thunderfork

What's a "centrist" in a "Dem/repub" context, though? A non-voter?

Obscuring what one actually means makes it harder to figure out what one takes issue with.

It's genuinely unclear what this person is actually criticizing when they've draped it under so much indirection. They're biased towards... dems, or the left, or something, in some way that's not made clear, but we must know they're a Reasonable Judge of that bias because they've declared themselves a centrist..? It's all signalling, no signal.

And, of course, there's the whole rest of the planet to contend with, with a much broader view of the political spectrum...

I don't mean to be rude but given that I've seen several public statements about this "situation" from Paul dating back to Nov, I think you're commenting on a less complete dataset than I am.

These are uncorroborated, unevidenced accusations, which is probably why they went unquoted

If part of the product is "being on the right side of Internet drama", that kinda makes me trust them even less. A perverse incentive to get involved in stupid slapfights, escalate, and lie about it...

This can sometimes, in practice, be reasonable. If letting muh_dick_1488 open PRs means everyone else stops contributing, well, you're gonna have to pick a group to keep.

Wait is this actually an extension of the ~Nov ptorrone mastodon cryfest/freakout? I was kind of hoping that whatever manic episode was behind that had come to a close.

>vigilantism (what Renee Good was doing)

Good luck defining vigilanteism in a coherent way that includes "operating a motor vehicle near ICE agents".

You're putting words in my mouth that aren't there and I don't really think you're abiding by the "assume good faith" policy that HN sets out.

Journalists shouldn't "represent voters", they should represent truth.

What you're demonstrating is that "left" and "right" are not useful terms for this sort of conversation. If you mean Dems, say Dems. If you mean "they don't agree with me on xyz", say that.

Saying "they're biased towards the left" is bereft of actual meaning, with such a wide range of interpretation that it's not useful for discussion.

Pre-processing does not a codec make (this is why .gif is considered lossless even though you lose all that 24-bit colour goodness)

Yes, just like any new format, there's going to be an adoption period of about a decade before it reaches "ubiquitous-enough" support.

There's no such thing as an "activist class", just people with opinions. But people with opinions are enough to kill good journalism if they can't keep them in their pants.

If the bias is towards power, why would it ever be towards the left?

One of the greatest failings of journalism over the last bunch of decades has been that it takes too much of a neutral (or capital-oriented) position. You can follow this from the scores of puff pieces on the Vietnam War being, like, totally under control, dude, straight through to the modern endless refrain of "well, Steve says the Earth is round and Bob says the Earth is flat, but it's up to you to decide :)". Incuriosity and hypercredulity of access-journalists saving up trivia for their book deals, all with the "noble" goal of appearing "neutral" - it's been the death spiral of Western democracy.

Can I make a preemptive GoFundMe for the first person to Castle Doctrine an ICE home intruder?

Now, you might suggest that there's a perverse incentive here, but given that they're allowing what is essentially a bounty-for-murder fundraiser in this case...

If there was ever a quintessential American quality, "impossibly naive" would be it.

Look at the MOVE bombing, etc - if they wanted to glass the Bundys, they would have. Safety wasn't the reason they didn't.

I can't find a source for this at all... Any reporting on this?

You don't have to socially engineer someone who already doesn't care ;)

What kind of non-long-term outcomes are worth looking at?

Having worked in advertiser support: fb pages are basically an unsupported product and their support channels for advertising are farmed out to the lowest bidder.

They do bucket out support into spend tiers, although when I was there it was overall spend, not frequency

You understand that the set is greater than those two countries, thus you understand the problem already.

billionaires aren't a protected class in the UK (yet), afaik

So who's "our" in "coming for our data centers"?

I didn't tell you, I asked :)

From my POV you seem to be making a lot of inferences and then declaring them correct, based on some information about the original intent that I must not be privy to?

They didn't say "judges". I think the American justice system has a grandiose disregard for its impacts on the falsely accused.

You're doing the thing again, even now.

You're putting words into the other user's mouth, though, by assuming they mean "everyone" and not just "the innocent proportion of accused people".

So this seems like a good place to take your own advice, right?

The person you replied to didn't say "criminals are victims", either, so comprehending your post requires some inference.

Feel free to clarify what you did mean, it's a lot more helpful than insisting on what you didn't mean.