Thatâ(TM)s not what happens today. FUD is doing a good job of helping those destructive to society get in power and stay in power. In the meantime a well researched stance is screamed at for being elitist, left wing, supporting already defeated candidates and non-patriotic
Donâ(TM)t underestimate the power of the misinformed populist vote. It has hurt the US, the UK and other countries.
"Oh, if only our citizens had been correctly informed, they would never have voted for Brexit!"
That seems to be the defining rationale for all the dissent in the UK today, and it's complete and total bullocks. It's used as justification by people who didn't get their way to make the transition as painful as possible with the faint hope of reversing the decision.
Except it's a good point.
There were two big problems with the pro-Brexit campaign: 1) There were a lot of flat out lies or distortions. 2) The Brexit that was promised isn't actually possible. England simply can't have the kind of relationship with the EU that the Brexit side wanted. Of the different possible relationships to Europe the one most acceptable to voters is likely remain.
Firstly, leaving the EU is objectively a better decision than staying, from an economic, cultural, and game-theory point of view.
You're objectively using the word "objectively" incorrectly.
The arguments against leaving center mostly on the transition, and not the end result. It's always what will happen "in the next 6 months" or "in the following year" and whatnot.
I've seen lots of long term predictions of bad things happening. It's just that the short term ones are a more immediate concern to most people.
No one will admit that the UK could voluntarily implement all the agreements it currently has with the EU - such as unrestricted travel between nations - and there would be little hardship.
Except a bunch of bi-lateral agreements are hard to negotiate and way harder to administer. That was a big reason for the EU in the first place, to simply things by getting rid of all the N to N agreements.
And if you implemented all of the agreements then what was the purpose of Brexit in the first place? You're basically pulling the same stunt as the leave side, pushing for hard-Brexit while selling a soft-Brexit.
But mostly, the argument that "not enough correct information got out" and "people would have chosen differently with better information" is completely false.
... followed by a bunch of complaints about immigration.
The complaints about misinformation were largely about economic misinformation, and the hard/soft trickery. If people were really freaking out about immigration maybe leave will win again, but then at least you'll also have a clear answer about a hard vs soft exit. And about whether to bring back an "unrestricted travel" agreement that you were happy to bring back a few paragraphs ago.
For example, the assumption that a bigger pool of workers and jobs makes for a better economy. When the countries are economically equal it works out - a dental hygenist in the UK can get a good job in Germany, and vice versa. When this assumption doesn't holds true the better country gets pulled down - a dental hygienist in Greece can get a good job in the UK, but the reverse isn't true. The result is massive unemployment in the UK while high-paying jobs are filled with non-UK citizens. A large number of assumptions - which turn out to be false - underlie the economic arguments for being in the EU.
Though you forget that raising a dental hygienist to adult hood and then putting them through additional training is really expensive. Getting that hygienist as a productive adult is a pretty good deal, though one that will eventually have to be paid for in retirement (though you likely still win)
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.
Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?
Uhhh, you're confusing things.
Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. Obviously they did so more when she was in a position of power or potential power. But that's absolutely Washington SOP.
It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong". I mean it's pretty much standard that if you want to meet with a politician you don't have to be a donor.. but it would really help if you were.
It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.
Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?
You mean the acquisition that was completely normal and uncontroversial acquisition and H. Clinton had almost nothing to do with anyway?
People with international dealings having a few connections to a major country is fine. The problem with Trump is there's a ton of people with big connections to incredibly shady people.
The problem with the Trump orbit meetings is: 1) A few of them seem directly related to the stolen emails. 2) Many of the Trump people in question repeatedly lied about the meetings. Either leaving them off official forms or denying they took place under oath.
Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.
In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.
Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)
Clinton was a disappointing candidate and poor campaigner, but she was not "None of the above".
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington. The only difference is her thing happened to be a charity which happens to be one of the least personally beneficial. And the charity actually seemed to be doing good work!!
And the emails, again one of those laws that everyone huffed and puffed about, but most top-level Washington people either ignored it or followed it only through convenience (ie, they used the work email because they didn't want people using their personal addresses).
That's not to say she didn't have legitimate flaws, but among candidates of the last 30 years I think Obama was the only definitively better one. Bill Clinton's charm probably made him a more effective President than she would have been but she certainly seems to be a better human being than him.
That the OS encryption acts in a set way and its start can be detected in CPU by advanced AV software.
Which would be a method for blocking a ransomware attack in progress. This article is about something completely different. Decrpyting a ransomware attack that was already completed.
Gov methods don't help much if the encryption used is not common, not well understood and is not OS/commercial weak as sold.
Whether or not some major government agencies can crack encryption doesn't really matter to this story. An AV researcher isn't going to be able to crack commonly available encryption algorithms. If he's releasing decryption tools he's doing it through other mechanisms.
“It’s pretty much an arms race,” says Fabian. "They release a new ransomware virus, I find a flaw in its code and build the decryption tool to reverse it so people can get their files back.”
How does this work? There's probably some government agencies with the ability to crack various encryption schemes, but a dev at some anti-virus company?
I'm sure he's pretty good at what he does, and there's probably a handful of instances where the ransomware folk did something dumb. But file encryption is pretty standard stuff, and I can't imagine it's too hard to generate a unique decrpytion key for each victim and to stop that key from persisting on the victims machine.
So is the story mostly hype and the guy just cracked a couple crappy tools? Are the ransomware folk really that incompetent? Or am I missing something?
I think the point is to make us think global warming should be super scary. In fact global warming will merely lead to an expansion of the agriculture belt, with the equatorial belt growing the most. Thus we will get more better stuff, especially jungle fruits and olive trees. Will it lead to more better other stuff? Only time and common sense will tell. It seems likely that rivers near the equator will become more powerful and insanely cold places may be less insanely cold.
Hmm, I guess I'll trust your uninformed speculation over the thousands of people who study this stuff for a living.
I was thinking about taking up smoking, now a lot of doctors told me that would be really bad for my heath, but maybe you've got some hunch that it will exercise my lungs?
- He's the son of a judge - Went to boarding school - Dodged burglary and DUI charges - He married into a Billionaire family
But he's a Democrat, so nothing matters. Different standards. It's so important that he be judged by different standards the media won't even give you the information you need to make any other judgement.
it was her State Bar Registration Card. I've yet to see anyone say there were any concrete advantages to that. Hell, I've known some Native Americans, if anything it hurt.
There's some subtle bits with how stereotypes work.
There's a bunch of secondary characteristics associated with the negative stereotype: hair style, clothing, idiosyncratic vocabulary, etc. The characteristics might not be bad on their own, but they're bad if they're associated with the stereotype. For instance, a white person might be fine talking about their love of rap music during an interview, but a black person should probably avoid it.
That's why a native person might not want to identify themselves as native, it gives the other person a negative lens with which to start viewing these otherwise innocuous things.
But Warren isn't native, and she doesn't really have any of the characteristics typically associated with negative stereotypes around natives. So when she identifies as Native people get to be diverse by associating with the Native without actually having to deal with those negative stereotypes.
What has Beto done in his life that makes him worthy of being president? He was a rich prep-school kid who started a failed rock band, did drugs, got arrested, married a rich wife, and failed at everything he tried.... until politics. And then he lost the vote.
Who is this guy and remind me why I should care about him?
No one is worthy of being president. The proper questions are: 1) Can they get elected president? 2) Would they be good at it?
As for #1, probably, he's got the charisma but does he have the depth to make it through the Democratic primary. The Democratic primary is a bit more elitist or discerning depending on your political affiliation. You basically need to sound smart to last and I'm not sure he's proven that yet.
#2, who knows. It's a weird job. You need a level of expertise to properly evaluate your options and choose a course. Was Obama a good President? I thought he was brilliant and made thoughtful decisions. But he also failed to use his biggest asset, his ability to give speeches and appeal to large segments of swing voters. He was also supposedly a bit of an introvert who wasn't great at hobnobbing.
If Clinton won the primary and became the President maybe she would have prevented the GOP from going into lockstep opposition. Beto blandly charming a few Republican legislators (and their voters) might make up for a lot of policy shortcomings.
You don't solve a problem by trying to tip the scales in the other direction. You solve it by doing things in a balanced way from now on so that over time, the net result is balanced.
It's not like Lincoln said "okay, that's enough with black slavery, let's make the white man be slaves for a couple of centuries to balance things out"
You fix a problem by doing the right thing, today, and moving forward.
I'm not sure that's the best example as it's ended up being pretty unfair to black people. Even if you ignore Jim Crow and all that and fast forward to the 60's when official discrimination ended being black still left you at a huge disadvantage.
It's not enough to just solve the problem, you need to start undoing the damage as well.
In this particular case, it means passing laws which put stricter limits on emissions than what currently exist, so that manufacturers are forced (yes forced, because as much as we might want them to, they aren't going to do it entirely voluntarily... or certainly not at the speeds that are required) to innovate and come up with long term environmentally friendly solutions to the problems that we are facing.
Yes you need to do that. But you also need to realize that even if we stopped emitting tomorrow the existing carbon in the atmosphere might have a lot of nasty warming built in.
There's a difference between claiming minority status and writing that you think you have native American blood on a student card. Her DNA test showed that actually she was correct in believing she had, and didn't lie on that either.
She didn't just claim Native American ancestry, she identified herself as Native American. All based on a family story of a Native ancestor several generations ago.
That would have given her 1/8th ancestry? 1/16th? less? Sure if you've got one fully native parent, maybe even a grandparent, but a rumoured distant ancestor? What about those 15 European ancestors. I have Charlemagne as an ancestor, am I Frankish now?
Imagine an actual Native American, dealing with all the discrimination and disadvantage that comes with that, seeing a extremely successful white woman walking around claiming to be native based on a family legend. You can hopefully understand why they got pissed off.
Her student ID wasn't the source of the controversy, it was that she was listed as being in a minority by her employer.
It wasn't her student ID, it was her Texas Bar application. And she was listed as a minority by her employer because she told them she was a minority, as she told many others including the authors of a Cherokee cookbook.
There's a lot of evidence that she was deliberately identifying as Native in professional contexts. If they didn't actually counter her as a minority hire outside of a press release it's probably just because they realized there was something fishy going on and they didn't want to get in trouble if someone started asking questions.
(One of the most abusive types of moderation is to make people think you're arguing something that you're not, by removing clarifications. If you're thinking of abusing your mod privileges here, do me a favor: kill yourself instead. You are a net negative to people on this planet, you make things worse, and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.)
Get off it, you have no business being outraged, you're deliberately ignoring inconvenient facts and context.
Warren has some decent policies, and she's been a decent senator, but she did something really sketchy when she was younger.
That doesn't mean she shouldn't be President, people can do stupid things, own up to them, and learn. But pretending she did nothing wrong when her story keeps shifting and there's so much evidence against her won't cut it.
This reminds me of the people who read in the paper that so far in January there have been 30 murders as compared to 15 in the previous January, and then run around screaming about how the murder rate has doubled.
Only if you ignore the actual details.
Yes, if two planes of the same model have crashes for unrelated reasons that's just bad luck, it doesn't really mean anything about that specific model.
But in this case we've had two crashes that seem to have the same root cause, a defect specific to that model of plane and that pilots have been raising the alarm about well before this latest crash.
The fact that this defect caused both crashes, and it's a defect not shared by other planes, means the crash rate of other planes is much less relevant, you need to start recalculating the crash rate based on the (very limited) observations of this plane.
To hijack your example, say there have been 30 murders in January instead of the regular 15, and there's no discernible pattern otherwise, then it's probably just noise.
But if there's 15 extra murdered women between the ages 20-30, well then, you seem to have a serial killer on your hands, and if you waive it off as statistical noise you're liable to get 15 more in February.
Being a minority and speaking English as a second language really inhibits your social skills in North America.
How do you know all Asians face that 'social skill inhibition' problem in North America?
I never said "all Asians face that 'social skill inhibition'". I said that Asians who still have ESL are going to weaker social skills in North America, which is pretty obvious since being ESL makes talking harder, particular if you're coming from a Far Eastern language with a bigger difference.
How do you know that? Or are you saying that one must have 'poor social skills' in order to qualify as an Asian?
WTF are you talking about? The basis of this is about people who struggle at English moving to sectors where that's less of an issue.
Really?
Are you speaking out of your own experience or are you talking out of your ass?
I'm talking about having met lots of Asians, both immigrants and several generations in.
And applying some basic reasoning and logic to the topic.
Try Google 'vedic math' before you utter any more of your bullshit again.
Asians do not need to go to North America (and they do not need to wait a generation or two) to be good at math.
No one said Asians who don't live in North America aren't good at math, you're riling yourself up over nothing.
This is a very simple concept I presented. 1) People who struggle with English immigrate to Western nations. 2) When you struggle with English you lose out on a lot of good jobs, technical fields aren't as affected. 3) Therefore, they move into technical fields and train their kids to do the same. 4) Therefore, a cultural stereotype of that group "being good at math" emerges.
Google tried to correct this in their organization by aggressively recruiting women.
But the primary source of the gender gap isn't in job applications, it's due to cultural factors primary and secondary schooling discouraging women from CS.
and why do so many Asian people do so well in technology?
Being a minority and speaking English as a second language really inhibits your social skills in North America. So if you're ESL but have the cultural and economic resources to pursue a good education you're going to do so in a technical field where you're not as hurt by your poor social skills. And if you're an Asian parent you'll do the same as any other parent and push your children towards the fields in which you think they'll succeed, and for Asian parents their experience will say that's technical.
Move forward a generation or two and boom "Asians are good at math".
It's a solid statement about them being ignored by THE NEWS MEDIA. It's a pretty blatant example of the media lying to you. Whatever agenda you wand to support beyond that is dubious.
This is a great example of media bias, not a confirmation of the victim hood narrative.
Gender inequality isn't confined to the tech sector.
Women are under-represented in the tech sector, particularly in more senior positions, for the same reason they're under-represented as interviewees in the news media.
So if they had permission to transport the body back to Canada then where's the funeral or at least the Canadian funeral home who cremated it?
Despite a death certificate from Indian authorities and a statement of death from a Nova Scotia funeral home
Are you saying there should also be a certificate of cremation or burial that is publicly available in Canada? I don't know how the system works there.
For $137 million you don't need a certificate to properly investigate. A reporter can just go down and talk to someone at the funeral home to see if there was a body, and I'm sure there's investors with the cash and motive to hire a PI or Law Firm that can do the same.
Did the funeral home get handed an urn, an Indian Death Certificate, hold a private service, and based their statement on that. Or did they actually see and prepare the body?
When I RFTA, I see that Cotton died in India - how was this verified?
If I were an investor, I would want DNA proof that he was dead otherwise, I would think Interpol should be notified to start looking for him.
$137M disappears eight months before the only person with the password dies?
It could be criminally inept business practices or just simply criminal. I would look at the latter scenario.
Yeah, the actual subject of the confirmation of his death is weirdly absent from the reporting.
If he actually died they would have shipped the body back to Canada and had a funeral. Even if it were a family-only affair that would be pretty damn easy for a reporter to confirm and put an end to all the speculation.
Despite a death certificate from Indian authorities and a statement of death from a Nova Scotia funeral home, an Indian police document giving permission to Robertson to transport Cotten’s body back to Canada, and confirmation from the hospital in which Cotten died about the circumstances surrounding his death, many of Quadriga’s users refuse to believe he is actually dead.
So if they had permission to transport the body back to Canada then where's the funeral or at least the Canadian funeral home who cremated it?
I'm not one for conspiracy theories... but I'm inclined to believe he's still alive.
So there's an argument you may want to prioritize light skinned pedestrians since there's more of them... but that's probably controversial.
and when I do encounter a black person, especially a very dark person, it is definitely more difficult at first to accurately read facial expressions.
This is probably a combination of my environment, my long relationship with my keyboard in a dark room, and a side order of actual physics (optics).
It's also not really relevant.
The person detection systems in use are relying more on general body form than facial features. More likely they just don't have as many training samples in their data sets.
So "Russian owned" Trump gives Cyber Command authority to take out Russians during mid-terms? Cunning Russian, that Trump. Get Moose and Squirrel on the case.
Even under the most extreme theory of Trump being a Russian agent and his inner circle being in direct collaboration with Moscow he still doesn't have a lot of Pro-Russia allies in Washington.
If he didn't grant them additional capabilities a more aggressive congressional bill probably would have shown up on his desk.
And once the Cyber Command exists it's going to do it's thing. Trump couldn't appoint pro-Russia leadership even if he wanted to.
Most jobs - office jobs anyway - are not a single thing. For example, 80% might be manipulating spreadsheets and could be replaced with some Perl scripts and 20% something difficult to automate. You now need access to a Perl expert occasionally, but the day-to-day work might be reduced to the point of being done by a small number of people, and that small number might be entirely, or perhaps partly, low-skill.
That might be an extreme example, but there will be lots of possibilities and management will find the cheapest one, maybe even making compromises in terms of quality or risk management.
They were already making that compromise. The automation trend now is the same as the automation trend for the last 50 years. The least skilled people are the first ones to get replaced.
Sure there might be a few specialized skills that are lost post-automation, but the way to think of automation is as a productivity multiplier. If 10 cheap minimally qualified people can make 100 widgets ten while 10 expensive highly qualified people can make 120 widgets you take the 10 cheap people.
But if automation means one cheap minimally qualified person can make 100 widgets while one expensive highly qualified person can make 120 widgets you now get the expensive person.
Automation isn't necessarily all or nothing. Automation tools might allow a team of ten experienced and expensive workers to be replaced with a team of three uneducated minimum-wage workers. Those three will still need a bit of training.
I think that's backwards. The jobs eliminated by automation are typically the simpler and more repetitive ones, but even though those tasks are now automated you still need people around who understand those tasks well enough to ensure the automation is working properly.
So you're more likely to replace ten uneducated minimum-wage workers with three experienced and expensive workers.
If there is automation-related training of replacements I suspect they're training the technicians who know how to maintain the automated process with the tasks that are being automated.
Of course, this is/. so I'm mostly speculating and don't have a lot of actual experience.
40 unbroken, consecutive, full-range (chest touches the floor) pushups is really a fairly high bar athletically, probably on the order of top ~1% of the total population
The study indicates this corresponds to the top ~10% of firefighters, a group who on a whole are already known to be in vastly better shape than most of the population. This corresponds with my own anecdotal observations -- at my local crossfit gym, we test for max pushups once a year or so, mostly for fun. 40+ unbroken pushups easily corresponds to the top ~5% of that self-selected high fitness crowd as well.
I don't think it's that exclusive. Though variations on technique do matter a lot, your crossfit group might use an unusually difficult variant.
Really I think most "fit" guys can probably hit 40, at least with a little training. I think it is a decent cardiovascular marker because while you need strength it's actually a fairly significant aerobic draw. I hadn't done any upper body for years but I could hit >40 on my first go, probably because I'm a runner so I was able to keep the muscles supplied with blood. It's after 40 that I hit a wall based on arm strength, but up till then it was largely aerobic.
Slashdot Mirror
Thatâ(TM)s not what happens today. FUD is doing a good job of helping those destructive to society get in power and stay in power. In the meantime a well researched stance is screamed at for being elitist, left wing, supporting already defeated candidates and non-patriotic
Donâ(TM)t underestimate the power of the misinformed populist vote. It has hurt the US, the UK and other countries.
"Oh, if only our citizens had been correctly informed, they would never have voted for Brexit!"
That seems to be the defining rationale for all the dissent in the UK today, and it's complete and total bullocks. It's used as justification by people who didn't get their way to make the transition as painful as possible with the faint hope of reversing the decision.
Except it's a good point.
There were two big problems with the pro-Brexit campaign:
1) There were a lot of flat out lies or distortions.
2) The Brexit that was promised isn't actually possible. England simply can't have the kind of relationship with the EU that the Brexit side wanted. Of the different possible relationships to Europe the one most acceptable to voters is likely remain.
Firstly, leaving the EU is objectively a better decision than staying, from an economic, cultural, and game-theory point of view.
You're objectively using the word "objectively" incorrectly.
The arguments against leaving center mostly on the transition, and not the end result. It's always what will happen "in the next 6 months" or "in the following year" and whatnot.
I've seen lots of long term predictions of bad things happening. It's just that the short term ones are a more immediate concern to most people.
No one will admit that the UK could voluntarily implement all the agreements it currently has with the EU - such as unrestricted travel between nations - and there would be little hardship.
Except a bunch of bi-lateral agreements are hard to negotiate and way harder to administer. That was a big reason for the EU in the first place, to simply things by getting rid of all the N to N agreements.
And if you implemented all of the agreements then what was the purpose of Brexit in the first place? You're basically pulling the same stunt as the leave side, pushing for hard-Brexit while selling a soft-Brexit.
But mostly, the argument that "not enough correct information got out" and "people would have chosen differently with better information" is completely false.
... followed by a bunch of complaints about immigration.
The complaints about misinformation were largely about economic misinformation, and the hard/soft trickery. If people were really freaking out about immigration maybe leave will win again, but then at least you'll also have a clear answer about a hard vs soft exit. And about whether to bring back an "unrestricted travel" agreement that you were happy to bring back a few paragraphs ago.
For example, the assumption that a bigger pool of workers and jobs makes for a better economy. When the countries are economically equal it works out - a dental hygenist in the UK can get a good job in Germany, and vice versa. When this assumption doesn't holds true the better country gets pulled down - a dental hygienist in Greece can get a good job in the UK, but the reverse isn't true. The result is massive unemployment in the UK while high-paying jobs are filled with non-UK citizens. A large number of assumptions - which turn out to be false - underlie the economic arguments for being in the EU.
Though you forget that raising a dental hygienist to adult hood and then putting them through additional training is really expensive. Getting that hygienist as a productive adult is a pretty good deal, though one that will eventually have to be paid for in retirement (though you likely still win)
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington.
Are you serious? Check the donations. They skyrocketed when she ran for President - and fell like a stone when she failed. Then boomed again when she was suddenly in charge of all US International relations (Sec State). And you're telling me people are not buying her?
Uhhh, you're confusing things.
Like I said, people were donating to gain favour. Obviously they did so more when she was in a position of power or potential power. But that's absolutely Washington SOP.
It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong". I mean it's pretty much standard that if you want to meet with a politician you don't have to be a donor.. but it would really help if you were.
It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.
Like the way her foundation and husband received millions of dollars after choosing not to deny the Russian buyout of Uranium One?
You mean the acquisition that was completely normal and uncontroversial acquisition and H. Clinton had almost nothing to do with anyway?
The multiple ties between Hillary and Russia,
People with international dealings having a few connections to a major country is fine. The problem with Trump is there's a ton of people with big connections to incredibly shady people.
including secret meetings in 2016
as she was candidate Clinton?
The problem with the Trump orbit meetings is:
1) A few of them seem directly related to the stolen emails.
2) Many of the Trump people in question repeatedly lied about the meetings. Either leaving them off official forms or denying they took place under oath.
Funding fake dossiers against candidate Trump?
Sigh. The dossier was opposition research, not "fake". Somethings have been proven wrong, and some have been verified.
Colluding with personal friends in the media to get advance information about campaign questions and the like?
Wasn't corrupt? I guess the Sahara is a frigid, sodden wasteland in your world...
Campaigns do sketching things sometimes. Hell, this guy signed up a fake candidate to launch an attack campaign against his rival then drop out of the race.
Oh, and here's a fun question where I'm really interested to hear the answer.
So lets assume you're right and the dossier really was a "fake dossier".
So... what was the point?
Because it didn't come out before the election, and as you pointed out she certainly had enough friends in the media to put it out.
Hell, they could even "anonymously leak" it somewhere, yet they obviously didn't.
So why get a fake dossier to slander Trump if you don't actually release it till after you already lost the election?
I feel like you w
Yep. The problem isn't that Trump made POTUS, the problem is that the only opposition offered for voting was Hillary Clinton.
Most of the votes cast were really votes against one of the candidates.
In reality "None of the above" was the only sensible vote in the last elections.
Yes, Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" but it turned out to be a lie (surprise!!!)
Clinton was a disappointing candidate and poor campaigner, but she was not "None of the above".
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour. But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser? That kind of stuff was literally standard operating procedure in Washington. The only difference is her thing happened to be a charity which happens to be one of the least personally beneficial. And the charity actually seemed to be doing good work!!
And the emails, again one of those laws that everyone huffed and puffed about, but most top-level Washington people either ignored it or followed it only through convenience (ie, they used the work email because they didn't want people using their personal addresses).
That's not to say she didn't have legitimate flaws, but among candidates of the last 30 years I think Obama was the only definitively better one. Bill Clinton's charm probably made him a more effective President than she would have been but she certainly seems to be a better human being than him.
That the OS encryption acts in a set way and its start can be detected in CPU by advanced AV software .
Which would be a method for blocking a ransomware attack in progress. This article is about something completely different. Decrpyting a ransomware attack that was already completed.
Gov methods don't help much if the encryption used is not common, not well understood and is not OS/commercial weak as sold.
Whether or not some major government agencies can crack encryption doesn't really matter to this story. An AV researcher isn't going to be able to crack commonly available encryption algorithms. If he's releasing decryption tools he's doing it through other mechanisms.
“It’s pretty much an arms race,” says Fabian. "They release a new ransomware virus, I find a flaw in its code and build the decryption tool to reverse it so people can get their files back.”
How does this work? There's probably some government agencies with the ability to crack various encryption schemes, but a dev at some anti-virus company?
I'm sure he's pretty good at what he does, and there's probably a handful of instances where the ransomware folk did something dumb. But file encryption is pretty standard stuff, and I can't imagine it's too hard to generate a unique decrpytion key for each victim and to stop that key from persisting on the victims machine.
So is the story mostly hype and the guy just cracked a couple crappy tools? Are the ransomware folk really that incompetent? Or am I missing something?
I think the point is to make us think global warming should be super scary. In fact global warming will merely lead to an expansion of the agriculture belt, with the equatorial belt growing the most. Thus we will get more better stuff, especially jungle fruits and olive trees. Will it lead to more better other stuff? Only time and common sense will tell. It seems likely that rivers near the equator will become more powerful and insanely cold places may be less insanely cold.
Hmm, I guess I'll trust your uninformed speculation over the thousands of people who study this stuff for a living.
I was thinking about taking up smoking, now a lot of doctors told me that would be really bad for my heath, but maybe you've got some hunch that it will exercise my lungs?
If he was a Republican, you'd be hearing:
- He's the son of a judge
- Went to boarding school
- Dodged burglary and DUI charges
- He married into a Billionaire family
But he's a Democrat, so nothing matters. Different standards. It's so important that he be judged by different standards the media won't even give you the information you need to make any other judgement.
Sure there's a double standard.
Warren tried to explain away her identification as Native American as just wanting to meet people with native ancestors, then the Washington Post investigated and blew that explanation away.
Fox News found out that Trump had an affair with a porn star and paid to cover it up, and then they covered it up as well.
Have left leaning media outlets gone a bit easy on O'Rourke so far? Probably.
But you really don't want to start complaining about a double standard.
Those with the money will do it no matter what. Enhanced humans are a future given.
Just my 2 cents ;)
Eventually, but the tech isn't ready yet, so we might as well buy ourselves a bit more time to figure out how to deal with it.
it was her State Bar Registration Card. I've yet to see anyone say there were any concrete advantages to that. Hell, I've known some Native Americans, if anything it hurt.
There's some subtle bits with how stereotypes work.
There's a bunch of secondary characteristics associated with the negative stereotype: hair style, clothing, idiosyncratic vocabulary, etc. The characteristics might not be bad on their own, but they're bad if they're associated with the stereotype. For instance, a white person might be fine talking about their love of rap music during an interview, but a black person should probably avoid it.
That's why a native person might not want to identify themselves as native, it gives the other person a negative lens with which to start viewing these otherwise innocuous things.
But Warren isn't native, and she doesn't really have any of the characteristics typically associated with negative stereotypes around natives. So when she identifies as Native people get to be diverse by associating with the Native without actually having to deal with those negative stereotypes.
What has Beto done in his life that makes him worthy of being president? He was a rich prep-school kid who started a failed rock band, did drugs, got arrested, married a rich wife, and failed at everything he tried .... until politics. And then he lost the vote.
Who is this guy and remind me why I should care about him?
No one is worthy of being president. The proper questions are:
1) Can they get elected president?
2) Would they be good at it?
As for #1, probably, he's got the charisma but does he have the depth to make it through the Democratic primary. The Democratic primary is a bit more elitist or discerning depending on your political affiliation. You basically need to sound smart to last and I'm not sure he's proven that yet.
#2, who knows. It's a weird job. You need a level of expertise to properly evaluate your options and choose a course. Was Obama a good President? I thought he was brilliant and made thoughtful decisions. But he also failed to use his biggest asset, his ability to give speeches and appeal to large segments of swing voters. He was also supposedly a bit of an introvert who wasn't great at hobnobbing.
If Clinton won the primary and became the President maybe she would have prevented the GOP from going into lockstep opposition. Beto blandly charming a few Republican legislators (and their voters) might make up for a lot of policy shortcomings.
You don't solve a problem by trying to tip the scales in the other direction. You solve it by doing things in a balanced way from now on so that over time, the net result is balanced.
It's not like Lincoln said "okay, that's enough with black slavery, let's make the white man be slaves for a couple of centuries to balance things out"
You fix a problem by doing the right thing, today, and moving forward.
I'm not sure that's the best example as it's ended up being pretty unfair to black people. Even if you ignore Jim Crow and all that and fast forward to the 60's when official discrimination ended being black still left you at a huge disadvantage.
It's not enough to just solve the problem, you need to start undoing the damage as well.
In this particular case, it means passing laws which put stricter limits on emissions than what currently exist, so that manufacturers are forced (yes forced, because as much as we might want them to, they aren't going to do it entirely voluntarily... or certainly not at the speeds that are required) to innovate and come up with long term environmentally friendly solutions to the problems that we are facing.
Yes you need to do that. But you also need to realize that even if we stopped emitting tomorrow the existing carbon in the atmosphere might have a lot of nasty warming built in.
We need ways to deal with that.
My reply to this has disappeared, so repeating:
There's a difference between claiming minority status and writing that you think you have native American blood on a student card. Her DNA test showed that actually she was correct in believing she had, and didn't lie on that either.
She didn't just claim Native American ancestry, she identified herself as Native American. All based on a family story of a Native ancestor several generations ago.
That would have given her 1/8th ancestry? 1/16th? less? Sure if you've got one fully native parent, maybe even a grandparent, but a rumoured distant ancestor? What about those 15 European ancestors. I have Charlemagne as an ancestor, am I Frankish now?
Imagine an actual Native American, dealing with all the discrimination and disadvantage that comes with that, seeing a extremely successful white woman walking around claiming to be native based on a family legend. You can hopefully understand why they got pissed off.
Her student ID wasn't the source of the controversy, it was that she was listed as being in a minority by her employer.
It wasn't her student ID, it was her Texas Bar application. And she was listed as a minority by her employer because she told them she was a minority, as she told many others including the authors of a Cherokee cookbook.
There's a lot of evidence that she was deliberately identifying as Native in professional contexts. If they didn't actually counter her as a minority hire outside of a press release it's probably just because they realized there was something fishy going on and they didn't want to get in trouble if someone started asking questions.
(One of the most abusive types of moderation is to make people think you're arguing something that you're not, by removing clarifications. If you're thinking of abusing your mod privileges here, do me a favor: kill yourself instead. You are a net negative to people on this planet, you make things worse, and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.)
Get off it, you have no business being outraged, you're deliberately ignoring inconvenient facts and context.
Warren has some decent policies, and she's been a decent senator, but she did something really sketchy when she was younger.
That doesn't mean she shouldn't be President, people can do stupid things, own up to them, and learn. But pretending she did nothing wrong when her story keeps shifting and there's so much evidence against her won't cut it.
This reminds me of the people who read in the paper that so far in January there have been 30 murders as compared to 15 in the previous January, and then run around screaming about how the murder rate has doubled.
Only if you ignore the actual details.
Yes, if two planes of the same model have crashes for unrelated reasons that's just bad luck, it doesn't really mean anything about that specific model.
But in this case we've had two crashes that seem to have the same root cause, a defect specific to that model of plane and that pilots have been raising the alarm about well before this latest crash.
The fact that this defect caused both crashes, and it's a defect not shared by other planes, means the crash rate of other planes is much less relevant, you need to start recalculating the crash rate based on the (very limited) observations of this plane.
To hijack your example, say there have been 30 murders in January instead of the regular 15, and there's no discernible pattern otherwise, then it's probably just noise.
But if there's 15 extra murdered women between the ages 20-30, well then, you seem to have a serial killer on your hands, and if you waive it off as statistical noise you're liable to get 15 more in February.
And it's only been in service since May 22, 2017.
Considering the extreme safety of air traffic in general that's one freakishly unsafe plane.
It makes me glad I'm not the engineer/developer responsible for building that subsystem.
Being a minority and speaking English as a second language really inhibits your social skills in North America.
How do you know all Asians face that 'social skill inhibition' problem in North America?
I never said "all Asians face that 'social skill inhibition'". I said that Asians who still have ESL are going to weaker social skills in North America, which is pretty obvious since being ESL makes talking harder, particular if you're coming from a Far Eastern language with a bigger difference.
How do you know that? Or are you saying that one must have 'poor social skills' in order to qualify as an Asian?
WTF are you talking about? The basis of this is about people who struggle at English moving to sectors where that's less of an issue.
Really?
Are you speaking out of your own experience or are you talking out of your ass?
I'm talking about having met lots of Asians, both immigrants and several generations in.
And applying some basic reasoning and logic to the topic.
Try Google 'vedic math' before you utter any more of your bullshit again.
Asians do not need to go to North America (and they do not need to wait a generation or two) to be good at math.
No one said Asians who don't live in North America aren't good at math, you're riling yourself up over nothing.
This is a very simple concept I presented.
1) People who struggle with English immigrate to Western nations.
2) When you struggle with English you lose out on a lot of good jobs, technical fields aren't as affected.
3) Therefore, they move into technical fields and train their kids to do the same.
4) Therefore, a cultural stereotype of that group "being good at math" emerges.
Then why were women overpaid at Google,
There's a huge gender gap in tech.
Google tried to correct this in their organization by aggressively recruiting women.
But the primary source of the gender gap isn't in job applications, it's due to cultural factors primary and secondary schooling discouraging women from CS.
and why do so many Asian people do so well in technology?
Being a minority and speaking English as a second language really inhibits your social skills in North America. So if you're ESL but have the cultural and economic resources to pursue a good education you're going to do so in a technical field where you're not as hurt by your poor social skills. And if you're an Asian parent you'll do the same as any other parent and push your children towards the fields in which you think they'll succeed, and for Asian parents their experience will say that's technical.
Move forward a generation or two and boom "Asians are good at math".
It's a solid statement about them being ignored by THE NEWS MEDIA. It's a pretty blatant example of the media lying to you. Whatever agenda you wand to support beyond that is dubious.
This is a great example of media bias, not a confirmation of the victim hood narrative.
Gender inequality isn't confined to the tech sector.
Women are under-represented in the tech sector, particularly in more senior positions, for the same reason they're under-represented as interviewees in the news media.
Am I missing something?
So if they had permission to transport the body back to Canada then where's the funeral or at least the Canadian funeral home who cremated it?
Despite a death certificate from Indian authorities and a statement of death from a Nova Scotia funeral home
Are you saying there should also be a certificate of cremation or burial that is publicly available in Canada? I don't know how the system works there.
For $137 million you don't need a certificate to properly investigate. A reporter can just go down and talk to someone at the funeral home to see if there was a body, and I'm sure there's investors with the cash and motive to hire a PI or Law Firm that can do the same.
Did the funeral home get handed an urn, an Indian Death Certificate, hold a private service, and based their statement on that. Or did they actually see and prepare the body?
When I RFTA, I see that Cotton died in India - how was this verified?
If I were an investor, I would want DNA proof that he was dead otherwise, I would think Interpol should be notified to start looking for him.
$137M disappears eight months before the only person with the password dies?
It could be criminally inept business practices or just simply criminal. I would look at the latter scenario.
Yeah, the actual subject of the confirmation of his death is weirdly absent from the reporting.
If he actually died they would have shipped the body back to Canada and had a funeral. Even if it were a family-only affair that would be pretty damn easy for a reporter to confirm and put an end to all the speculation.
The only article I've seen is this which states:
Despite a death certificate from Indian authorities and a statement of death from a Nova Scotia funeral home, an Indian police document giving permission to Robertson to transport Cotten’s body back to Canada, and confirmation from the hospital in which Cotten died about the circumstances surrounding his death, many of Quadriga’s users refuse to believe he is actually dead.
So if they had permission to transport the body back to Canada then where's the funeral or at least the Canadian funeral home who cremated it?
I'm not one for conspiracy theories... but I'm inclined to believe he's still alive.
There aren't many black people where I live,
So there's an argument you may want to prioritize light skinned pedestrians since there's more of them... but that's probably controversial.
and when I do encounter a black person, especially a very dark person, it is definitely more difficult at first to accurately read facial expressions.
This is probably a combination of my environment, my long relationship with my keyboard in a dark room, and a side order of actual physics (optics).
It's also not really relevant.
The person detection systems in use are relying more on general body form than facial features. More likely they just don't have as many training samples in their data sets.
So "Russian owned" Trump gives Cyber Command authority to take out Russians during mid-terms?
Cunning Russian, that Trump. Get Moose and Squirrel on the case.
Even under the most extreme theory of Trump being a Russian agent and his inner circle being in direct collaboration with Moscow he still doesn't have a lot of Pro-Russia allies in Washington.
If he didn't grant them additional capabilities a more aggressive congressional bill probably would have shown up on his desk.
And once the Cyber Command exists it's going to do it's thing. Trump couldn't appoint pro-Russia leadership even if he wanted to.
Most jobs - office jobs anyway - are not a single thing. For example, 80% might be manipulating spreadsheets and could be replaced with some Perl scripts and 20% something difficult to automate. You now need access to a Perl expert occasionally, but the day-to-day work might be reduced to the point of being done by a small number of people, and that small number might be entirely, or perhaps partly, low-skill.
That might be an extreme example, but there will be lots of possibilities and management will find the cheapest one, maybe even making compromises in terms of quality or risk management.
They were already making that compromise. The automation trend now is the same as the automation trend for the last 50 years. The least skilled people are the first ones to get replaced.
Sure there might be a few specialized skills that are lost post-automation, but the way to think of automation is as a productivity multiplier. If 10 cheap minimally qualified people can make 100 widgets ten while 10 expensive highly qualified people can make 120 widgets you take the 10 cheap people.
But if automation means one cheap minimally qualified person can make 100 widgets while one expensive highly qualified person can make 120 widgets you now get the expensive person.
Automation isn't necessarily all or nothing. Automation tools might allow a team of ten experienced and expensive workers to be replaced with a team of three uneducated minimum-wage workers. Those three will still need a bit of training.
I think that's backwards. The jobs eliminated by automation are typically the simpler and more repetitive ones, but even though those tasks are now automated you still need people around who understand those tasks well enough to ensure the automation is working properly.
So you're more likely to replace ten uneducated minimum-wage workers with three experienced and expensive workers.
If there is automation-related training of replacements I suspect they're training the technicians who know how to maintain the automated process with the tasks that are being automated.
Of course, this is /. so I'm mostly speculating and don't have a lot of actual experience.
40 unbroken, consecutive, full-range (chest touches the floor) pushups is really a fairly high bar athletically, probably on the order of top ~1% of the total population
The study indicates this corresponds to the top ~10% of firefighters, a group who on a whole are already known to be in vastly better shape than most of the population. This corresponds with my own anecdotal observations -- at my local crossfit gym, we test for max pushups once a year or so, mostly for fun. 40+ unbroken pushups easily corresponds to the top ~5% of that self-selected high fitness crowd as well.
I don't think it's that exclusive. Though variations on technique do matter a lot, your crossfit group might use an unusually difficult variant.
According to a 39 year old who does 40 push ups is just on the border of excellent. And the US Marine Fitness standards don't even go below 67. And despite the reputation the standards aren't that demanding, any reasonably fit guy in the 20-40 age range can probably get well under the minimum of 3 miles in 25 minutes with a little training so I suspect the push up standards aren't that much harder.
Really I think most "fit" guys can probably hit 40, at least with a little training. I think it is a decent cardiovascular marker because while you need strength it's actually a fairly significant aerobic draw. I hadn't done any upper body for years but I could hit >40 on my first go, probably because I'm a runner so I was able to keep the muscles supplied with blood. It's after 40 that I hit a wall based on arm strength, but up till then it was largely aerobic.
Wouldn't this just be a proxy for obesity? It's generally much easier for small guys to do more pushups.
Why? There's less distance for the obese people to push!