ciarannolan

You don't get to claim success over the top of 200,000 dead people because an early model said it would be worse.

> A judge, in a city that is the stronghold of the party that is opposing the current administration [...]

How is this relevant?

Felons cannot own guns in the US. There's nothing complicated about it.

On the off chance that this isn't concern trolling: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

p. 38 and beyond. Also check out the table of contents; it will point you to other technical specifics.

I've watched the Krystal and Saagar show a few times. It's pretty good, if a little too predictable.

I don't own a TV or watch cable news; I get most of my news from feeds like AP or Reuters, then try to decide for myself what I think before reading some commentary/analysis.

It's a little worrying to hear things like "[...], if you watch sources like Jimmy Dore over a period of months, it starts to become obvious." This is exactly how conspiracy theories and other quackery work. People get fed up with the mainstream and seek out alternative narratives about how the world _really_ works, then over time cede so much factual ground that their frame of reference becomes broken. This is exactly how people get into flat earth, 9/11 was an inside job, etc.

A slightly better "alternative" might be a news org like The Intercept or a writer like Matt Taibbi. Both are highly ideological but fairly constrained by the facts.

Senate Republicans? Trump's own intel chiefs?

I guess they're all part of the deep state cabal too?

So your strategy is to dismiss "mainstream corporate-backed news" and instead watch comedians on Youtube? Hard to take that seriously.

My comment links to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NBC News, the WSJ quoting Republican leadership, and CrowdStrike's own account. They're all collaborating on some elaborate lie and Jimmy Dore has dug up the truth? Give me a break.

I don't know if you're mostly joking; if so, I'll admit it's over my head.

> That's the primary source, whether or not you like the interviewer, company he works for, what his ulterior motives are, etc.

Weird how I didn't mention any of these in my comment. The problem is that the interview is not designed to elicit credible testimony. It's designed to put on a show. Thus, I discount it heavily.

> It really seems like one of these fringe conspiracy theories that doesn't really make sense as soon as you start digging a bit.

Because it is. Don't waste your attention on this.

> “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” [House Majority Leader Kevin] McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house...

It does when the interviewer is more interested in putting on a show than hearing from a source. Read the transcript (or see my post above). Constant interruptions, reinterpretations, jumping around in timelines, etc. It's a horrible interview meant to extract one or two talking points.

>HANNITY: Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia...

>ASSANGE: Yes.

>HANNITY: ... or anybody associated with Russia?

>ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly...

>HANNITY: Right.

>ASSANGE: ... over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.

He's basically saying that Vlad didn't call him up one day and say "Russia wants to give you some files." No shit.

-----

> Researchers from the Atlanta-based cybersecurity firm Dell SecureWorks reported that the emails had been obtained through a data theft carried out by the hacker group Fancy Bear, a group of Russian intelligence-linked hackers that were also responsible for cyberattacks that targeted the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), resulting in WikiLeaks publishing emails from those hacks.

> On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that the Russian government was behind the hack and gave to WikiLeaks a collection of hacked emails from John Podesta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails#Data_theft

> "The committee found no reason to dispute the intelligence community’s conclusions," Sen. Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the panel, said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-report-affirms-u-s-intel...

> Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

> We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

etc, etc, etc.

I thought this was pretty well accepted at this point.

Also there for the world to see. I just think on balance Facebook is a force for social destruction and individual harm on a scale never even imagined.

I looked at your blog; you seem like a talented, driven person. Why not apply those gifts to something meaningful? Why spend your limited working years building tools for this horrible company?

It may not be what you think it was internally, but it's negative externalities are there for the world to see.

I don't think the question is really about how the internal politics of Facebook work. The question is whether you should devote years of your limited working time and your talent to make the world a worse place to live in (which I think FB almost certainly does).

Do what you know is right. What you can live with and be proud of.

It sounds like, from reading your comment a couple times, you know what is right but are tempted to ignore that and take the cash.

No mention of the Defense Production Act [1], which was talked about more during the early days of this.

With the right declaration, the feds can make any American company manufacture anything. Why haven't they used it for N95's?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act

And going back on previous agreements. No wonder no one trusts or wants to work with them.

Which ones are marked "state media"? AJE is not: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

> Yet west coast politicians want to stop calling them "wild fires" in favor of a new term "climate fires".

According to who? You?

So, "it's just fat and sick people that are dead, and they'll all be gone soon enough, who cares"?

Out of morbid curiosity, how would you describe 200K+ dead from a contagious disease in 6 months? I'm sticking with "pretty damn dire".

Agreed with your first paragraph. I don't think your comment about covid makes much sense (200K+ dead in 6 months is pretty damn dire).

The podcast, for anyone interested: https://samharris.org/podcasts/107-life-actually-worth-livin...

> In this episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris speaks with David Benatar about his philosophy of “anti-natalism.” They discuss the asymmetry between the good and bad things in life, the ethics of existential risk, the moral landscape, the limits and paradoxes of introspection, the “experience machine” thought experiment, population ethics, and other topics.

I can't believe they were dumb enough to put that SCOTUS line in this.

It just plays into their current "meh, here's some rules but we'll do whatever we want anyway" image.

Buying property on a small island to prep for climate changes seems... counter intuitive.

Can you just share publicly what people can do to help?

It's important to highlight that the ban has been in place for more than a century and is now under harsher scrutiny.

You did? With 11% of the company?

> Amazon's chief executive officer (CEO) and founder, Jeff Bezos, is the company's biggest shareholder, with 55.5 million shares representing 11.1% of outstanding shares.

This is very disingenuous.

I went back and read Clinton's position, which was that the concept of the US pivoting to the Pacific Rim vis a vis trade was critical but that TPP lacked some additional measures she wanted (ex. stronger measures against currency manipulation).

I don't think Trump ever articulated a cogent policy position on TPP at all. He did have plenty of his usual free association ranting, though, like:

> "And the Obama Trans-Pacific Partnership and fast track are a bad, bad deal for American businesses, for workers, for taxpayers. It’s a huge set of handouts for a few insiders that don’t even care about our great, great America."