organization’s grants, investments, lobbying work, or support for elected officials and campaigns.
reply