If you’re a size 4-24, the Gloria Vanderbilt “Amanda” line has a variety of jeans with almost bo embellishments. They come in multiple shades of blue, black, mint, khaki, white, off white, etc… The colors other than blue are a bit stiffer and less stretchy, but they fit very similarly. They also have “Ponte pants,” basically business casual dress pants (though basically only in black), which I also recommend. I’ve worn the black jeans to the office mid-week and could probably get away with wearing the khaki ones, too.

I get them at Kohl’s, but from a quick web search I see they’re also available at Amazon, Walmart, JC Penny, Macy’s, and Costco. MSRP is around $50, but I don’t think I’ve ever paid more than $30 for a pair. I see some listed at $20 or so right now and I think I’ve gotten some (maybe on clearance?) for as cheap as $15.

Do NOT buy the “Pull-On” versions! Those either lack pockets entirely or have inadequate pockets. I could fit my phone in, sideways, but it dug into my side (my hipbone, I think, though it’s been a while since I wore those and tried to use the pockets).

Sizing is split between products (at Kohl’s at least): 4-18 and 16W-24W, with 16W being one size above 18 as opposed to overlapping. There are also Short (or Petite in the Ponte Pants) and T/L variants.

For reference, I have a standard sized iPhone - specifically the 15 Pro - in a case, with a MagSafe wallet. I often carry a similarly sized work phone in the same pocket, also in a case, so my pockets need to be able to handle both. The top of my phone is basically flush with / right below the opening of the pocket, which I prefer. A taller phone, like a Pro Max iPhone, would fit, but would need angled a bit to not have the top poking out.

Some other info on these:

• The fit, for me at least, is comfortably snug, but not tight. The cut is flattering, but not lewd.
• Durability is better than expected for fairly stretchy jeans. I ended up with a hole in the first pair I bought after a year or so, just from walking around (inner thigh friction basically) - but to be fair at that point I was wearing them twice a week, so that’s like 100 wears, 50 or so washes… I think that’s reasonable. However I don’t think they’d hold up as well if I wore them while doing yard work or something similarly stressful.
• Sizing down - I can fit into up to two sizes down, but even one size down: the fit wasn’t flattering, they were less comfortable, and they were so tight that my phone barely fit into my pocket (and wouldn’t have fit if I were sitting).
• Sizing up - one size up is great. I haven’t tried two sizes up. The fit isn’t as flattering, but it’s still fine. I generally wear a belt when wearing a sized up pair, since the waistband ends up a bit loose otherwise, but they’re still snug around my hips, so they stay up well enough without a belt.

If you’re a size 0 or a size 2 and don’t want to size up, they sadly aren’t an option (I may be wrong - their size chart goes down to 2, but I didn’t see any offered in a 2). If so I can keep an eye open for decent jeans in that size range, but I won’t be able to speak to fit, of course, as I’m nowhere near a size 2 myself.

To be clear, I’m not saying most women’s pants have pockets. I’m saying that there are options, and I’m of the opinion that if you care about something enough to complain about it, you should also care about it enough to do something about it.

I own dozens of pairs of women’s pants and shorts with pockets large enough to comfortably fit my cell phone. Several pairs where I can not-so-comfortably. Probably a dozen each of dresses and skirts with decent pockets, too.

Would you like some recommendations?

This is basically an “I can’t have my cake and eat it, too” complaint. If none of your pants have good enough pockets, it’s either because someone else is buying your clothes or because you didn’t prioritize having pockets when you bought them.

When buying women’s pants or shorts (and even dresses and skirts), you have the choice between a pair that has decent pockets and a pair that doesn’t, generally because the designer chose to prioritize aesthetics over pockets. If you buy the cuter pair, despite their lack of suitable pockets, you’re reinforcing the designer’s decision.

Even leggings / yoga pants and short running shorts / leggings have versions with pockets. Not every brand, sure, but enough.

With men’s pants and shorts, there’s much less variety. You have to go out of your way to find pants without decent pockets, but at the same time:

• Your pants and shorts are all bulkier and thicker than the equivalent women’s style
• Your shorts all come down to the knee, if not a bit further
• You don’t have the option of skirts, dresses, capris, leggings, etc…
• You don’t get the same options within a given style, i.e., far fewer embellishments, less stretch (in, e.g., jeans), often fewer colors, and most cuts are looser

Now, maybe the store you’re shopping at or the brand you love doesn’t sell women’s pants with pockets. I’m sure there are many like this. If it bothers you, find another store that does. Buy from a different brand.

Claiming that GTA is responsible for mass shootings is an example of what pro-gun activists do in order to deflect the blame off of guns.

Certainly the latter.

I have pretty decent insurance through work, but if I’m picking up a prescription, it’s cheaper for me to say I don’t have insurance and use a free discount card (like GoodRx) than to use my insurance. We’re talking $150-$200 for one prescription (a one month supply) with insurance vs $30 without.

To be fair, I have an HDHP with an HSA so my insurance is only supposed to negotiate a discount until I hit the deductible, rather than paying for it. Full price is $200-$250, I think? (I get generics and each generic variant has a slightly different price.) So technically they’re providing a discount, just not a very good one.

Insurance also likes to require a “prior authorization,” which was always a fun surprise after making it through the pharmacy line. That normally takes a couple days to resolve, at minimum, and sometimes longer. If you’re not familiar with prior auths, it’s basically when the insurance company says “Hey doc, can you justify why you’re prescribing this and answer these eight questions?” and then they have someone without a medical degree review the answer and see if it’s good enough.

The only downside to paying out of pocket with a discount card is that the $30 doesn’t go toward my deductible. But since my deductible is multiple thousands of dollars, unless something else happens during the year, I won’t hit my deductible off the $150-$200 prescriptions + regular doctor visits alone. But that’s at most $360 out of pocket that wouldn’t have gone toward the deductible, assuming I had a health crisis in December, vs $1440-$2040 saved if I don’t.

X-rays are even worse, because you’re not told the price ahead of time.

Illegal vote suppression elected Trump, but even if it hadn’t, you should blame Democrats before blaming people who voted for third party candidates. Now, if you’re talking about people who “protest voted” by voting for Trump (in both the primaries and the election), then sure. Those people did, in fact, play an instrumental part in electing him.

Why blame Democrats? Well, beyond just kinda being Republican-lites:

• for opposing ranked choice voting (and alternatives)
• for not rallying around progressive candidates
• for not choosing Kamala via primary elections in 2024

Democrats are the bare minimum “harm reduction” party, and I don’t bare any ill will toward people who voted for them rather than a party that would actually try to effect change, but the opposite mindset - blaming third party voters for not voting for Democrats - is very shortsighted. And as third party voters have never had the power to enact RCV or STAR voting or otherwise improve the system, blaming them instead of the Democrats who have had that power is inane.

I’ve voted for a Democrat every single presidential election that I’ve been able to, but I honestly wish I hadn’t. I’d much rather there be more visibility for third parties, and for more people to feel empowered to vote for third party candidates.

Glaring doesn’t imply a negative meaning. In this case it’s used to mean “obvious”.

Unless you’re suggesting that “glaring” means “obviously staring” (it doesn’t - that would be “glaringly staring”) this doesn’t make any sense.

“[He’s] glaring at [direct object]” is an example of a sentence that uses the present participle form of the verb “glare,” which explicitly communicates anger or fierceness.

If you’re not convinced, read on.

—————

The verb form that takes an object is:

Glare (verb with object): to express with a glare. They glared their anger at each other

The noun form the above definition references is:

Glare (noun): a fiercely or angrily piercing stare.

“Glaring” can be an adjective and one of those definitions does mean “obvious” or “conspicuous,” but the use of that form of the word doesn’t make sense in her sentence. Think about a comparable sentence like “The undercover operative is conspicuous at the bar,” where the bar is the location. (Even then, most people wouldn’t use “glaring” in that sentence, as “conspicuous” or “obvious” are much less ambiguous; the operative could be staring piercingly or angrily at the bar rather than being glaring while being at the bar.) Another example that makes a bit more sense is “The effect of the invasive plants is glaring at the park.”

But for that interpretation to be valid here, you’d have to:

• believe that the dude is trying to hide/blend in, or otherwise explain how he - not what he’s doing, but the dude himself - is conspicuous
• believe that the woman’s referring to her own ass as a location
• assume that she isn’t commenting on how the guy is looking at her ass, even though the joke depends on giving him something different to look at

That’s a bit of a stretch.

There’s a whole history of people, both inside and outside the field, shifting the definition of AI to exclude any problem that had been the focus of AI research as soon as it’s solved.

Bertram Raphael said “AI is a collective name for problems which we do not yet know how to solve properly by computer.”

Pamela McCorduck wrote “it’s part of the history of the field of artificial intelligence that every time somebody figured out how to make a computer do something—play good checkers, solve simple but relatively informal problems—there was a chorus of critics to say, but that’s not thinking” (Page 204 in Machines Who Think).

In Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Douglas Hofstadter named “AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet” Tesler’s Theorem (crediting Larry Tesler).

https://praxtime.com/2016/06/09/agi-means-talking-computers/ reiterates the “AI is anything we don’t yet understand” point, but also touches on one reason why LLMs are still considered AI - because in fiction, talking computers were AI.

The author also quotes Jeff Hawkins’ book On Intelligence:

Now we can see the entire picture. Nature first created animals such as reptiles with sophisticated senses and sophisticated but relatively rigid behaviors. It then discovered that by adding a memory system and feeding the sensory stream into it, the animal could remember past experiences. When the animal found itself in the same or a similar situation, the memory would be recalled, leading to a prediction of what was likely to happen next. Thus, intelligence and understanding started as a memory system that fed predictions into the sensory stream. These predictions are the essence of understanding. To know something means that you can make predictions about it. …

The human cortex is particularly large and therefore has a massive memory capacity. It is constantly predicting what you will see, hear, and feel, mostly in ways you are unconscious of. These predictions are our thoughts, and, when combined with sensory input, they are our perceptions. I call this view of the brain the memory-prediction framework of intelligence.

If Searle’s Chinese Room contained a similar memory system that could make predictions about what Chinese characters would appear next and what would happen next in the story, we could say with confidence that the room understood Chinese and understood the story. We can now see where Alan Turing went wrong. Prediction, not behavior, is the proof of intelligence.

Another reason why LLMs are still considered AI, in my opinion, is that we still don’t understand how they work - and by that, I of course mean that LLMs have emergent capabilities that we don’t understand, not that we don’t understand how the technology itself works.

We are. Why do you think we stopped?

The witch turned the creep into a woman and the spell was complete by the time she flew away. Unfortunately, like many women, the creep was born with the body of a man (she’s AMAB). Maybe the witch could have changed her body, too, but that would have made things far too easy, given that the point of the curse was to teach her empathy.

It’s the new hyped up version of “no-code” or low-code solutions, but with AI so you have more flexibility to footgun.

Not any lazier. Script kiddies didn’t write the code themselves, either.

I had never heard of this show before today but what you just described makes it sound cool as fuck, I’m gonna check it out now

This is an interesting parallel, but I feel like I missed some key part of it.

In the US, at least, we historically killed off a lot of deer’s natural predators - mostly wolves - and as a result, the deer population can get out of control, causing serious problems to the ecosystem. Hunters help to remedy that. The relatively small violences that they perform on an individual basis add up to improving the overall ecosystem.

That isn’t the same as being a bigot, or a sexist, or a fascist… and I don’t know why anyone would assume that a person holds those views because they’re mean and petty. They hold those views for a variety of reasons - sometimes because they’re a child or barely an adult and that’s just what they learned, and they either don’t know any better or haven’t cared enough to think it through; sometimes because they’ve been conditioned to think that way; sometimes because they’re sociopaths who recognize that it’s easier to oppress that particular group.

It doesn’t really matter what their reason is. Either way, they’re a worse person because of it, and often they’re overall a bad person, regardless of the rest of their views, actions, and contributions.

Being a hunter, by contrast, is neutral leaning positive.

It makes sense that a rational person who loves being in nature, who loves animals, who wants their local ecosystem to be successful, would as a result want to help out in some small way, even if that means they have to kill an animal to do so. It doesn’t make sense that a rational person who loves all people, who wants their local communities to be successful, would as a result want to oppress and harm the people in already marginalized groups.

I don’t think equating being bigoted with holding unjustifiable opinions does it justice. The way we use the word opinion generally applies to things that are trivial or unimportant, that don’t ultimately matter, e.g., likes and dislikes. Being a bigot is a viewpoint; it shapes you. For many bigots, their entire perspective is warped and wrong. And there’s a common misunderstanding that you can’t argue with someone’s opinions; because it’s just how they “feel.” But being a bigot, whether you’re sexist, racist, transphobic, queerphobic, homophobic, biphobic, etc., is a belief, and it’s one that, in most cases, the bigot chooses (consciously or not) to keep believing.

If an adult with functioning cognitive abilities refuses to question their bigoted beliefs, then they’ve made a choice to be a bigot.

Most anti-car people are in favor of improving public transit options.

Orcas are dolphins, though. Do you mean bottlenose dolphins specifically?

You don’t find the Cheese Pervert creepy?

My first thought was that ending the taxes at land ownership was shortsighted - all capital should be taxed - but then I looked up Georgism on Wikipedia and saw that that was basically already in scope (mostly by “including title of ownership for natural resources and other contrived privileges (e.g., intellectual property)”).

That makes sense, and that engine and some of the other games they feature look interesting.

Does that mean that Balatro (and presumably other LOVE 2D games) is packaged like Doom with its WAD files, where there’s an engine (a generic LOVE 2D one) that runs the game, interpreting the Lua game code, which is basically just packaged like an asset? Or is there a Balatro engine that needed to be built for each platform? I saw that BMM downloads a base IPA and an APK patcher, so I’m assuming it’s closer to the latter, but I could see it going either way.

There is a project to convert the Steam app to a side-loadable mobile app (both for Android and iOS): https://github.com/blake502/balatro-mobile-maker

I haven’t tested that out myself and I have no idea how it compares to their official mobile release, but I’m super curious about how it was implemented (it’s the first time I saw a tool that could convert a game to an iOS app), so I’ll be looking into it at some point.