Actually the list of "fake news" sites you cited is built on 4 criteria, none of which are Wikileaks or John Podesta:
I should point out that they do have a picture of a list of hyperlinks of media sources that supposedly "colluded" with the Clinton campaign. Even if that claim was correct they don't actually show it resulting in fake stories.
Ron Paul compiled a list of fake news from mainstream/big media based on the Wikileaks emails from John Podesta.
Actually the list of "fake news" sites you cited is built on 4 criteria, none of which are Wikileaks or John Podesta: a) They reported (endorsed?) the Bush claims on WMDs. b) They reported on Obama's false claim of "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." c) They (probably) miscalculated the probability of a Trump victory. d) They supposedly disagreed with the author's assessment of the economy.
And the article was by Chris Rossini, not Ron Paul.
I was tempted to point out the ridiculous justification the author used to claim respectable media establishments were "fake news".
But I was too distracted by the irony of your summary containing multiple falsehoods.
America is doing just fine thanks. Trump just released a video saying what he will be doing, so you don't have to wonder or believe what a bunch of media guys who detest him CLAIM he will do.
Among them:
TPP cancelled. Enjoy whatever country you are in joining that!
Maybe a good thing, maybe a bad thing. Depends what takes its place.
More shale production - vast reduction in CO2. We are doing our part, how about your nation?
Natural gas is fine but shale oil isn't exactly environmentally friendly, if I recall it takes a lot of processing to turn into usable oil.
And it's funny how you left out the "clean coal" part just after that. Trump is going to try to bring back coal, the worst energy source we have for CO2, it doesn't mean he'll succeed but he'll try.
Two regulations have to be removed for every new one created - while you strangle as regulations pile up.
And if you don't have enough you get the 2008 financial crisis. If you do it well sure that's good, but that sounds a bit like a spin on the classic "I'll reduce government waste!" promise, it ignores the factors that created that waste in the first place.
Ethics reform - five year ban on administration officials becoming lobbyists, can never lobby for foreign nations. I wonder how cozy corporations are to YOUR government...
Sounds good, but Trump's transition team is already loaded with lobbyists and corporate bigwigs, so I'm skeptical of its sincerity.
Investigation of visa program abuses (read: companies bringing in lots of foreign programmers and then severely underpaying them as they hold the green card over them).
Sounds good.
Energy grid to be hardened against attacks. As your countries power grid fails over the coming decade you can think back on this as you are sitting in the cold with a flashlight...
A good idea... but why would you assume no one else is hardening their energy and network infrastructure?
The funny thing is many of these items (like TPP being cancelled, or visa abuse) were once darlings of the Slashdot liberals. But now that Trump supports them... well I guess they decided fascism is better than Trump? Oh well.
He's not being criticized for the things he said above, hell, half the things he said above are pretty much things he's emphasizing for the first time.
The problem is all of the things he said and promised on the campaign trail. The problem is all the alt-right figures he's bringing into the white house that have literal white nationalists rejoicing. The problem is the fact that he's already using his position as president-elect to increase his personal wealth.
Here since you are too stupid to bother looking up for yourself.
She never claimed she was poisoned, NYT made it up. She never claimed Trump got questions early, he was mad about her interview before, NYT made it up.
Sorry you are so stupid you believe the NYT even after their quoted source says they lied about what she said. You are here complaining about fake news, while promoting news you KNOW to be fake as real. Its fascinating to me that you would try and refute an easily debunked lie (takes 5 seconds).
The source isn't some unrecorded statement from Megyn Kelly, the source is her book. Are you claiming that the NYT broke into her publisher are re-wrote her book?
They kept doing it. (Oh, they obviously didn't mention the guy's name because they don't really want to demonize their boss or have people find the awkward connection, they just wanted a generic evil Muslim).
Kind of like everybody who's so bothered by Trump being a pervert didn't seem to mind when Bill Clinton was being a pervert.
Trump ran in 2016, Bill Clinton ran in the 90's, standards change over time.
Perhaps the scandals are coming too fast and furious for you to keep up, but they've lost all credibility whatsoever. Their obvious political bias all in one direction does nothing to help them, of course.
Not every story contains two balanced sides. Just like a good teacher will lead you to the conclusion that 2+2=4 a good reporter will lead you with a better understanding of reality that sometimes pushes you to one side of an issue.
In this election the issues weren't that complicated.
If your primary concern was empowering social conservatives (and controlling the supreme court) and you voted Trump, then you were correct.
If your primary concern was restricting non-European immigration and the influence of non-European cultures in the US and you voted Trump, then you were correct.
If your primary concern was terrorism / military adventurism / the economy / corruption / law & order / competent governance and you voted Trump, then you were a sucker.
If a news report led you to making a wrong decision then that news report failed to do its duty, based on the evidence of November 8th a lot of news organizations failed to do their duty.
It comes from cuckold, a derogatory term for the husband of an adulteress, and from Cuckoo, a bird which lays eggs in others' nests to be raised and supported by unsuspecting parents.
The alt-right started calling moderate conservatives 'Cuckservatives', claiming that there were like the Cuckoo, sitting in the 'nest' of the Republican party and feigning conservatism to win votes, but voting for progressive policies while in office.
That's hilariously ironic considering that describes almost perfectly what the alt-right did to the GOP, especially their new patron-saint, Trump.
They inadvertently did the job that our own media should have been doing, if it hadn't been entirely co-opted by the ruling party.
The lying media should be ashamed of itself, but isn't.
What about the media who never found his tax returns, or the Apprentice out-takes that apparently made the Billy Bush interview look tame? Or the media who found out that Trump's own campaign didn't trust him with a Twitter account, and somehow didn't frame that as an October surprise.
The media likely gave more coverage to Clinton's emails than to all of Trump's many serious scandals combined. That is the great shame of the media.
That they also enabled a rival nation to successfully target one candidate is just one failure of many.
Well, I have a PhD in math and I have to honestly tell you, I'd like to believe that the scientists involved in climate research are not influenced by 3rd-party agendas, but given the viscera of their rhetoric, I just can't imagine how that can be.
Ones who talk to the media, especially the ones with the biggest platform, sure. But that's not the entire field.
I have no vested interest in their conclusion being true or being false. But if the scientific method is compromised, I can't put any kind of estimate on how true what they say happens to be. And I certainly don't think that a political organization can be unbiased when it comes to cherry picking sources of scientific conclusions. It just doesn't add up. You can't possibly claim that they don't have a political agenda. They do by the very nature of what they do. So the UN themselves cannot honestly claim that they are in a fact-finding business. They are in the business of advocacy of the agenda which suits their political bosses. That's just the job.
You might as well say the same thing about epidemiologists studying vaccines, or biologists studying evolution. Any science that has political implications will to some extent become politicized.
But what's the alternative?
The scientific method will be more compromised than usual when applied to global warming, but it's still the best method we have.
As a CEO of a cybersecurity firm the first thing you should know is that no comment in facebook is private, regardless of the content. He was correctly fired just on grounds of incompetence, no matter his political stance.
NB: I disagree with killing anyone, no matter what.
I doubt he thought it was actually private in that no one could see it, rather he was post-election ranting in the context of a conversation between individuals on FB (where it would be clear it wasn't serious).
It was still a stupid thing to do, both because that kind of rhetoric is terrible in general, but also because as a semi-public figure he should have realized that someone could take his comment and completely change the context.
UN is a political organization. Or is that in question? It's not a scientific organization. Why should anyone care what a political organization have to say about any particular scientific question? By the very nature of politics, the organization must prioritize its political agenda over unbiased fact-finding.
Of course when it comes from a scientific group you'll just discount it because it doesn't represent all scientists, or whatever group of dissident scientists you found that deny that AGW is happening.
No matter how many scientists or organizations agree that AGW is happening you'll find a principled stance on which to discount their warnings.
Trump is saying China is manipulating it's currency rate, keeping is low (like 4 times lower than "real") hence being much more attractive for investors (low costs).
As South Korea is not accused of anything like that, it shouldn't affect it, at least not directly.
I think the belief right now is that the Chinese government is desperately trying to prop up the Yuan because the Chinese economy over-expanded and is now running on steam.
A trade ware like what Trump suggests could tank China and cause another global recession.
Wow... This would actually drive manufacturing back to the United States or other areas if there is fear of state withholding shipments. This could be a very big benefit not a detriment.
And just think about how much money you could save if you grew all your own food and sewed all your own clothing!
Sure at the national level you get specialization and multi-tasking that doesn't work with an individual.
But China gives you things for very cheap, and it's hard to help the economy as a whole by stopping people from giving you really cheap things.
But there's also been stories about Teslas that have saved lives -- like the grateful driver whose Model S slammed on the brakes to prevent a collision with a pedestrian, and another man whose Tesla drove him 20 miles to a hospital after he'd suddenly experienced a pulmonary embolism. (Slate wrote a story about the incident titled "Code is My Co-Pilot".)
That's one incident of a dangerous situation where the Tesla acted appropriately, and another where a user in a medical crisis chose a course of action based on the Tesla's abilities.
In neither case do we know what would have happened without the autopilot.
Even some of the accidents have the same ambiguity. I'm personally a skeptic that the Tesla is saving lives, but it's a fundamentally difficult thing to measure.
Is drinking a glass of rat poison bad for your health?
Yes it is.
But so is a Pepsi!
This kind of false equivalency is one of the things that got Trump elected.
Now we don't know exactly what Trump would do, he's never had a job remotely like President, but we do know he openly praises authoritarians for doing authoritarian things, doesn't think much of constitutional restrictions, and is very vindictive.
I think it's very likely that he'll want to use the surveillance apparatus to go after political and personal opponents. Think Watergate and J. Edgar Hoover except being done by the President himself.
Then for the Clinton emails, they didn't even pretend they were trying to act responsibly and directly dumped everything as fast as they could.
I'm pretty sure they actually dumped them in deliberate staggered batches with announcements in between to maximise publicity rather than as fast as they could. As far as I can tell that's their explanation of what they were doing as well as how it looks.
Maybe one day someone will leak all Assange and other members of Wikileaks emails and we'll know the truth though...
This exactly. Previously the major criticism of Wikileaks was they were leaking unsanitized information, putting innocent people in repressive regimes at risk.
The thing is I'm not sure exactly what Assange's plan is, does he plan to retire once he gets his pardon? Trump is infamous for hostility to the media, how does Assange think he'll react when Wikileaks dumps something from President Trump's administration?
Yeah, that "tremendous computing power" quote doesn't sound right. Humans are quite able to figure our the algorithm in a few seconds, I don't see why a computer couldn't use a similar algorithm to get the answer while iterating far fewer than "43 quintillion combinations", quickly determining the sequence of moves should be the easiest and quickest part.
The more impressive part is the hardware side, making a custom machine that doesn't tear the cube apart. But unless I'm missing something this strikes me as more of a PR stunt than a serious research project.
There is no logic to the reasoning. It is the reasoning of sociopaths and morons.
Didn't you get the memo? That is all the reasoning that is required to win an election for the control of a first world country these days. The sad part is the more I think about it, I don't blame Russia's hacking, Assange, Clinton's mediocre candidacy, stupid email issues blown insanely out of proportion, infinite fake stories, lies so thick they are impossible to keep up with or an of it, insane amounts of free press for trump, or any of the other ways the election was made far too easy for Trump.
I blame the people. It is not republican ideas or democrat ideas that are destroying the country. Both have good points at times and take things too far at times. No the true issues is the culture of anti-intellectualism. A great many people are actually proud of being fairly uninformed and easily duped.
How do you fix that? Seriously, how do you fix that? We tend to downplay the importance of liberal arts and history. Hell when I was in high school I thought I'd never need that.
We have to do better. The arc of history can hardly continuing to bend towards justice when the driver is incompetant.
I think the issue is that people are talking past eachother.
The majority of Trump voters, I don't think they were particularly racist, but they did have a lot of demographic anxiety. They're seeing immigrants change the composition and culture of previously homogeneous community and its freaking them out.
It's the same thing that's happening in Europe, for hundreds of years France has been full of white people who were Christian (or Christian turned atheist) who were children of people who were the same. Sure there was sometimes an influx from surrounding countries, but those people looked similar and came from a similar enough culture that they were quickly indistinguishable.
Not wanting your community to change isn't racist or bigoted, but so far our only response has been to call it that. They do have a legitimate concern and it needs to be acknowledge, it doesn't mean we shut down immigration but we need to make them feel like they're being heard if for no other reason than to assuage their fears.
When no one serious will take them seriously then someone unserious will do it and become their hero. Trump is that someone.
Why did the GOP (allegedly) out-propaganda the Democrats?
It's not realistic to police that much material before a heated election, being it's a periodic event. You don't want excess staff sitting between elections. That's not economical for Facebook et al.
There were probably more "intense" Trump supporters than intense H supports, and that's why the Trump trolls won. H did not "inspire" the way Trump did. Her supporters were more anti-Trump than pro-H and thus were not motivated to troll hard.
My feed contained many more intense Hillary supporters than Trump supporters, but the volume of fake news from the pro-Trumpers dwarfed that from the pro-Hillary camp.
I don't think the difference is intensity, it's integrity, and it's starts at the top. The GOP has spent the last 8 years disavowing a health care plan they came up with. Their movement has been consumed by hair-brained conspiracy theories about birthers and UN proposition 21 and all sorts of nonsense, and the leaders either let them spread unchallenged or actively endorse them. FOX News is practically a punch line for how its pundits misrepresent facts and contradict themselves.
When opinion leaders signal that it's appropriate to lie and play dirty the followers listen, that's what is poisoning the right. Both sides have their crazies, the big difference is that when leaders on the left encounter their crazies they stand up and correct them, you could see this with Sanders working to keep his supporters in line. The right has gotten in the habit of enabling and encouraging the fringe, and that's what led them to the free-for-all lie-fest that gave the world Trump.
So let me get this straight, the problem is that there wasn't enough control over the news by the Democratic party?
Never mind how Wikileaks shows us that CNN leaked all the debate questions to Donna Brazille to help them cheat. Never mind how the Washington Post held a clandestine fundraiser with the DNC with services in kind that they kept off the books, much to the lawyers' dismay. And we have Correct the Record's "nerd virgins" (their words, not mine) shilling for dough on every social medium possible, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder when they'll realize that their own propaganda machine is half the problem?
They don't know why they lost and that's why they lost.
The Democratic party didn't control the news.
Rather reporters are typically educated and self-critical, and in the US political climate these characteristics skew sharply left.
I'm sorry but the right wing media is an absolute joke. Fox News is notorious for pushing flat out lies among its viewership, many of their leading anchors have been caught lying multiple times. But Fox is a minority, most mass media is actually fairly good.
In the past if you wanted to convince people to give you a platform you needed to be smart and have integrity to pass the gatekeepers who had the time and expertise to take a good hard look. So the only mass media the public saw came from people who went through a fairly rigorous vetting process.
Now with social media the gatekeeper is wrong, you can make up an infographic that is complete BS, but as long as it's internally consistent it's just as convincing as an infographic that's completely true.
That being said in this election the mass media failed spectacularly, they got caught feeding the slow drip of a couple minor Clinton scandals while letting multiple major Trump scandals slide by.
You can ignore this if your reality bubble won't allow it. Surely Berkley must be part of the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary's wrong doing gets attributed to.
Instead it's more likely that old voting machines were not distributed randomly, and the variables that correlated with old voting machines also correlated with support for Clinton. And what ever these variables were, the researchers didn't manage to control for it.
She's not a great speech giver but she's kind and remarkably inoffensive. All of the likeability problems come from things that are projected onto her, or gendered stereotypes about ambition.
8 years ago part of what got Obama elected was that he wasn't Hillary.
8 years ago Obama got elected because he was a brilliant speaker and a fantastic campaigner.
The email server was her faullt.
And virtually no one gave it a second thought for years. Using private email was a completely standard practice in the state department.
Covering it up and pretending that no secret Emails were sent/recieved on the server was also her fault.
Why "pretending"? There's no reason to think she knew secret emails were sent/received.
Hillary has been viscerally disliked for who she is for decades by many and her attempting to skate by pretending that the rules for everyone else don't apply to her now mean that we're all going to have to suffer through 4 years of Trump.
Except that in a lot of cases the rules apply only to her. Private emails weren't a major issue for Bush even when they definitively included information pertinent to a congressional investigation. And pay-to-play for campaign donations is standard practise, yet the possibility that Hillary might have given preference in meetings to donors to her charity means she's the most corrupt politician ever.
I'll say Hillary is bad at handling these crises, her instinct is to try and ignore them and hope the media gets tired which enables her opponent to craft the narrative. I still believe there's more going on than just bad PR on her part.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the list of "fake news" sites you cited is built on 4 criteria, none of which are Wikileaks or John Podesta:
I should point out that they do have a picture of a list of hyperlinks of media sources that supposedly "colluded" with the Clinton campaign. Even if that claim was correct they don't actually show it resulting in fake stories.
Ron Paul compiled a list of fake news from mainstream/big media based on the Wikileaks emails from John Podesta.
Actually the list of "fake news" sites you cited is built on 4 criteria, none of which are Wikileaks or John Podesta:
a) They reported (endorsed?) the Bush claims on WMDs.
b) They reported on Obama's false claim of "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
c) They (probably) miscalculated the probability of a Trump victory.
d) They supposedly disagreed with the author's assessment of the economy.
And the article was by Chris Rossini, not Ron Paul.
I was tempted to point out the ridiculous justification the author used to claim respectable media establishments were "fake news".
But I was too distracted by the irony of your summary containing multiple falsehoods.
America is doing just fine thanks. Trump just released a video saying what he will be doing, so you don't have to wonder or believe what a bunch of media guys who detest him CLAIM he will do.
Among them:
TPP cancelled. Enjoy whatever country you are in joining that!
Maybe a good thing, maybe a bad thing. Depends what takes its place.
More shale production - vast reduction in CO2. We are doing our part, how about your nation?
Natural gas is fine but shale oil isn't exactly environmentally friendly, if I recall it takes a lot of processing to turn into usable oil.
And it's funny how you left out the "clean coal" part just after that. Trump is going to try to bring back coal, the worst energy source we have for CO2, it doesn't mean he'll succeed but he'll try.
Two regulations have to be removed for every new one created - while you strangle as regulations pile up.
And if you don't have enough you get the 2008 financial crisis. If you do it well sure that's good, but that sounds a bit like a spin on the classic "I'll reduce government waste!" promise, it ignores the factors that created that waste in the first place.
Ethics reform - five year ban on administration officials becoming lobbyists, can never lobby for foreign nations. I wonder how cozy corporations are to YOUR government...
Sounds good, but Trump's transition team is already loaded with lobbyists and corporate bigwigs, so I'm skeptical of its sincerity.
Investigation of visa program abuses (read: companies bringing in lots of foreign programmers and then severely underpaying them as they hold the green card over them).
Sounds good.
Energy grid to be hardened against attacks. As your countries power grid fails over the coming decade you can think back on this as you are sitting in the cold with a flashlight...
A good idea... but why would you assume no one else is hardening their energy and network infrastructure?
The funny thing is many of these items (like TPP being cancelled, or visa abuse) were once darlings of the Slashdot liberals. But now that Trump supports them... well I guess they decided fascism is better than Trump? Oh well.
He's not being criticized for the things he said above, hell, half the things he said above are pretty much things he's emphasizing for the first time.
The problem is all of the things he said and promised on the campaign trail. The problem is all the alt-right figures he's bringing into the white house that have literal white nationalists rejoicing. The problem is the fact that he's already using his position as president-elect to increase his personal wealth.
Here since you are too stupid to bother looking up for yourself.
She never claimed she was poisoned, NYT made it up. She never claimed Trump got questions early, he was mad about her interview before, NYT made it up.
Sorry you are so stupid you believe the NYT even after their quoted source says they lied about what she said. You are here complaining about fake news, while promoting news you KNOW to be fake as real. Its fascinating to me that you would try and refute an easily debunked lie (takes 5 seconds).
The source isn't some unrecorded statement from Megyn Kelly, the source is her book. Are you claiming that the NYT broke into her publisher are re-wrote her book?
I mean, it's really odd. Everybody who's so fucking concerned about fake news now didn't seem to be too upset when Dan Rather was pushing fake news.
Kind of like everybody who's so bothered by Trump being a pervert didn't seem to mind when Bill Clinton was being a pervert.
Weird, like there's a double standard or something.
What happened to Dan Rather?
His career was basically over.
What happened to Brian Williams when it turned out one of his anecdotes was false, and likely made up?
He was suspended and demoted.
What happened to Bill O'Reilly after he made multiple false claims of witnessing war zones?
Not a damn thing.
What happened to FOX News when, as part of their Ground Zero Mosque coverage, they started demonizing a Saudi prince who was a major News Corp shareholder without disclosing that relationship?
They kept doing it.
(Oh, they obviously didn't mention the guy's name because they don't really want to demonize their boss or have people find the awkward connection, they just wanted a generic evil Muslim).
Kind of like everybody who's so bothered by Trump being a pervert didn't seem to mind when Bill Clinton was being a pervert.
Trump ran in 2016, Bill Clinton ran in the 90's, standards change over time.
Perhaps the scandals are coming too fast and furious for you to keep up, but they've lost all credibility whatsoever. Their obvious political bias all in one direction does nothing to help them, of course.
Not every story contains two balanced sides. Just like a good teacher will lead you to the conclusion that 2+2=4 a good reporter will lead you with a better understanding of reality that sometimes pushes you to one side of an issue.
In this election the issues weren't that complicated.
If your primary concern was empowering social conservatives (and controlling the supreme court) and you voted Trump, then you were correct.
If your primary concern was restricting non-European immigration and the influence of non-European cultures in the US and you voted Trump, then you were correct.
If your primary concern was terrorism / military adventurism / the economy / corruption / law & order / competent governance and you voted Trump, then you were a sucker.
If a news report led you to making a wrong decision then that news report failed to do its duty, based on the evidence of November 8th a lot of news organizations failed to do their duty.
It comes from cuckold, a derogatory term for the husband of an adulteress, and from Cuckoo, a bird which lays eggs in others' nests to be raised and supported by unsuspecting parents.
The alt-right started calling moderate conservatives 'Cuckservatives', claiming that there were like the Cuckoo, sitting in the 'nest' of the Republican party and feigning conservatism to win votes, but voting for progressive policies while in office.
That's hilariously ironic considering that describes almost perfectly what the alt-right did to the GOP, especially their new patron-saint, Trump.
They inadvertently did the job that our own media should have been doing, if it hadn't been entirely co-opted by the ruling party.
The lying media should be ashamed of itself, but isn't.
What about the media who never found his tax returns, or the Apprentice out-takes that apparently made the Billy Bush interview look tame? Or the media who found out that Trump's own campaign didn't trust him with a Twitter account, and somehow didn't frame that as an October surprise.
The media likely gave more coverage to Clinton's emails than to all of Trump's many serious scandals combined. That is the great shame of the media.
That they also enabled a rival nation to successfully target one candidate is just one failure of many.
Well, I have a PhD in math and I have to honestly tell you, I'd like to believe that the scientists involved in climate research are not influenced by 3rd-party agendas, but given the viscera of their rhetoric, I just can't imagine how that can be.
Ones who talk to the media, especially the ones with the biggest platform, sure. But that's not the entire field.
I have no vested interest in their conclusion being true or being false. But if the scientific method is compromised, I can't put any kind of estimate on how true what they say happens to be. And I certainly don't think that a political organization can be unbiased when it comes to cherry picking sources of scientific conclusions. It just doesn't add up. You can't possibly claim that they don't have a political agenda. They do by the very nature of what they do. So the UN themselves cannot honestly claim that they are in a fact-finding business. They are in the business of advocacy of the agenda which suits their political bosses. That's just the job.
You might as well say the same thing about epidemiologists studying vaccines, or biologists studying evolution. Any science that has political implications will to some extent become politicized.
But what's the alternative?
The scientific method will be more compromised than usual when applied to global warming, but it's still the best method we have.
As a CEO of a cybersecurity firm the first thing you should know is that no comment in facebook is private, regardless of the content. He was correctly fired just on grounds of incompetence, no matter his political stance.
NB: I disagree with killing anyone, no matter what.
I doubt he thought it was actually private in that no one could see it, rather he was post-election ranting in the context of a conversation between individuals on FB (where it would be clear it wasn't serious).
It was still a stupid thing to do, both because that kind of rhetoric is terrible in general, but also because as a semi-public figure he should have realized that someone could take his comment and completely change the context.
UN is a political organization. Or is that in question? It's not a scientific organization. Why should anyone care what a political organization have to say about any particular scientific question? By the very nature of politics, the organization must prioritize its political agenda over unbiased fact-finding.
Of course when it comes from a scientific group you'll just discount it because it doesn't represent all scientists, or whatever group of dissident scientists you found that deny that AGW is happening.
No matter how many scientists or organizations agree that AGW is happening you'll find a principled stance on which to discount their warnings.
Sorry!! I meant to hit Reply not Reply-All!
And sorry again dammit!
Don't reply-all telling people not to reply-all!!
Trump is saying China is manipulating it's currency rate, keeping is low (like 4 times lower than "real") hence being much more attractive for investors (low costs).
As South Korea is not accused of anything like that, it shouldn't affect it, at least not directly.
I think the belief right now is that the Chinese government is desperately trying to prop up the Yuan because the Chinese economy over-expanded and is now running on steam.
A trade ware like what Trump suggests could tank China and cause another global recession.
Wow... This would actually drive manufacturing back to the United States or other areas if there is fear of state withholding shipments. This could be a very big benefit not a detriment.
And just think about how much money you could save if you grew all your own food and sewed all your own clothing!
Sure at the national level you get specialization and multi-tasking that doesn't work with an individual.
But China gives you things for very cheap, and it's hard to help the economy as a whole by stopping people from giving you really cheap things.
But there's also been stories about Teslas that have saved lives -- like the grateful driver whose Model S slammed on the brakes to prevent a collision with a pedestrian, and another man whose Tesla drove him 20 miles to a hospital after he'd suddenly experienced a pulmonary embolism. (Slate wrote a story about the incident titled "Code is My Co-Pilot".)
That's one incident of a dangerous situation where the Tesla acted appropriately, and another where a user in a medical crisis chose a course of action based on the Tesla's abilities.
In neither case do we know what would have happened without the autopilot.
Even some of the accidents have the same ambiguity. I'm personally a skeptic that the Tesla is saving lives, but it's a fundamentally difficult thing to measure.
Yes he will
But so would have Clinton.
Is drinking a glass of rat poison bad for your health?
Yes it is.
But so is a Pepsi!
This kind of false equivalency is one of the things that got Trump elected.
Now we don't know exactly what Trump would do, he's never had a job remotely like President, but we do know he openly praises authoritarians for doing authoritarian things, doesn't think much of constitutional restrictions, and is very vindictive.
I think it's very likely that he'll want to use the surveillance apparatus to go after political and personal opponents. Think Watergate and J. Edgar Hoover except being done by the President himself.
Then for the Clinton emails, they didn't even pretend they were trying to act responsibly and directly dumped everything as fast as they could.
I'm pretty sure they actually dumped them in deliberate staggered batches with announcements in between to maximise publicity rather than as fast as they could. As far as I can tell that's their explanation of what they were doing as well as how it looks.
Maybe one day someone will leak all Assange and other members of Wikileaks emails and we'll know the truth though...
This exactly. Previously the major criticism of Wikileaks was they were leaking unsanitized information, putting innocent people in repressive regimes at risk.
But this election they went in with a very clear goal of attacking Clinton by maximizing the political damage of whatever information they had. They even made a poll endorsing crazy health conspiracy theories.
The thing is I'm not sure exactly what Assange's plan is, does he plan to retire once he gets his pardon? Trump is infamous for hostility to the media, how does Assange think he'll react when Wikileaks dumps something from President Trump's administration?
This is a guy who, as governor of Indiana, when facing a breakout of AIDS in the rural community due to drug use, chose "prayer" as his only solution.
This could be awkward, aren't Christians traditionally the enemies of vampires?
Although that doesn't include the time he was allowed to examine it before starting. Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLksISrKtO8
Yeah, that "tremendous computing power" quote doesn't sound right. Humans are quite able to figure our the algorithm in a few seconds, I don't see why a computer couldn't use a similar algorithm to get the answer while iterating far fewer than "43 quintillion combinations", quickly determining the sequence of moves should be the easiest and quickest part.
The more impressive part is the hardware side, making a custom machine that doesn't tear the cube apart. But unless I'm missing something this strikes me as more of a PR stunt than a serious research project.
There is no logic to the reasoning. It is the reasoning of sociopaths and morons.
Didn't you get the memo? That is all the reasoning that is required to win an election for the control of a first world country these days. The sad part is the more I think about it, I don't blame Russia's hacking, Assange, Clinton's mediocre candidacy, stupid email issues blown insanely out of proportion, infinite fake stories, lies so thick they are impossible to keep up with or an of it, insane amounts of free press for trump, or any of the other ways the election was made far too easy for Trump.
I blame the people. It is not republican ideas or democrat ideas that are destroying the country. Both have good points at times and take things too far at times. No the true issues is the culture of anti-intellectualism. A great many people are actually proud of being fairly uninformed and easily duped.
How do you fix that? Seriously, how do you fix that? We tend to downplay the importance of liberal arts and history. Hell when I was in high school I thought I'd never need that.
We have to do better. The arc of history can hardly continuing to bend towards justice when the driver is incompetant.
I think the issue is that people are talking past eachother.
The majority of Trump voters, I don't think they were particularly racist, but they did have a lot of demographic anxiety. They're seeing immigrants change the composition and culture of previously homogeneous community and its freaking them out.
It's the same thing that's happening in Europe, for hundreds of years France has been full of white people who were Christian (or Christian turned atheist) who were children of people who were the same. Sure there was sometimes an influx from surrounding countries, but those people looked similar and came from a similar enough culture that they were quickly indistinguishable.
Not wanting your community to change isn't racist or bigoted, but so far our only response has been to call it that. They do have a legitimate concern and it needs to be acknowledge, it doesn't mean we shut down immigration but we need to make them feel like they're being heard if for no other reason than to assuage their fears.
When no one serious will take them seriously then someone unserious will do it and become their hero. Trump is that someone.
Why did the GOP (allegedly) out-propaganda the Democrats?
It's not realistic to police that much material before a heated election, being it's a periodic event. You don't want excess staff sitting between elections. That's not economical for Facebook et al.
There were probably more "intense" Trump supporters than intense H supports, and that's why the Trump trolls won. H did not "inspire" the way Trump did. Her supporters were more anti-Trump than pro-H and thus were not motivated to troll hard.
My feed contained many more intense Hillary supporters than Trump supporters, but the volume of fake news from the pro-Trumpers dwarfed that from the pro-Hillary camp.
I don't think the difference is intensity, it's integrity, and it's starts at the top. The GOP has spent the last 8 years disavowing a health care plan they came up with. Their movement has been consumed by hair-brained conspiracy theories about birthers and UN proposition 21 and all sorts of nonsense, and the leaders either let them spread unchallenged or actively endorse them. FOX News is practically a punch line for how its pundits misrepresent facts and contradict themselves.
When opinion leaders signal that it's appropriate to lie and play dirty the followers listen, that's what is poisoning the right. Both sides have their crazies, the big difference is that when leaders on the left encounter their crazies they stand up and correct them, you could see this with Sanders working to keep his supporters in line. The right has gotten in the habit of enabling and encouraging the fringe, and that's what led them to the free-for-all lie-fest that gave the world Trump.
So let me get this straight, the problem is that there wasn't enough control over the news by the Democratic party?
Never mind how Wikileaks shows us that CNN leaked all the debate questions to Donna Brazille to help them cheat. Never mind how the Washington Post held a clandestine fundraiser with the DNC with services in kind that they kept off the books, much to the lawyers' dismay. And we have Correct the Record's "nerd virgins" (their words, not mine) shilling for dough on every social medium possible, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder when they'll realize that their own propaganda machine is half the problem?
They don't know why they lost and that's why they lost.
The Democratic party didn't control the news.
Rather reporters are typically educated and self-critical, and in the US political climate these characteristics skew sharply left.
I'm sorry but the right wing media is an absolute joke. Fox News is notorious for pushing flat out lies among its viewership, many of their leading anchors have been caught lying multiple times. But Fox is a minority, most mass media is actually fairly good.
In the past if you wanted to convince people to give you a platform you needed to be smart and have integrity to pass the gatekeepers who had the time and expertise to take a good hard look. So the only mass media the public saw came from people who went through a fairly rigorous vetting process.
Now with social media the gatekeeper is wrong, you can make up an infographic that is complete BS, but as long as it's internally consistent it's just as convincing as an infographic that's completely true.
That being said in this election the mass media failed spectacularly, they got caught feeding the slow drip of a couple minor Clinton scandals while letting multiple major Trump scandals slide by.
As more and more voting fraud is exposed, Hillary's chances will just keep increasing.
You mean like this kind of voting fraud:
http://alexanderhiggins.com/st...
You can ignore this if your reality bubble won't allow it. Surely Berkley must be part of the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary's wrong doing gets attributed to.
Or an unreviewed paper by a couple students from Berkley does not count as proof. If election polls and exit polls were that reliable it would also prove that Trump won the general election because of fraud.
Instead it's more likely that old voting machines were not distributed randomly, and the variables that correlated with old voting machines also correlated with support for Clinton. And what ever these variables were, the researchers didn't manage to control for it.
Eh, WHAT? Hillary Clinton likable?
She's not a great speech giver but she's kind and remarkably inoffensive. All of the likeability problems come from things that are projected onto her, or gendered stereotypes about ambition.
8 years ago part of what got Obama elected was that he wasn't Hillary.
8 years ago Obama got elected because he was a brilliant speaker and a fantastic campaigner.
The email server was her faullt.
And virtually no one gave it a second thought for years. Using private email was a completely standard practice in the state department.
Covering it up and pretending that no secret Emails were sent/recieved on the server was also her fault.
Why "pretending"? There's no reason to think she knew secret emails were sent/received.
Hillary has been viscerally disliked for who she is for decades by many and her attempting to skate by pretending that the rules for everyone else don't apply to her now mean that we're all going to have to suffer through 4 years of Trump.
Except that in a lot of cases the rules apply only to her. Private emails weren't a major issue for Bush even when they definitively included information pertinent to a congressional investigation. And pay-to-play for campaign donations is standard practise, yet the possibility that Hillary might have given preference in meetings to donors to her charity means she's the most corrupt politician ever.
I'll say Hillary is bad at handling these crises, her instinct is to try and ignore them and hope the media gets tired which enables her opponent to craft the narrative. I still believe there's more going on than just bad PR on her part.