There used to be a show in Argentinean TV which weaponized this idea. The strategy was to take something a politician said that week and contrast it with a videoclip (months, years, even decades old) of that politician saying (apparently) the opposite.
It's not obvious at first, but this idea is actually pretty terrible: changing your mind in presence of evidence is something we want politicians to do, but if you then use that to paint them as hypocrites then they'll never ever change any stated position. And "the opposite" casts a wide net: if someone is recorded as saying "I think we should stop building datacenters for AI" and you then contrast them with an old clip saying they use Google Translate, what does that tell us about the character of this person? (IMO nothing, but that's not what the clip wants to tells you)
This is...kind of my fear though. We need some pragmatism in politics but the American public fucking hates anything other than "my team best team forever". I say this as someone who is staunchly more left than probably 95% of everyone here... Building an algorithm that ensures absolutely any deviation from the trend is swiftly punished brutally is not necessarily a feature of a functional society.
You may think you want this because of Sinema and Fetterman but...we already know they're shitheads because...they blatantly do shithead stuff. Replacing the time spent gleaning all the nuance behind a vote with a party whip algorithm is not going to somehow make voters better at voting.
Bash output is a small share of the bill, so that's the ceiling, and turn-count variance is bigger than the ceiling. Your 7% terminal share on Fable is the same finding from the other direction.
We're finalizing an integrated proxy inside rtk itself.
