@admin "If they had focused on building a separate organization they would have had that whole organization, they would have had people that actually believed in their message instead of people who literally ran from it."

Given our electoral system (in most places) they'd be nothing more than spoilers, and would still contend with the same rivalries, whether intra-party or inter-party.

The wealthy Democratic donors and party elites don't disappear just because you have a different party.

@admin But consider: they'd be no better off in terms of money or organization had they tried to form their own rival party rather than take over the state Democratic apparatus. It's not like the Democrats were going to transfer $450k to a new party.

I'd say there are important lessons to be learned by these events, but "go it your own way" isn't one of them. The upstarts got out-maneuvered and weren't able to right the ship… a new batch should be better prepared for such internal mechinations.

@admin they didn't exactly empty the bank account & dissolve the state party; they did transfer $450k to a national fund, the state party staff quit en masse, & the former leadership organized behind a county party & ran as a sort of parallel party.

Notably, both Bernie Sanders and the Nevada DSA backed away from supporting the DSA-led party, suggesting some mishandling by the new leadership. In 2023, the new leadership was swept back out by party and effectively the prior leadership restored.

@gisiger @mia @jeffjarvis indeed while we can acknowledge that AI (especially LLMs) are not actually intelligent, since we cannot define the basis on which we say humans are intelligent, it seems daunting to codify for the purpose of copyright law the difference between humans digesting information and AIs digesting it.

Better, I think, to focus on the usage. If a work would be infringing for a human, then it should be for an AI; and the contrapositive as well.