hallihax

Oh no

This is really great!

Is there any information on why the creators feel able to claim that their AI 'eliminates bias'? Seems like an incredibly bold (and almost certainly incorrect) claim.

For those concerned, I believe you can just disable this behaviour via this flag: chrome://flags/#enable-text-fragment-anchor

On the plus side, the whole world gets to reject your terrible commits?

Is it really 'political' if it's based on published figures? It's an informational tool, not a political view.

A little tool to illustrate changes to income tax under a Labour government in the UK.

Obviously income tax isn't the full picture for a party's taxation plans, but as one of the 'big factors' for individuals, I think it's important that people have a decent idea of how they will be affected.

Clicking the menu in the top right and then 'Advanced' will show a breakdown of the taxation under each marginal rate.

I'm not aware of anything similar based on the tax plans of any of the other parties,

Disclaimer: I am involved with the group who built this, although my involvement on this tool itself was minimal.

I like this a lot <3

Lovely visualisation, but this doesn't reflect the direction of travel properly. Spending occurs before taxation. Taxation balances the books - not the other way around.

The risk here is the politicisation of the data. There is no reason whatsoever for the PM's office, his advisors, or anybody in any political party to receive detailed information - anonymised or otherwise - about government services.

We have a civil service - this is their job, their responsibilty, and their mandate.

The haste with which Cummings (who has refused to answer questions from parliamentarians about his role in the Vote Leave criminal enterprise) demands this data suggests that this is a cynical grab for data which may be useful in an election or to target ads at Brexit supporting users / businesses.

This is politicisation of civil service data. The Conservative party does not own this data, and should not and must not receive it.

Google and Facebook both started life as tech companies.

Virgin started life as a one-man job hawking records out of a wheelbarrow.

Virgin is not a tech company. Their model is not centered around technology, but content.

Virgin Media is profit-first, above all else. It's an error to assume that the part of the company that builds out infrastructure is in any way joined up with the part of the company that keeps customers secure (if indeed, they even have people responsible for that, which they apparently don't).

This is why things like GDPR end up being foisted on us. Corporations have proven themselves capable of simply ignoring legislation designed to protect their customers, and simply paying a fine later. They'll secure when it's convenient to them, and not a minute earlier.

The clear vendetta against Assange, his colleagues (either direct or indirect), Wikileaks and publishers in general is a clear and present danger to the rule of law across the Western world.

Journalists, activists, publishers and security researchers are all being directly harassed and maligned by the US and its allies purely because Wikileaks revealed information the US would rather it hadn't. It's a disgusting affront to the rule of law.

Craig Murray's latest piece on the DNC lawsuit being thrown out is incredibly informative about exactly how this narrative is created and spun to turn people against WL and its affiliates / allies / peers.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/in-the-world...

Maybe I'm just too set in my ways - but nothing in this article looks like a solution to anything remotely relevant to most software development.

Difficulty in updating software isn't a new problem - but we already have much, much better solutions than this. I don't think there's anything wrong with changing existing code - and if changing existing code is causing you so much pain that you're led down this route, then you probably have bigger issues.

Maybe this methodology just isn't for me - but I really don't see how this improves anything from a development perspective. I only care about the current state of the code - and if I need to care about the previous state of the code, then I just check the history. The idea of having to understand the entire history of a codebase just to grok the current state seems insane.

> Perhaps it's time for them to rethink their entire strategy.

Their strategy works. Yours is unproven.

Just an observation :P

They work just fine because you don't need to log in to your electricity meter to turn your lights on.

If the functionality of your home depends on a privately owned, 3rd-party server, then I'd say it very much highlights the potential risks of IoT devices / applications.

Treat everything you read as an opinion unless it actually provides raw evidence / data. The mainstream media across the Western world at least is a total sham.

Levy a tax on the wealthiest to repay the loans of anybody who had to take one out over the last 50 years.

I think you're overestimating the number of people who are vegan for health reasons. People who are health conscious don't choose burgers - whether they're vegan or not, and most vegans who choose burgers are looking for taste, not nutrition.

It's a false equivalence. Burgers are not healthy - and very, very few people are looking for 'healthy burgers'. People are looking for 'tasty burgers', which is why so much effort is put into replicating the flavour and texture of meat.

Real leftists don't mindlessly believe the nonsense spouted by the intelligence agencies.

> That's a misrepresentation of the extent of Russia's espionage and propaganda campaigns during the elections. Considering Russia's propensity to kill people on UK soil, you'd think you'd be more willing to accept that their intelligence services can be brazen.

The Skripal narrative is nonsense too. The whole story is a farce.

> No, no evidence was produced that Trump or his campaign conspired with them. But massive amounts of evidence was produced that Russia tried to influence the election.

Having preferred outcomes and posting memes on Facebook isn't a crime under any law - national or international.

1) As the article suggests - in order to believe the US story, we have to simultaneously believe that the Russians are the most incompetent actors imaginable. Read the article - take it up with the author if you, for some reason, still believe the US narrative.

2) It is certainly relevant that the US is 'covering up' Russian hacking (read: US hacking, masked as Russian)

3) The article was focused on the conflation of the hacking / collusion narratives. Relax.

4) Obviously, but in the modern era 'anonymous sources' is largely synonymous with 'establishment propagandists'

5) Don't be disingenuous. The article discusses the specific differences between the two well-defined concepts, and raises the issue that one is not the other, and misrepresenting what actually happened is suspicious: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_netw...

6) That's how they work. It's not how they ought to work.

7) The Dawson article is explicitly about how the narrative takes shape and is pushed. The MH-17 reference is discussed and the issue is discussed in the comments underneath the article.

8) See above. Dawson's article is about propaganda tactics, not hacking.

9) See above. You're ignoring the entire thrust of the article, which is about how various issues and concepts become conflated into one sprawling incoherent mess that has so many internal inconsistencies you have to ignore obvious red flags in order to believe it.

10) The whole investigation is around electoral interference. Dawson's point is that the US routinely interferes in elections - and we actually have concrete, verifiable evidence proving it. We don't need to rely on an idiotic 'special counsel' to spend a few years discovering nothing and producing a pointless report.

Why would 'health' be a contributing factor for sales of vegan burgers but not non-vegan burgers?

I'm not sure what post you're reading - but every single one of the arguments in the post contradict a pivotal 'fact' in the anti-Russian, xenophobic propaganda effort.

Can you be more specific with your criticism?

It's all nonsense. The intelligence agencies are lying to you.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-rus...

There's no evidence. There's a handful of (allegedly) Russian facebook posts / members, and then spurious, inconsequential allegations about specific individuals.

The special counsel is an obvious stitch up which has achieved almost nothing aside from some irrelevant indictments, and which has produced no credible evidence of any conspiracy with Russia.

If your terms of investigation are just 'Russian interference', then you can classify literally anything which comes from a Russian as being 'interference'.

Is my post 'UK interference' in US politics? It's a joke. The entire world is laughing at the US over this.

My original comment was clearly anecdotal, which is not the same thing as being '100% feels'.

> Okay, I misunderstood, your message seemed to imply Russia doesn't try to spread propaganda online.

I don't really see how anything I said could be construed that way, but ok :P

Sure you're a not a fed yourself? :P /s

I didn't make any comment at all about whether Russia does the same. I assume that any major power is constantly propagandising its own people, and those of other countries.

The issue is that this propaganda has become a mainstream news story which is:

1) Endlessly repeated on-air by trusted individuals

2) Almost universally accepted as a truth by politicians and pundits despite there being zero concrete evidence of any Russian conspiracy

3) Rarely, if ever, challenged by politicians, pundits or guests on any mainstream news channel.