Why? So that they’re officially convicted so that Trump can pardon them?

Not a problem. They lose one voter (if the conviction sticks) and strengthen the fanaticism of their victimization narrative. To them, that says that the deep state just covers up for the antifa, and suppresses their voice.

All right, Texan Republicans. You have your moderately attractive blond white girl sacrifice to rally behind. You can do something about this now.

Contrary to our stereotype, the vast majority of Americans don’t resort to gun violence or the threat of gun violence to get what they want.

The gravy seals you see on TV are just cos playing and would turn tail and run if they ever really had to put it all on the line. Or even if the local police simply didn’t enable them.

Eh. Honestly, the line of “questions” was rather stupid.

“Why aren’t you lobbying to make your business irrelevant” is essentially what the interviewer pushed aggressively.

Sure, I get calling out a CEO for deflecting tough questions with corporate BS. But it was a pretty dumb line of questioning in the first place.

Why isn’t Google lobbying for privacy protections?

Why isn’t Comcast lobbying for net neutrality?

Just make your statement and ask for comment. “Our listeners consider Intuits lobbying against tax reform that would benefit tax payers to be adversarial to their customers. What would you say to them?”

I don’t know. I haven’t seen the shirt. That’s the point.

Just because I agree with the text of the shirt doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to wear in an enclosed area with a bunch of stressed out people known for drama just like this.

Eh. Intentionally incitive clothing is banned for a good reason. You don’t want drama from political rivalry happening in an air bus hours away from an airport.

I don’t mind the policy of “STFU for X hours until you get to your destination”. This includes people trying to incite you.

Whether or not this is extreme enough to warrant incoming this rule is another matter. As the person you responded to implied, there may be a way to present that opinion in a highly inciteful way thats not fully realized by the wording alone, so they’re withholding judgement. That seems prudent.

Their Spanish channels are ridiculously overrun with right wing propaganda. My wife is Venezuelan, and it’s crazy the crap her parents believe. And they are sweet, non-hateful people. But they live in a little bubble where all the news fed to them is through a right wing filter, and they don’t believe it because it’s not like they’re watching Fox News or something.

And can ride the grift train for at least a season, and since this is election denial related, every 2 years at the least.

These dicks will sell out our democracy for a ticket on that train in a heartbeat

If all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.

Psychiatrists are infamously bad at diagnosis. They better served treating than diagnosing.

letthemfight.png

Because basement losers can’t conquer and raze libraries to the ground.

The internet has shown that assumed anonymity result in people fucking with other people’s lives for the hell of it. Viruses, trolling, etc. This is just the next stage of it because of a new easy to use tool.

Yes, this is what many of us worry will become the internet in general. AI content generated on from AI trained on AI garbage.

AI bots can trivially outpace humans.

He’ll have to spend an assistant’s time fraudulently inflating his vacation home(s) destroyed by the hurricane so that he profits. And then spend all that time and brain space deciding what he wants in the rebuild.

Billionaires suffer too.

“Scapegoat” is the term. Humanity has always loved a good scapegoat to blame all their problems on. Whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter. Has never mattered.

You mean that warning that they all give when you’re installing a 3rd party app? And the warning is more aggressive when it’s an unregistered (licensed?) App.

They all do it. Windows, MacOS for sure. I don’t remember seeing it on Linux, but I’m usually not installing sketchy binaries on Linux.

Mostly fair, but I’ll push back on the security issue.

Side loading an apk is extremely dangerous, and an easy attack vector.

While there are plenty of malicious apps that make it on the Google store, they do attempt to do some automated and even manual curation. This is fact.

I think it’s wholly appropriate to warn the user that they’re bypassing that standard, if imperfect, Google security coverage. And granting extensive app permissions is done at your own risk.

3rd party app stores may do their own security curation as well, and it’s up to them to communicate that and educate their users on why they still get the Google warning.

Because we should wipe away 2 decades of history and pretend the next thing is flawless on release?

Edge came in with a freight train of baggage, and didn’t make it. It’s absurd to frame this otherwise.

And Google established a lot of the standards that were both open and long living.

Yeah, Google has strayed far from the “Do no evil” philosophy in the last decade. But this rewriting of history to praise IE and demonfy Chrome from that era is ridiculous.