jsprogrammer

Personally, I think we are better off with the DNC's emails and any other communications from the peoples' leaders.

>You might care to consider that The New York Times seems to be souring on email.

You might be able to infer that I already have from my characterization of the article as a hit piece.

>As Steven Levy has observed, this sort of leak is a digital counterpart to what had been sought by the Watergate burglars by bugging the offices of the DNC — occasioned through hacking, rather than breaking and entering. Watergate thus looms not only as an example of a cover-up that was revealed through whistleblowing — the covered-up burglary was itself a roundly-denounced, and criminal, attempt to procure a political rival’s private conversations.

I'd never heard that the Nixon team planned to release their recordings to the public.

All of those reasons would apply to any other vehicle.

If the lander survived, it was expected to transmit. So far it seems that nothing like the expected transmission has been received.

Hit piece on fact gathering tools with meme drops.

Nice one NYT. Flagged.

Do you think that as old folks exit the market, inconsistences will be further tolerated?

>be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life

How can you judge what will 'well-adjust' someone? What does well adjusted even mean and how could viewing an image prevent someone from becoming it?

flights.google.com has been doing it for at least a week or two already.

I haven't seen it, but I hope that it also tells you 'when fares will decrease'.

It's not possible to tell everyone everything all the time. Further, everyone would be so spammed by everyone else, it's likely no one would be able to know what was going on.

It has become (and assuming we are still here in the future, it will become even moreso) easier to broadcast more. The primary reason people don't go around broadcasting everything is because they can't. Most people have been capable of broadcasting very little.

Consider what you are arguing (or at least, appear to be): "Yeah, we fucked you over in the past (and we may do so again in the future) and we didn't want to tell you about it (and tried not to [and will try to not tell you about it in the future]), but just play nice and give us this stuff we want, please?"

I see this argument continuing to be rejected wholesale.

I'd be more troubled by time and effort spent promoting ad hominem arguments and active censorship of discussions about theories that can actually be refuted (and the seemingly bare interest in even refuting them).

You really think Altman or Graham would work with Trump in the future?

(I won't be surprised if it happens either.)

Just ate it up, eh?

Networks don't remove, only copy.

Congress cannot prohibit speech or press. If it has been written down or spoken, then the US Constitution provides absolute legal justification for viewing it, copying it, and discussing it, without any restriction.

>submissions were uniformly good

><list of different reasons some submissions were not good [and in one case, you would have been picked if not for this not good quality]>

please.

What are the chances this submission was brigaded to the top^ spot?

^http://hnrankings.info/12725337/

>“We do have some information about the Republican campaign,” Mr. Assange said on Fox News. “I mean, from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second of the day.”

>http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/08/26/assange-trumps-ever...

Any valid experiment would assume a prior p-value of 1 (otherwise, what are you hypothesizing?).

A null hypothesis does not have a probability. It is either the case, or it isn't.

Edit (response to your comment below) [speech restricted at the moment]:

"If you can't dispute it, you won't."

Edit2 (response to your comment/edit below):

It's just a fact. Same as the other simple facts I have stated that remain completely undisputed.

Why would you hypothesize an experiment where you already biased yourself (I assume p = 0.01? what?) on the outcome?

If your hypothesis is that you will observe no differences, then you have implicitly assigned a prior of 1. Any experimental design will be reducible to this fundamental comparison.

The p-value of an ongoing experiment is a measurement of the reproducibility of the [measurement of the predicted observations of the] hypothesis (many hypotheses are not true though; in those cases the p-values are not valid reproducibility measurements).

Edit3:

>Your misunderstanding in a nutshell is demonstrated by "if you can't dispute it, you won't", which you seem to think means "if you won't dispute it, you can't", in clear violation of Bayes's rule.

I think that that is your misunderstanding.

Maybe the embassy cut him off?

It's not unlikely that a person could be targeted to have communications access disrupted across multiple devices and networks.

Here's Hillary's response to a question about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSTht4G4yJs

The likely fallout of assassination is your own death. I'm not sure there is anyone who feels like Julian's death is worth their own.

Hillary said[0] that she didn't recall joking about it, but that if she did say it, it would have been a joke.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSTht4G4yJs

P-value is not a confidence level, but a direct measure of reproducibility.

Edit time ran out:

If you can't dispute it, you won't.

That is essentially the function of p-values.

There is also the blatant fact that allegations being made are exactly the behavior he voluntarily described himself engaging in.

Typical mod treatment.

Can't even put up an argument.

Changing jobs doesn't reset good will and trust. When you change teams, you get to build even more good will and trust with others.

Because Donald Trump seems to call the accusations "completely fabricated". Why wouldn't you trust Donald Trump?

I'm pretty sure the last conversation I had in an office was recorded; and broadcast live.

There are many accusations that Trump engaged in the behavior he voluntarily described himself behaving in.

I don't think that matters though. He is already on the record encouraging (and bragging about) coercion; it is completely antithetical to libertarianism.

I wonder what his thoughts are about Trump nonconsensually groping women?

A libertarian could not support such violence/coercion.

[Edit: wow, off-topic?]