youareostriches

So in other words, all workers at the company still benefitted from having a union.

Can anyone figure out corresponding rsID/SNPs to these genes?

You can read the report, released by the Republican-controlled senate intelligence committee, for yourself:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

The governor of that swing state happened to be the brother of the Republican presidential candidate. That governor's secretary of state also purged the registrations of 90,000 black voters months before the election.

Al Gore never claimed that he was the only legitimate winner months before the election began and that any result in which he lost would be fraudulent.

In most countries around the world, Sanders' policies are mainstream.

This is both-sidesism, which is an intellectually lazy excuse to avoid taking action while appearing morally above the fray.

Trump literally uses cult-like techniques to control his followers, traffics in conspiracy theories, attacks as "fake" any news media which doesn't praise him effusively, and is actively undermining democracy itself by claiming that any votes against him are illegitimate. There is no vaguely liberal or left politician in US history who has done what Trump has.

Ethics applies here just as well. You are trying to equivocate the actions of those who actually attempt to kill those who disagree politically (aka “terrorism”) with attempts at eliminating platforms for wide dissemination of speech.

Fascism is a political strategy involving fear of change and scapegoating. If you’re trying to imply that use of force automatically translates to fascism, then you need to consider situations of community defense against fascists, which ultimately requires force. Self-defense and defending democratic rights is quite different from terroristic violence in the service of subverting democratic and human rights.

I reserve the term “violence” to situations described in Hannah Arendt‘s similarly-named essay, in which terroristic violence has historically been used by failing dictators against the legitimate power of the people as a whole.

No, sorry. Ostracizing others is absolutely not equivalent to attempted murder.

For those who wish to improve the OpenOversight project, the project is accepting contributions:

https://github.com/lucyparsons/openoversight

https://openoversight.lucyparsonslabs.com/about

>Meanwhile a friend of mine flat refused to even consider buying any such device, from any vendor, because he's concerned about being spied on.

I solved this problem for my HomePod by denying it outgoing internet access on my router. Bonjour-based AirPlay support works great, and if Siri somehow became activated by accident despite my disabling it on the device, nothing could be sent to Apple.

Did you read the article? It laments a lack of investment in:

* Affordable housing

* Public transit

* Green energy

Can you show me any of these items in the current Republican party platform, or even point to any local Republican-run government which has invested significantly in any of these?

Especially given that people will store their credit cards inside the stick-on leather sleeve held directly against the magnet.

Awesome. So instead of diabetes you can just get a massive continuous herpes outbreak.

>Like "what power source can we make fly that can do this output?"

How about actively reacting fissile material? I suppose there wouldn’t be much difference if the thing were already carrying a warhead.

Or maybe create the tip of the vehicle out of magnesium and ignite it immediately before launch.

The app needs to additionally make these features available as system services[1]. It shouldn't take more than a few extra lines of code to do so, and the advantage is that you can select text in any app to use as input.

1. https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...

>It can be written without using any of its more advanced features...

So can Perl.

>I asked if you thought they should be allowed.

...which is a question of governance.

Do the protesters control two branches of the federal government? Or indeed, any government at all? Do the protesters control the economic system by monopolizing most property and wealth? Do the protesters have access to a vast war-making apparatus?

Oh sure, the Daily Caller certainly has a right to complain. They just shouldn’t expect anyone to take them seriously about their intentions to report without bias.

> This one, in particular, that “antifa is a violent mob that is super hypocritical”, and also aliasing “antifa” and “blm” as coterminous. The truth is very different, but I fear that many in their libertarian audience have shifted a lot more authoritarian in recent years, so it’s a logical evolution. It’s just super disappointing to see them regurgitating the off-the-shelf battle lines instead of digging for real.

You’d think it ironic that a publication titled “Reason” would succumb to ideology, but the truth is that libertarianism (which, in the US, is seen as unequivocally right-wing) has always been used as a trojan horse for ideology. So they’ll attack a movement they perceive as being driven by an ideology (pro-social-welfare, pro-economic equality) which they oppose.

> The worst thing is many people do not realize this and treat police as "privileged sources", especially as many media outlets directly copy police press statements as facts instead of sending their own people to monitor and cross-check - because having "boots on the ground" costs money that too many outlets don't have any more.

There’s also the phenomenon of long-term crime-beat reporters taking on the perspective that the police are always correct, due to the implicit bias of reporting on “criminal behavior“. Moreover, such reporters need to maintain a working relationship with police in order to get the facts for their stories and often build friendships with police PR heads and prosecutors.

The Daily Caller has been managed by Tucker Carlson, who attacks protesters on the air virtually every day. The Daily Caller is known for right-wing troll articles. There’s no chance in hell that this publication would ever portray protesters favorably.

>Q seems like a harmless movement.

Q-anon is dangerous and baseless libel that undermines democratic institutions.

One person has already been murdered: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744244166/shooters-lawyer-he-...

Many others have been threatened with violence.

>It would be a red flag if Q denounced a group of people without justification

Which they have. Only well-known Democratic-party-affiliated personalities are implicated. The blatantly partisan narrative creates great potential for political violence.

And like many other conspiracy theories, the narrative is full of antisemitic tropes: https://www.adl.org/qanon

Finally, there's the obvious logical difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. The latter has actual evidence supporting it.

And the probability of this menagerie of preposterous claims actually turning out to be true would be close to zero due to the vast number of participants who would have to keep silent. The more people who participate in any given conspiracy, the less time it can be kept secret on average:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Many types of stem cells indeed undergo competitive selection within a tissue, and the victors differentiate into somatic cells. Reduced competition within this process is responsible for things like skin aging.

The “Tragedy of the Commons” is a straw man fallacy. The commons have historically always been collectively managed by the villagers grazing their animals on it. What you should be complaining about is the tragedy of an unmanaged (or in other words unregulated) commons.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2008/angus250808.html

That the oceans, a common resource, are not sufficiently regulated, suggests we need better global governance.

It's about time. Facebook has been violating this law for years.

>Voting is not a good way to get what you want. Your vote will have essentially no impact on the outcome of the election.

Voting is the most minimal way to participate democratically. Much more meaningful are advocating for your needs to elected representatives, speaking out publicly, and organizing/attending demonstrations.

But if you want to give up democracy to live under a dictatorship, certainly don't pretend that you actually speak for anyone other than yourself.

>The problem though is that there is no business model that supports federated social networks.

Communication is a public utility. They shouldn’t need to be operated for profit.