hnmonkey

Exactly. We're controlled by a handful of pharma/healthcare companies currently. I'd put more faith in the government being on the other side than those companies.

It's not as lucrative for some people that way.

If you're the only customer for their businesses, yes you can waive a magic wand and say now you'll get 40% less and deal with it. Especially if you're the government and it's a law. It's like Walmart with their suppliers. If you're the biggest baddest around you can kinda do what you want.

Certainly it will have impacts on R&D but are you suggesting that new drugs won't get created anymore? Don't drugs get created all throughout the EU?

I disagree somewhat with what this astronaut is saying, but generally speaking I think astronauts are supposed to be quite intelligent, especially about issues related to space. I was under the impression that each of them had excellent skills and knowledge in at least one area that benefits their missions and of course strong understanding of space-related things.

So, to answer your question I don't think it's the case that it's similar to celebrities talking about moral and political issues in any way. I assume that he's pretty well informed but just has a totally different view that's less forward-thinking than others of his astronaut brethren.

I don't think values means that at all. Some of the most evil people in history had values too, but they were considered awful by others. Many times in history their values from their perspective were noble, yet to others they were murdering people for their thoughts or speech.

The link is a perception one. To people who view those original statements as negative ones they're not going to care about anything positive and the positive ones won't minimize the negatives ones for them usually. Therefore, if there are negative statements generally some people will find that they outweigh any positives said.

I assumed the link was pretty obvious... to paint a vivid picture if you have a person or group that says nice things most of the time about puppy dogs but just once says some hateful nazi rhetoric, someone out there will find that the negative outweighs the positive and won't care that there are positive statements.

Edit - I probably should've qualified my statement in my original post to better state that position. I can see now that it seems my statement is an absolute for all people. Not my intent.

What 'far more broken, dangerous, and sinister' things have filled the void left by Judeo-Christian values? There's a long history of Judeo-Christian values being pretty broken, dangerous, and sinister themselves. The Spanish Inquisition is just 1 of many examples.

Because this isn't a zero-sum game. If you say 9,999 good things on the internet and 1 offensive thing people aren't going to say 'oh... but he said 9,999 good ones so we should ignore the one that we find offensive'.

The internet is a place where usually people can state their views openly. That is happening. However, what's also happening is people find his views and comments disgusting and they're commenting on it. Totally within their rights to do.

And it's not as unthinkable as you say at all that an individual or organization would attack others for what content they create. Since there has been an internet there's been people who attacked others for their content. I'm not sure what internet you saw 20 years ago but it wasn't the same I saw.

If his channel falls into a satire category then the category has massively expanded these days. Outrage porn is not satire and is just going for shock value. It's not satirizing anything, which is often a commentary on how absurd something is and not just saying something disgusting to get views.

If someone can choose negative things one says, it means that they said negative things that outweigh the good ones. It doesn't take many negative things sometimes (often just 1) to be enough to outrage people. No one is going to ignore the negative things because he also happened to say good things (subjectively of course).

You seem to be saying that they're cherry picking the negative things which means they can't be 'unfounded claims' like you say later.

Yeah, that line of thinking is absurd. He probably got nervous right before he left the company and gave them the USB after hastily trying to delete the files. In which case, the parent commenter would seem to imply that he should be let go because he got nervous after stealing things he shouldn't have access to.

I imagine his comments have been downvoted because he's cherrypicking information from the article to defend the man across multiple comments. See the parent comment to your comment where he ignores that he did access and download files he had no right to access and instead states exactly the opposite according to the facts (in point 2).

Where is this partisanship coming from? There's no mention of being liberal or conservative upstream from this comment but this comment (and others of yours) are attempting to call out one party in the US and throwing fault their way. It's odd since it isn't a thing in the original article probably because it's not about the US at all.

Yes, the midwest people never think the progressive wing is listening no matter what and no matter how much listening and actual solution creation happens. That's really more on them than anyone else. The party that had plans to move people from coal shoveling to solar installers? Democrats. The part that didn't actually care about the people in the midwest and just lied to them that their jobs would be fine or would come back? Republicans. Their jobs are going the way of the dodo right now and have been over the past 2 years.

What's the progressive wing opinion on white men? There isn't one... like at all. It's not a thing that exists currently as a goal of theirs to focus on. Are you ascribing a white men opinion to Democrats from somewhere?

China is the unofficial name for the PRC and is widely known to be a country. I mean... everyone agrees China is a country and you're just talking about using a more official name for it vs not doing that. You're the only person I've ever seen saying 'China is not even a country.'

I don't think the Queen actually has any power to do anything anymore. She's more of a figurehead and I would guess is nowhere near deciding anyone's fate (if she ever was) much less deciding political races.

'just media'?

Media is potentially the most valuable conduit for information for the human race currently. Newspapers, social media, news organizations, tv, apps, advertisements, and a million others. There isn't a 'just' related to media because it's so powerful and pervasive. It's a pipeline into 7 billion people's brains.

In what scene? I don't think he actually did... I'm pretty sure when they're trying to crack the guy's password they're using video to record and zoom in to watch him and he's blocking it.

Ricky was in HBO's Deadwood and was fantastic. This guy was just such a good actor in each of the movies he was in. Then I found out a while back that he was actually an incredible magician also. He's so much fun to watch... definitely a big loss for humanity.

Not saying that this is carrying anything malicious at all, but there's certainly a chance that a tool to clear out telemetry or something else critical in the bowels of the OS is sending info back to that group now or can be malicious. Just a friendly warning to be weary about these types of applications.

Oh you should. It's a great movie. Absolutely weird and surreal but great. Some of the themes you'll pick up from it are pervasive across tons of other movies and genres all condensed into one wild ride.

But why didn't you just google it or look it up? In the time it took to write out this comment you could've googled it and seen the brief one-sentence description that appears and explains it. I get not doing that in the moment but you seem to be implying this happened a while back and you've been okay just assuming they're all going and eating soup for lunch. Were you never curious about it after that initial invitation?

It interestingly starts off with a disclaimer about working for Huawei that could indicate that they're going to speak against their parent company, and then just defends them completely and says that because of the American/Iraqi WMD fiasco about 20 years ago their company is above-board (how this is related or provides some sort of defense is beyond me). It's certainly devoid of all of the criticism of Huawei and cherry-picks a single audit of their code.

Taken with an appropriate amount of salt indeed... a metric ton.

Great analysis. Yeah, the family could've easily not seen what happened with Syndrome, though it would be weird if he was flying away with the kiddo and then suddenly the kiddo drops (it's not his MO).

Very interesting... the version of the movie I saw has a scene where the family is in a car and the mom is talking to the babysitter and she's leaving freakier and freakier voicemail messages about JJ. Eventually she says something like 'your baby has special needs.' It wasn't super long and didn't show anything from the babysitter's perspective I don't think. Maybe it was cut out of some other versions.

You're right that they don't seem like a family displaced at the track meet. Everything seemed to be back to normal. Given all the chaos it's possible they never talked to the babysitter but if I were in those shoes I would certainly have found out why she freaked out at least at some point after the end of I1.

Good analysis though. Appreciate you digging in on that.

It's honestly not my style, but they do look beautiful. I'm certainly surprised about the price... a little more expensive than what I thought it would be but they do look high quality. Congrats on finding something that you guys love to have in your house. I think a lot of people go through life never having that type of thing and just haphazardly collect things.

It's been a while since I've seen the original but what threw me for a loop was that at the end of the first movie didn't they basically find out that baby had powers? I thought there was a conversation with the babysitter where she was freaking out and told them that their baby had special needs. Wouldn't you as a parent ask your babysitter at some point in the next few days/weeks/months what she meant about your child given they also saw (maybe not perfectly, but still could see something was up) the villain just had your baby and could've easily escaped with him yet something happened in midair to defeat him? I'm just surprised that they tossed that part of the plot out the window for the 2nd movie. It certainly took me out of the story a bit while I was wondering why they were rehashing that they're all just finding out that the baby has these crazy powers when it seemed likely they would've already known.

Yes! This is great and certainly seems to have a long list of really interesting articles.

Thank you so much.

This is not exactly the same in my mind as the original link, however it's great in its own way! It's a very cool analysis.

Thank you for the link

Yes! The Jetsons. I knew there was something so familiar about all of this. You're 100% spot on with that and I don't know why it didn't hit me to associate it with that cartoon.