hnmonkey

This was so much more rich, detailed, and fantastic of a read than I initially expected it to be. I assumed it would just be a short-ish blog post on the style of the movie but it really goes into detail on so many aspects from the behind-the-scenes. And I learned that some places in Palm Springs are like some sort of time capsule oasis time traveling machine back to 50 years ago. It's so cool that these houses haven't been renovated or torn down to be replaced with something more modern in such a long span of time.

This must've taken a while to put together and Josh Holtsclaw did a great job with it.

Is there a place that captures these types of details for lots of other movies? If not, I think there's an opportunity to collect all of these types of design analysis in one place. I can't imagine the audience would be huge, but I would guess they're passionate and super interested in this type of thing. I didn't think I would be going into this article but I came away wanting more of these types of articles.

That's not actually a bad idea at all. What however if you're just doing simple variables manipulations in those 10 lines and not calling methods (I realize that you can override the math methods as well)? Is there a way to handle that easily or inject an exception into the begin block?

This might be a shot in the dark but does anyone know how to test error handling in Rails? Say for example you have a method that has a begin block with 10 lines of code in it and a rescue that does some logging or does a puts statement. How do you write a spec that tests the code within the rescue automatically without modifying the 10 lines of code? My google-fu on this one has failed.

You edited your comment to change what you said. You originally did not say that she had a 'hand in approving'. Why would you change it to make it seem like you were talking about something else that you didn't originally say?

The only comments you're leaving on my comments are calling me out and attacking me... I've cited multiple things in this post and each time they seem to be ignored or blown off.

> The Guccifer narrative supports (weakly) the idea of a link between Russia and the emails.

Gufficer is literally a person or group of persons in Russian GRU (military intelligence). It's about as direct a link as you can get and the American government came out and said this.

> Do you really believe the Iraq Warlogs revealing death, torture, war crimes, and lying is somehow worse than literally subverting American democracy in a presidential primary?

It's interesting... you're asking me if I really believe something that I didn't ever say and implying I did. I actually compared the Wasserman-Schultz situation (which I think is incredibly overblown) to a sovereign foreign government's military intelligence corrupting the American government. And yes, when comparing those two things, the latter is far more worse.

The second paragraph wholly refers to Snowden as referenced in the first sentence of it.

You seem to be arguing incredibly uncharitably. I simply said the military planned it and based on the article I posted, I am 100% accurate. It doesn't take away from the military planning that the CIA also had a hand in planning it. I also never said the military led it, the thing you are arguing I did.

Where is it preached in western society that the inherent value of men is zero? Men can raise children too and last I heard it usually takes a man to help create that child also.

The military explicitly played a critical role in planning, leading, and executing this.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Opera...

U.S. Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) and at least 6 members from JSOC planned it in coordination with the CIA.

I never said that I questioned that in the slightest. Not sure where you get that at all.

I did however basically say that she did not send the team to get him. That's what a President signs off on and military leaders plan.

There are multiple posters doing this throughout this post. Finding some way to discredit any evidence after they've asked for evidence and then were presented with it.

Do you have evidence of this from a credible source? If so, I think it would be a hell of a scoop.

No, that's not at all what that person was doing. They acknowledged the war crimes and then also said he's a criminal that should be dealt with. It would've been whataboutism if he had said that the war crimes don't matter because of XYZ.

You've now said 2 totally different things are medieval. I responded to the other one so I won't respond to this one's new definition.

Very interesting. Because she was in the room that meant she sent the team to kill Bin Laden?

By your logic and the parent poster's logic ~13 people aside from the President and the laptops and coffee cups were also just as responsible for sending the team to kill him.

Ahh, so you're just going to ignore the evidence when presented after you asked for it and attack the people who said it to the country. Got it.

Medieval? It's what every country has been doing forever. Every spy agency on earth does this and has done this since their inception. It's practically their MO.

So... you do live in that world.

I'm not going to bother responding to you anymore. You're definitely twisting my words into something you'd like to attack.

There's literal proof throughout this post. In fact, I posted some too.

There are definitely levels of threats to American democracy. If DWS refers to Wasserman-Schultz then it pales in comparison to an enemy foreign state's military intelligence corrupting the American government.

Good question. I don't.

But it's much more unlikely that he'd be an actual Russian intelligence employee since they're usually Russian I think.

The more simple answer is that he's just being run by them through money, blackmail, extortion, or some other leverage. Why employ someone when you can just get them to do what you want with simple threats?

I believe it because there's a lot of evidence of this including literally in this post and in my other comments.

Huh? I said I wasn't defending the dirty laundry and that there's definitely some illegal stuff in there that should be prosecuted.

The fact that he won't be able to air any government's dirty laundry is for the better. I can guarantee Russia will continue to air other country's dirty laundry with impunity in the future, with or without Assange.

I agree with you somewhat. It seems that he initially wanted to buck the system and expose secrets for the purpose of exposing secrets and anarchy. It's possible this was a fantastic cover and he's always worked at someone's behest. Agreed completely with your 2nd phase.

I don't think it works for Snowden. I actually believe he was ardently an American patriot who wanted to expose what he thought were illegalities and essentially corruption but didn't think he's survive or get a fair trial here (both of which are unfortunately very possible). I don't think he ended up in Russia at his choosing. I believe he had an original destination in mind (correct me if I'm wrong) but wasn't able to get there before his visa/passport was revoked? Something like that.

Yes, including literally in this thread (copied this link from another comment): https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-the-latest-mue...

And many others, including former CIA director Pompeo too: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-c... Google 'pompeo wikileaks' and you'll get a ton.

You seem to be ignoring the evidence people are putting in this post and continually defending WikiLeaks. They're not an altruistic organization.

Asset. Spies work directly for Russian military intelligence. Assets are the ones they control.

While some of the things that were exposed were certainly illegal and should be handled as such, it's hard to feel any empathy for a guy who is essentially a Russian asset. If you think of him as an extension of Russian military intelligence conducting propaganda wars against its adversaries then it becomes a lot easier to understand why prosecuting him is a genuinely good thing. Russia airing the dirty laundry of others is good for Russia. Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not defending the dirty laundry I'm just saying that the intent behind the messenger in this situation is not at all altruistic.

Sorry! I really misinterpreted what you meant to say and think we're actually probably of the same mind on all this.

Take care.

Ahhhhhhhhh. Yes I suppose that is a possible take on what they said. It didn't seem at all clear to me that this was the case from my reading of it.

keyle, if this is your message I'm totally sorry about my interpretation.