Slashdot Mirror

but that point is that is false sensationalism.

yes there was a massacre, yes it was horrible. but real count was 200 or more, not 10,000

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/0...

or check wikipedia, they have 200 to 10,000....haha quite a range

you've fallen victim to believing U.S. sensationalism and propaganda

What natural cause would produce plastics found in and on flying insects? In this case, correlation absolutely does mean causation, because there can be man-made plastics are the only possible explanation. But stick to your conspiracy theories. You are in good company.

Interestingly, Trump is actually deporting real-life Nazis where President Bush and President Obama let him hang out in the US, even though the Nazi had been stripped of his citizenship. Yet somehow deporting real-life Nazis makes President Trump a Nazi? It's like on another thread where someone told me you can consider Hispanics white, and that is why Trump is racist for wanting to build a wall on the Southern border to keep white people out.

Bizzaro-land. But I guess that's par-for-the-course in hard-core US Leftist mentality!

Well he hates foreign Nazis, but loves his home-grown Nazis, or at least thinks the are very fine people. Bu those are probably hard-core US Leftist according to your weird worldview.

Interestingly, Trump is actually deporting real-life Nazis where President Bush and President Obama let him hang out in the US, even though the Nazi had been stripped of his citizenship. Yet somehow deporting real-life Nazis makes President Trump a Nazi? It's like on another thread where someone told me you can consider Hispanics white, and that is why Trump is racist for wanting to build a wall on the Southern border to keep white people out.

Bizzaro-land. But I guess that's par-for-the-course in hard-core US Leftist mentality!

Too late, bro. Read it and weep: China’s Sea Control Is a Done Deal, ‘Short of War With the U.S.’

I absolutely agree. We should especially investigate these transgressions by the white house considering they campaigned on email security.

the governments over there had been accepting Apple as paying it's taxes for over a decade

Not so, this is about back taxes.

"Apple Owes $14.5 Billion in Back Taxes to Ireland, E.U. Says" - your source proves his point in the fucking headline.

And given how rapidly the definition is expanding, and is already basically defined by the 'survivor',

There is currently a broohaha in Great Britain regarding the Liberal Party and their adoption of a statement on antisemitism. The party has modified the IHRA standard definition, which defines anti-semitism as: "... a certain perception of Jews ...". The Liberal Party has adopted a modified statement which changes a few of the examples in the IHRA document, and for that the leadership are being branded as antisemites. During the still-ongoing discussion, it has been pointed out that the intent of the perpetrator is completely irrelevant and that is the "perception" by the victim that is all that is relevant.

I point this out because it is a direct parallel to sexual harassment. It is not the intent, it is the perception.

Before anyone wants to argue with me about whether the intent is important or not, I'll point out that I am only reporting what IS, not how it SHOULD BE. My observation of what IS comes from having to attend seminars dealing with the subject and observation of the policies being implemented where I work. It's not an uncommon set of policies in any way. Those who have attempted to argue during those seminars that intent is crucial have always lost that argument -- with the people who will enforce the policies. This is not a hypothetical discussion with a SCOTUS candidate asking how he would rule on a certain topic, it is a clear statement from existing "judges" how they will rule on one.

Statements that look patently obvious and logical that intent is required or that evidence needs to be provided are, well, nice, but they do not reflect IS, only SHOULD BE.

the governments over there had been accepting Apple as paying it's taxes for over a decade

Not so, this is about back taxes.

You missed the third choice, which is only made possible by the existence of mostly free global markets: Plant apple orchards in countries where labor is cheap, then bulldoze our apple orchards and replace them with food crops that can be mostly harvested by automation (wheat, corn, etc.). Then, import the apples while exporting grains.

More magical thinking. Agriculture simply doesn’t work that way.

Sure it does—not over the course of months, but it very much works that way. Historically, most of our fruit in the U.S. was grown here in the U.S. These days, most of it is imported. Since 2010, the amount of fruit produced in the U.S. has declined by nearly 30%, while the amount of grain increased by nearly 40%. And over the last few decades, decreased demand for tobacco has resulted in tobacco farms switching to various grains, demand for neat gadgets has replaced apple orchards with Apple office buildings, etc.

For the most part, fertile topsoil is fertile topsoil. As long as there is enough root structure to prevent runoff, you can pretty much grow whatever is needed wherever you need to grow it, unless what you're trying to grow has specific temperature limitations or sun hour requirements. You can grow apples anywhere from Alaska all the way down to the equator. You grow them differently in different places (aggressive pruning and annual leaf stripping at the equator, for example), but they will grow anywhere that humans can realistically survive. Some other fruits are more picky, like bananas and citrus (which don't like cold temperatures), but these have always been largely grown outside the U.S. anyway. And certain berries don't like heat, but there are varieties that are significantly more tolerant than others. So farmland isn't perfectly fungible, but it is pretty close.

To be fair, some older fruit orchards may be unsuitable for growing some other types of plants because of lead arsenate contamination in the soil, but that's sort of a side issue, and an artifact of poor government oversight over pesticides, rather than anything fundamental about the soil. And obviously, digging up tree roots is a pain, too, but it can be done, and indeed, that's the only way that new farmland gets created, typically, i.e. it's a common thing to do. It makes little difference whether you're felling a forest or an orchard. And, of course, most of the orchards are near the coast, where land is valuable, so a lot of it is making way for housing, rather than farmland. But that land is then being replaced by irrigation pushing agriculture out into previously unusable areas elsewhere in the country, so on the whole, we're gaining agricultural output.

From The Best and Worst Moments of the 2018 Emmys:

“Our network NBC has the most nominations of any broadcast network,” Mr. Che said. “Which is kind of like being the sexiest person on life support.”

Story form NYT detailing how Clinton was bribed MASSIVELY by Russians to set State Department policy while she was SOS.

No, its the Clintons that are Russian puppets. Unlike you, or Muller, I can show proof of my claims.

On care anyone is curious what a $110 million painting looks like:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

That's one of the most expensive paintings ever auctioned. The artist died of a drug overdose at the age of 27.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/0...

You just call anyone you don't like "fascist".

No, professor, it is you who does that. I call Chinese "Fascist" because that is, what they are — by the very definition of the term. Unlike the Communist/Socialist China of the late 20th century, today's China is Fascist: capitalist markets exist — and move the economy — but they are tightly controlled by the government. The secondary indications — like rising nationalism and persecution of minorities (complete with ethnic cleansing) are there too. And — and this is the point most important to this discussion — neither a person nor a company can survive after displeasing the government in general and the Dear Leader in particular.

Up until Trump's election, the US was going in that same direction (and not fast enough for some people). One hopes, he'd be able to survive politically long enough to cripple the creep towards Fascism for a few generations — by nominating judges with a similar pessimism over the government's power.

But, whether he succeeds in that or not, his very attempts make him anti-Fascist. That Google's CEO dislikes Trump for his imaginary Fascism, while willingly cooperating with the actual Fascists of China is a sign of deep malaise of this country's elites — both real, like this very bright Mr. Brin, and the wannabes, like a certain much dimmer teacher who is so wanting in education.

TECHNOLOGY; Temp Workers At Microsoft Win Lawsuit

or Fedex...

<a href="https://www.oasisadvantage.com/blog/risky-business-misclassifying-workers-may-be-more-costly-than-ever"> risky businessnmisclassifying workers may be more-costly-than-ever </a>

or Mears Limousine

<a href="https://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-mears-lawsuit-settlement-20180905-story.html">Mears settles lawsuit with hundreds of chauffeurs who claim they were underpaid </a>

or Apple

<a href="http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/217738/employee+rights+labour+relations/Staffing+Agencies+Using+Independent+Contractors+Face+Misclassification+Liability+And+Expose+Clients+To+Undue+Risks">Staffing Agencies Using Independent Contractors Face Misclassification Liability And Expose Clients To Undue Risks </a>

That's nice, the largest nation in the world produces the most reseach papers got it. But are they mostly crap papers? https://qz.com/978037/china-pu... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... https://www.nature.com/news/20... Did the author of that peper just use numbers of papers written, just as they only used email addresses from within China to count Chinese papers?

But this year, that meant calling it the iPhone XS. Never mind that XS is the abbreviation for extra small — not an adjective Apple wants for its $1,000 phones — but say “XS” out loud. In the age of smartphone addiction and devices that cost as much as some refrigerators, “iPhone Excess” may not be great for branding.

Instead, the new iPhone XS is pronounced “iPhone 10S,” or as the audience at the Apple event quickly realized, “iPhone Tennis.”

Add the new iPhone XS Max to the mix and you’ve got “iPhone Tennis Match.”

No comment on the iPhone XR. Maybe the "iPhone Tennis Rogue - Serena Williams Edition"?

I don't think this factors in what I believe is a higher likelihood for scientific papers originating in China to involve plagiarism and/or fraud.

Yeah, this is what I came in here to say. It seems like all the obviously fake science that's not printed in an Elsevier journal is coming out of China. Is China actually producing more quality research, or just more paper output?

Apple is certainly to be avoided. What Apple does to its users is also an instance of a much larger problem—proprietary (nonfree, user-subjugating) software—and we should all avoid nonfree software virtually all of the time. The only exception is for those who are reverse engineering the software to write a free replacement, but this requires controlled circumstances and is highly unlikely to come into play for most computer users. For most computer users proprietors and service providers are likely best avoided: Netflix treats users no better (movie DRM is rampant, Netflix's website conveys nonfree software to its users), nor do many popular game publishers, or any of a number of other software proprietors. This has been true for decades.

However services aren't free or nonfree, they raise different issues, and one needs to be clear to separate the benefits and harms services provide from the software used with the service. It's possible the harms of the service depend on nonfree software. I wouldn't give Apple money for a chance to possibly watch a movie even if iTunes were free software or if I could use a different free software program to interact with the iTunes service. I don't like the tracking that comes with streaming media, I don't like the nonfree software typically used to access streaming media, and I don't want the other software involved in typical use of the temporarily-accessed media (such as remotely erasing copies of books and promising never to do this again unless ordered to by the state, both of which Amazon did). I much prefer structural analysis which lets me know what other parties are capable of doing (whether they use their power or not) and looking into how they treat their customers and business partners. Hence I'm more likely to read books (not DRM-riddled eBooks) in privacy whenever and wherever I choose.

More reading supporting your argument can be found here:
nytimes.com

[sarcasm mode on]

Yep we see lots of examples of working single payer solutions.

[sarcasm mode off]

Our solution is broken, but many 1st world systems are broken. Just giving everyone access to healthcare doesn't necessarily improve healthcare. We have many more issues beyond just that. We need to come up with effective policies for handling wait times, delays for essential testing and services, the inevitable loss of incoming medical professionals when incomes stagnate or fall, and the lack of innovation in medicine that artificially deflating costs will cause (ever wonder why many of these countries sickest people seek help in the US)?

There is no reason to trust either a tracker (a more honest name for a mobile phone or cell phone along the lines of the time-honored wisdom of calling things by their proper names—we should recognize what those devices do most). There is no reason to trust the Echo or Home spy speakers either. The same reason applies—users don't control their computers when those computers running proprietary (nonfree, user-subjugating) software. There's nothing to be gained in a distraction over which computer is more trustworthy. The goal should be to respect all computer users' software freedom for all of their computers. No matter what network analysis reveals about any of the spy speakers today (and no matter how thorough the analysis is) because that result could be rendered obsolete as quickly as Amazon can get Echo devices to install a software update (the Amazon Echo appears to have a universal backdoor as it installs updates automatically). The FSF looked into this and remarked "We have found nothing explicitly documenting the lack of any way to disable remote changes to the software, so we are not completely sure there isn't one, but it seems pretty clear."

As for evidence of turning the Amazon Echo into a listening device, it appears this was done by a party other than Amazon. Again on this the FSF remarks, "It was very difficult for them to do this. The job would be much easier for Amazon. And if some government such as China or the US told Amazon to do this, or cease to sell the product in that country, do you think Amazon would have the moral fiber to say no?". Amazon is the same organization that remotely erased people's legally-acquired books about which the FSF remarked

One of the books erased was 1984, by George Orwell. Amazon responded to criticism by saying it would delete books only following orders from the state. However, that policy didn't last. In 2012 it wiped a user's Kindle-Swindle and deleted her account, then offered her kafkaesque "explanations."

The wisdom of software freedom—a user's freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software—remains apt and clear: proprietary software is untrustworthy by default.

Here ya go.

U.S. Widens Russia Sanctions Amid Calls They Don’t Go Far Enough

Russia keeps getting hit with sanctions. Do they make a difference?

Ruble Tumbles as U.S. Sets Out New Sanctions on Russia

Those sanctions are largely the work of the Obaman admin, Congress and the EU, not the Orange Emperor. Trump is itching to abolish them.

Here ya go.

U.S. Widens Russia Sanctions Amid Calls They Don’t Go Far Enough

Russia keeps getting hit with sanctions. Do they make a difference?

Ruble Tumbles as U.S. Sets Out New Sanctions on Russia

Hmmm, should I believe a daily beast article or video and high school physics class. Decisions decisions.

You've been around long enough to know that it's best not to challenge my citations. Don't like the Daily Beast article? OK.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

https://q13fox.com/2018/05/02/...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Or, you could just look it up yourself. You can look at the court record.

If you believe the models, they say that as the Earth warms, the poles will warm more than the tropics. This means that the temperature difference between the poles and tropics will decrease. What drives storms? Temperature differences. The bigger the difference, the stronger the storm. So, if you believe the models, the intensity of storms will *decrease* due to global warming, not increase as everyone keeps saying. If you believe the models.

The great thing about an amorphous hypothesis like Global Warming/Climate Change is that it can be said to be causing whatever's going on right now. Hurricanes? Climate Change! Tornadoes? Climate Change! Volcanoes? Climate Change! Roger Federer losing the U.S. Open? Climate Change!

The scale of the practices involved?? Are you shitting me? The scale of US subsidies for its industries vastly exceeds the scale of subsidies in China (and every other country in the world).

You are woefully ignorant.
"The local government has proved instrumental, doling out more than $1.5 billion to Foxconn to build large sections of the factory and nearby employee housing. It paved roads and built power plants. It helps cover continuing energy and transportation costs for the operation. It recruits workers for the assembly line. It pays bonuses to the factory for meeting export targets. All of it in support of iPhone production."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

You listed a bunch of things you said were "unfair trading practices"; now you appear to be describing China's use of them as unfair, but America's as fair because you do it less, and they did it first.

Nope. I'm saying that a checklist perspective is a naive and inadequate perspective. The magnitude also needs to be gauged when considering whether a "predatory" line has been crossed of not.

Not to mention banning straws is actively fucking over people without the motor-skills necessary to drink from a glass.

Nobody is banning straws. .

Correction: http://www.foxnews.com/politic... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... https://www.fastcompany.com/40...

Yes, there is a lot ov virtue signaling going on, while the countries that are doing the actual plastic pollution continue unabated.

For me, it is a matter of whether we want to pat ourselves on the back, perhaps give out friend of the earth trophies, or actually fix the problem.

Banning plastic straws in the US is simply not going to accomplish anything.

Sorry Trump, "Those jobs aren't coming back": https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...

Even if the factories could be built here for a reasonable cost, even if the ecosystem of manufacturing suppliers could be recreated here, even if there were enough people looking for work, Americans would not want to take jobs working at such factories even at average factory wages.

Try to bring those jobs back here and welcome to $2000 iphones.

https://www.google.com/search?...

https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-wa...
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

It actually was. And anyone criticizing it for the "OMG Elon Is A Pothead Promoting Drug Usage!" notion clearly never watched it. It's practically an anti-pot ad. Musk is offered a joint (which he has to ask if it's a joint), takes one puff, doesn't even inhale, looks at it, shakes his head no, passes it back - then later on they discuss marijuana, and Musk says that he doesn't like it because it inhibits his ability to get things done and have a meaningful effect on the world.

But of course, that doesn't make for a clickbait headline, now does it?

Seriously, this Slashdot "summary" is one of the clickbatiest, most misleading summaries I've seen in ages. Also poorly copyedited - starting to talk about marijuana, then acting like it's going into a summary about pot, but instead going back to Morton. Naturally, their quoting of Morton cuts out before his line, "I want to be clear that I believe strongly in Tesla, its mission, and its future prospects, and I have no disagreements with Tesla’s leadership or its financial reporting." - because, hey, why bother to mention a trivial thing like that when you have a hit piece to right?

And of course, there's no mention of the in-detail reporting on why Morton left. Specifically, Morton was brought in because his background was privatizations. But he felt like nobody appreciated his ideas as Tesla and he was being ignored. His ignored ideas included, and I quote, "advice about capitalizing the company through other means rather than going private". Had Morton bothered to listen to a single earnings call, they would have heard the Tesla executive team repeatedly and strongly ruling out capital raises from equity; instead that their capital expenditures going forth are to be from profit and debt. He seems to have misunderstood that privatization wasn't a means, it was a goal: to eliminate short-sellers, and thus the financial incentive to FUD the company - as well as to eliminate the end-of-quarter rush and allow the company to stay more long-term strategically focused.

By the way, as for executives leaving in general: Tesla has 23 people at the VP level or higher - we're not even counting department heads here. The average stay of a high level executive is around 4 years, and less in Silicon Valley. Executive departures will happen. Get used to it.

Of course, Slashdot concludes with a paragraph that is an epic smear, curiously sourced from some random person commenting on some other site's message board (is that a first here?):

It's now obvious that everything Elon tweeted that manipulated the market was a lie.

Meanwhile, in the universe that we live in, there were multiple entities competing to buy Tesla. Including, among others, multiple sovereign wealth funds (not just the Saudis), and Volkswagen. The terms however were more painful to Tesla than staying public, including various combinations of loss of control, requirements to build large local production facilities and so forth. It also became clear that the best their advisers could do for allowing retail investors to remain in (which was part of the plan, to minimize the size of the buyout) was an exotic trust structure that would have had a low chance of being approved by regulators.

But naaaaaah - who cares about actual investigative reporting when you can base articles on "Megatrex from the comment section of Ars Technica"? FUD away everyone! It's a lot more fun!

You know, the silent folks who work every day, who don't engage in narcissistic social media bullshit, who didn't put stickers on their cars or signs on their lawns because they didn't want their property vandalized by lawless unhinged leftists.

I'll just leave this here now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/donald-trump-signs.html

There is no "conspiracy" against mass transit.

Conspiracies against mass transit in America have a long history, and they continue today. You literally could not be more wrong.

They are behind it for decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

Yes, but the chief accountant of the company also just stepped down. That's a bad look for a company with a questionable financial outlook and that has been facing a steady stream of high-level departures. I'm guessing that investors care far more about that than they do whether a Silicon Valley executive tried cannabis.

But who will people trust to make their CPU's. Intel with their "management engine" and AMD etc all with the same is already freaking enough people out.

Who is going to want a Chinese CPU with who knows what running on it that you will never be able to see, has access to everything, and can do anything it wants to "your computer" and "your data".
Most countries would probably just ban them like they are doing for 5G telecom equipment already.

"You know we're thinking of a seventh branch of the military. The "Credit Force". Because, you know, credit is a really big place, and really important.

Fuck. How am I supposed to tell if this is really Donald or a Stable State traitor trying to disrupt his agenda? I know - it's clear nobody but the bestest could come up with the name "Credit Force". It takes a GENIUS level intelligence to think of that. TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP. MANGA

Meanwhile, back in the White House, the US Government and its Five Eyes allies prepare for the new cryptowars:

The Trump administration and its closest intelligence partners have quietly warned technology firms that they will demand “lawful access” to all encrypted emails, text messages and voice communications, **threatening to compel compliance if the private companies refuse to voluntarily provide the information** to the governments.

If you think these two pieces of news are completely unrelated, you're being naïve.

This death is not medically attributed to Fukushima. It is simply the result of a legal requirement that all cancers in workers who worked at Fukushima and got a certain level of exposure be attributed to Fukushima so that they cover medical costs. Its a social/cultural thing they do,

‘Safety regulators say workers can be safely exposed to up to 50 millisieverts a year, but if a worker with an accumulated 100 millisieverts develops an illness after five years of exposure, that can be ruled an occupational injury. According to an expert cited by the Mainichi Shimbun, a daily newspaper, the man had been exposed to 74 millisieverts at the Fukushima plant since the accident.’

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... ... ipad-share1

Medical science tells us that such a cancer is highly unlikely to be caused by exposures at these levels. There is a huge body of science to back this up.

Too easy to fool the media. Does anybody even think about the details.

Note that less than half of the GOP voted for Trump in the primaries - even though by the time of the later primaries most of the other candidates had bowed out.

There are plenty of Republicans who didn't want this President, and painting all of us with that brush is just as foolish as the prejudiced tweets from the Blowhard-In-Chief.

We have got to fix the broken election systems in the US. People keep blaming the Electoral College, but that's not the real problem. The real problem is first-past-the-post plurality voting. In any of the early primaries, Trump would have lost every single head-to-head matchup, so any decent electoral system (i.e. any kind of Condorcet preference balloting) would have avoided this disaster. (Easy explanation from a Nobel winner here.) As long as we keep first-past-the-post primaries, both parties will frequently nominate miserable candidates.

Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit. Either get out and berate them publicly, or work for the interests of who you are working for.

If my "employer" appears to be unbalanced, and has the authority to start World War III, I just might be inclined to do a little undermining for the sake of the planet and the human race.

For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right? I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.

I think what you overlook is the fact that Trump hand-picked all of these people, and he has bragged frequently of his superior judgement at picking talent.

If, as you say, he wound up surrounding himself wit a "deep state" then either:

      (a) it puts the lie to his hiring judgement; or
      (b) he's so unhinged that even the people on his own team try to stop him from causing real damage to the world.

I'm inclined to think a little of both.

[...] I almost think Trump penned the op-ed - it certainly will do a great job of bringing in votes for the GOP and pushing anyone with even a tiny bit of ethics left in them away from the Democrats.

In your wet dreams. Have you read the op-ed?

Setting aside its erudite and eloquent style -- hardly qualities one would expect of Trump -- its content is hardly the kind of commentary Trump would ever allow to be said of him. He's hyper-controlling of his image. He would never allow a negative op-ed to be written if he had any control over it. "False-flag" op-eds are just not something he's into. If he needs to write more than 280 characters, he's just not interested.

Some telling excerpts from the end of the op-ed:

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

Do you really think Trump would write something that lauds the late Senator John McCain?

Well, here's their agenda, plus some background. It was linked to in the summary.

That was my impression, also.

Elizabeth Holmes, founder and CEO of Theranos, seemed only to try to get people to like her. She seemed more like a young girl than anyone who could operate a business.

People who have technical knowledge create cultural differences in themselves that are often easy to detect socially. Holmes gave no impression of having technical knowledge, or of even being the kind of person who likes technical knowledge.

Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Indicted on Fraud Charges (June 15, 2018)

...and, even better yet, they'll hit Walmart as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
https://qz.com/695763/a-web-of-terror-insecurity-and-a-high-level-of-vulnerability-hm-gap-and-walmart-are-accused-of-hundreds-of-acts-of-worker-abuse/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Walmart

Phone systems have to place priority on phone and emergency services

*cough* https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

The platforms are worked one of his listeners is going to go off and shoot somebody. This isn't idle speculation either.

By that standard, MSNBC is guilty of incitement and should be taken off the air: "The next month, he cited the MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show as one of his favorite television programs, adding that a recent show had highlighted the contributions of 17 wealthy donors to the Republican Party."

TL;DR: The Left isn't getting banned because they don't lean on violence.

Bullshit. Funny how you excuse Antifa, who practice actual violence. Why were the Proud Boys banned, when the only violence they commit is to defend themselves when attacked by the likes of Antifa?

Twitter has policies against promoting violence and racism, yet leftists accounts get away with it all the time. Say you hate black people, and you'll be banned in a nanosecond. Speak out in favor of white genocide, not only will Twitter let you keep your blue checkmark, they suspend the guy pointing you out.

because that's what got Alex Jones banned. The final straw was when he mimed a gun shot talking about Mueller. The platforms are worked one of his listeners is going to go off and shoot somebody. This isn't idle speculation either.

I looked up a few of the ones you listed. Manveer Heir is walking the same fine line Jones did with what can only be described as a left wing dog whistle. You're right, he's hot garbage (just trying to make a name for himself stirring up controversy). But I couldn't find an implicit let alone explicit call to violence against white people. The rest are either opportunists or, in Sarah Jeong's case, a dumb kid saying angry things. Again though, couldn't find any calls to violence.

Banning Jones and the like isn't something these platforms want to do. Remember, they're corporations who sell advertising. All they care about is eyeballs. They could care less how they get them. Hell, the reason Trump's president is the media gave him $6 billion in free advertising so they could get eyeballs to do their own ads to. They're worried about getting sued if they don't act and one of Jone's listeners acts on his (pretty blatant and at times outright overt) suggestions of violence.

"Antifa" is blown out of proportion by media. They're the American equivalent of soccer hooligans. And the most the left does is "Punch Nazis". I've yet to see one of them mime a shooting or show up with guns.

TL;DR: The Left isn't getting banned because they don't lean on violence.

But coal isn't the reason idiot. You are still twice as bad, even with all that coal.

China’s Emissions: More Than U.S. Plus Europe, and Still Rising

To solve problems with science we can't ignore facts that refute moral judgement we want.

Satellite imagery reveals that many coal-fired power projects that were halted by the Chinese government have quietly restarted.

...

Analysis by CoalSwarm estimates that 46.7 gigawatts of new and restarted coal-fired power construction is visible based on satellite imagery supplied by Planet Labs. The coal-fired power plants are either generating power or will soon be operational. If all the plants reach completion they would increase China’s coal-fired power capacity by 4 per cent.

So, what happened?
Well, their economy is coming back, and CHina was lying about having their AE producing too much power. They are adding coal-based energy to deal with economy improving as well as moving to electric cars.
Sadly, we are going to see trolls here defending CHina on this, claiming that they are owed it. Of course, one of them claims that CHina is not a communist nation. Yeah.