Polymarketik
ik
Tommy参与话题 1消息总数 30
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 30 条，显示第 1-30 条arent 45% making the y side +ev at 15%? with a decent margin
arent 45% making the y side +ev at 15%? with a decent margin
is it possible these same sources will soon start publishing a reinterpreted analysis of the mou?
is it possible these same sources will soon start publishing a reinterpreted analysis of the mou?
if iran had actually given up uranium enrichment even for a week, maga would've been throwing a trump rally with that exact name. but all they've got is: 'iran agreed not to have nuclear weapons' plus a 60-day period that can be extended.
if iran had actually given up uranium enrichment even for a week, maga would've been throwing a trump rally with that exact name. but all they've got is: 'iran agreed not to have nuclear weapons' plus a 60-day period that can be extended.
same as using lindsey graham's words as proof of anything
same as using lindsey graham's words as proof of anything
status quo in the mou basically means gfy
status quo in the mou basically means gfy
the n side relies on the fact that ppl remember dozens, if not hundreds, of iranian statements saying they would not include their nuclear program in the mou. ppl remember that iran called its right to uranium enrichment a red line. ppl also understand how humiliating the mou's wording is for the us. they understand the us extracted an ambiguous formulation that can be read as iran confirming its status quo- i.e. being a signatory to the 1970 npt zero chance trump wouldnt have bragged at the final g7 stand-up that he completely stopped iran's nuclear program. instead he hesitated… and overall more or less confirmed iran's right to enrichment.
the n side relies on the fact that ppl remember dozens, if not hundreds, of iranian statements saying they would not include their nuclear program in the mou. ppl remember that iran called its right to uranium enrichment a red line. ppl also understand how humiliating the mou's wording is for the us. they understand the us extracted an ambiguous formulation that can be read as iran confirming its status quo- i.e. being a signatory to the 1970 npt zero chance trump wouldnt have bragged at the final g7 stand-up that he completely stopped iran's nuclear program. instead he hesitated… and overall more or less confirmed iran's right to enrichment.
be honest
be honest
what if araghchi clarifies today or tomorrow that iran never gave up its rights to enrichment, but only agreed to discuss a permissible level of enrichment- would y still hold? be honest
what if araghchi clarifies today or tomorrow that iran never gave up its rights to enrichment, but only agreed to discuss a permissible level of enrichment- would y still hold? be honest
what does the status quo of taiwan mean? not p2 not p1- its p4 by nature
what does the status quo of taiwan mean? not p2 not p1- its p4 by nature
the us bombed their ability to produce. now theyre begging them to give up their rights. everything the us got in the mou is confirmation of the status quo
the us bombed their ability to produce. now theyre begging them to give up their rights. everything the us got in the mou is confirmation of the status quo
y copers would need 0.1 sec to switch sides. most of them know -no real hope that iranian officials could clarify things in their favor at any moment
y copers would need 0.1 sec to switch sides. most of them know -no real hope that iranian officials could clarify things in their favor at any moment
trump continuing to brag and insult iran is inducing iran to clarify what the status quo actually means. pray to allah maga y holders
trump continuing to brag and insult iran is inducing iran to clarify what the status quo actually means. pray to allah maga y holders
npt 1970. they werent allowed to enrich uranium to weapons-grade. thats the status quo they agreed to stick to. moreover baghaei said they were complying up until the unprovoked aggression.
npt 1970. they werent allowed to enrich uranium to weapons-grade. thats the status quo they agreed to stick to. moreover baghaei said they were complying up until the unprovoked aggression.
sure
sure
Will Iran Play in the World Cup?
Will Iran Play in the World Cup?
we're gonna fucking kill 'em now - The Jerusalem Post
we're gonna fucking kill 'em now - The Jerusalem Post
i changed my mind. no is good
i changed my mind. no is good
> A qualifying action must create a federal process for reviewing or approving the public release of new artificial intelligence models.
> A qualifying action must create a federal process for reviewing or approving the public release of new artificial intelligence models.
ok even better
ok even better
In fact the rules themselves suggest that a process need not have approval authority to qualify since they distinguish between reviewing and approving
In fact the rules themselves suggest that a process need not have approval authority to qualify since they distinguish between reviewing and approving
the entire n case rests on reading "for the public release" as if it implies a mandatory approval process. the rules never say that.
the entire n case rests on reading "for the public release" as if it implies a mandatory approval process. the rules never say that.
directs <:polypepesunglass:973209474003251211> review/assessment <:polypepesunglass:973209474003251211> 30 days before release <:polypepesunglass:973209474003251211> voluntary 💀
directs <:polypepesunglass:973209474003251211> review/assessment <:polypepesunglass:973209474003251211> 30 days before release <:polypepesunglass:973209474003251211> voluntary 💀
review process for the public release of new AI models review process required for the public release "for the public release" simply means a review process relating to models that are about to be publicly released
review process for the public release of new AI models review process required for the public release "for the public release" simply means a review process relating to models that are about to be publicly released
The entire no case rest on one fact the framework is voluntary. But the rule never says the review process must be mandatory. It never mentions licensing, permitting, approval, certification.
The entire no case rest on one fact the framework is voluntary. But the rule never says the review process must be mandatory. It never mentions licensing, permitting, approval, certification.
directs review/assessment 30 days before release voluntary 💀
directs review/assessment 30 days before release voluntary 💀
indeed. agreed.
indeed. agreed.
what if the EO outlines a 10x liability for anyone who skips the 'voluntary' review and down the line causes damage to us citizens or national security?
what if the EO outlines a 10x liability for anyone who skips the 'voluntary' review and down the line causes damage to us citizens or national security?
Netanyahu is unlikely to be enjoying these headlines about saving his fucking crazy ass from prison. He would most likely pay a lot of shekels to make these headlines go away.
Netanyahu is unlikely to be enjoying these headlines about saving his fucking crazy ass from prison. He would most likely pay a lot of shekels to make these headlines go away.
sipping tea with a mandelbrot on the side, netanyahu opens the nyp and sees his friend trump confirming what he said on a recent call: that bibi is a lunatic whom trump saved from prison.
sipping tea with a mandelbrot on the side, netanyahu opens the nyp and sees his friend trump confirming what he said on a recent call: that bibi is a lunatic whom trump saved from prison.