With a user base in the millions (hundreds of millions?), there has probably been many billions of human activity hours spent on pokemon go. The fact that it requires movement and so far there is only one known death attributed to it means overall its probably responsible for a huge reduction in fatalities!
I don't think that's how death attribution works.
I think Pokemon Go is a good thing, and do the extend to motivates people to move around and engage it's a very good thing, but that doesn't mean the distraction aspect isn't a problem. Drivers using Pokemon Go is a huge concern for me.
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times!
There's a reason scientists publish papers in peer reviewed journals, not every decision is as simple as jumping on the first convenient looking factoid.
"Legalist says it uses an algorithm of 58 different variables including, as [Legalist cofounder] Eva Shang told the Silicon Valley Business Journal, who the presiding judge is
That different judges give different outcomes is already common knowledge but putting an actual dollar value on it might have significant repercussions.
What happens when someone asks for a judge to recuse themselves because the litigation value tripled when the judge got assigned? It's a lot harder to defend the integrity of the system when supposedly impartial actors have quantifiable effects.
Yeah, except for the ridiculous lying, misogyny, racist remarks, authoritarian tendencies, complete disdain for expert opinion, and hair that is the obvious result of a poorly executed medical procedure.
It's just like a bowl of icecream is the pile of compost of desserts. As in they're complete opposites.
I'd like to see what they say about me. I bash both parties all the time. My comments on every subject are usually sarcastic. Do they have a working sarcasm detector? Or is it all about the things you follow? George Takei is a gay rights activist. So would a conservative who likes ice cream (ben and jerrys) and George Takei be labeled liberal?
Or is someone who is far-left who attacks Hillary going to be labeled conservative for being anti-Democrat?
They could also look at your friends and their affiliations, your likes, the articles you read, how other people respond to the things you post, etc, etc.
They might have you completely wrong, but without knowing their specific approach or how much data they're using it's hard to say which people they will get wrong (or right).
I've seen those types of labels applied. They never work. I got rejected from a minimum wage job in college because the chain store had a standard questionaire. If you answered that you don't use drugs, but think they should be legal, you were considered a lying drug user. The makers of the test couldn't conceive of someone who thinks drugs should be legal and regulated, and wouldn't use them if they were. Though, this was 20+ years ago, so the modern legalization swing wasn't popular yet.
I'm not sure proof by incompetently written questionnaire holds.
I can only think that the labels are wrong much of the time, and the effectiveness of them is over-stated to increase Facebook's ad income.
The labels don't have to be perfect to help FB. Even if you've correctly categorized only 50% of people into one of three broad categories that's still very valuable information for advertisers.
I countered with a wager that by the end of the year the temperatures would be nothing of note.
[...]
I was told that even if the past year was a completely average year that I was not to equate weather with climate. You see, I was told, just because one year produced a completely nominal temperature average world wide that this was not evidence that global warming isn't happening.
What do you consider "nothing of note"? Because we haven't had a 'completely average' year in well over 20 years.
The heat was merely sunk into the ocean to appear in a later year, or something like that. For certain this "hidden" heat that didn't show in air temperatures was still there in water, rocks, or something. I was told that this heat would still result in some major hurricanes in the future, or some other extreme weather events.
Let's look at this again in six months, when we know the entire year's temperatures, before we make claims of global warming. I'd wager that this year, like so many in recent history, will be just as much a nonevent as it was those five or six years ago.
Oh, and where were those Category 5 hurricanes we were supposed to see?
Your co-worker's fuzzy understanding of climate science is only relevant to the discussion if your co-worker is a leading climate scientist.
Ok, abcnews does have it on front page, CNN, wsj, nytimes do not.
Blame readers.
At the end of the day newspapers are in the business of attracting readers. A story about NSA hacking tools is too esoteric for most of their readers and lacks the cool characters or personalized villains that drive narratives.
Even the last/. story only had 130 comments, and it's a story specifically about the NSA and hackers. If it barely interests the/. audience I don't imagine it's going to be a hit with the general public.
Was anyone surprised by this? If you use somebody else's intellectual property without first getting consent, it seems like you're dooming yourself to similar failures. I don't know what they were thinking using a heavily trademarked and copyrights franchise brand without first seeking legal advice. It's possible they may have been hoping for some "fair use" argument to prevail, but IMO that seems like a long shot.
Yeah, I'm kinda shocked they didn't see this coming, this seems like a pretty clear case of trademark infringement.
They'd probably be fine if they just rebranded their pokemon as fairies or some kind of magical creatures, but calling them pokemon is asking for a lawsuit.
Nobody was convinced by facile Facebook fluff. They were convinced that it wasn't good for their careers when people started getting fired for being against things like Prop 8 and various panics/protests were staged to villainize anyone who had different ideas.
And the weird thing is that people still deny that there's a 'homosexual agenda' even though homosexual rights activists have been so successful in normalizing it, as though it just happened by magic and not by the hard work of many activists cooperating with each other.
Mocking the effectiveness of social media to influence political views while railing against gay rights.
They're looking at the wrong number by using the 94%.
If 6%, 8%, and 15% of people are swayed, and the vote is nearly 50/50, then these posts are in fact potentially effective...
More than that just because someone doesn't think they've been swayed doesn't mean they haven't been swayed. People typically underestimate how much their views change over time. I can say that my views have evolved over the years on many topics, probably more than I realize. How much of that came from social media?
At the same time I wouldn't expect a single post to radically change someone's opinions, in fact if it does than it's probably evidence that you never thought deeply about that subject to begin with. But give me a few days, weeks, or months to think about a set of arguments and evidence, then my views do indeed change even on established subjects.
But it almost never happens instantaneously in response to a single argument or piece of evidence.
If you study management even a little, you realize that the best managers are expert in their respective fields. This is not to say that software managers must be expert coders, but they need to have in mind the capabilities and limitations of the company products, the tools that the coders use, the current marketing trends, and some ad-hoc guesswork as to where the market is going.
The converse is also true, the best managers need to be really good at management.
I don't mind this cybersecurity board, they don't have the talent to personally implement great cybersecurity, but they have the knowledge to find and evaluate the people who can. (As well as figure out all the important laws and regulations, something a certain Secretary of State could have used).
I'm no Trump supporter, but the media and especially the print media seems to massively misquote and misinterpret him. On too many occasions I've seen him speak in video clips and the stories that wind up in print about the same sound bites that appeared in the videos seem as if the reporters are paranoid schizophrenics. Maybe Trump has a manner of speaking that doesn't translate to print, or maybe reporters are willfully twisting his words, or some other reasonable explanation, but so often the media coverage of him seems entirely disconnected from reality, giving the appearance of extreme bias.
Do you have examples?
I can think of a handful, for instance his remarks on Ukraine were inaccurately taken as an assertion that he hadn't invaded Ukraine at all. I'm not sure what Trump was trying to say, but it wasn't that.
Otherwise I'm not really sure they're being unfair to him. Most of his controversial statements are have a really clear meaning, he'll often claim he meant something different later but the original statement is usually obvious.
I realize that when it's convenient to the narrative, Indians are "white" but if this guy had been actually white then God help him as he'd have been lucky to make it to court before the SJW lynch mob[0] got to him.
[0] Too soon?
Indeed! Has there ever been a race as badly discriminated against as white people right now!?!?
* Not a Trump supporter, just being sarcastic. ** If you are a Trump supporter, this is what sarcasm looks like.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it. Punish the police AND the lawbreaker. Letting the sociopath go free makes YOU liable for his future crimes.
The problem is the video was obtained by violating his rights, punishing the police is good, but his rights were still violated.
I think there's sometimes allowance for keeping the evidence if they would have found it anyway. But in general I'd much rather a government that errs on the side of respecting rights than the other way around.
Presumably this happened because the Silk Road facilitated crimes in the US. But does it even go the other way? Are there ever people extradited from the US because their online activities broke the law in other countries?
I don't know if it has happened specifically with online criminal activity, but Americans do get extradited to other countries.
There was a CIA agent who was involved with some rendition during the Bush Administration who got tried in absentia in Italy, found guilty and then shipped over there. Let me see if I can find it...yes. Here it is:
That's standard extradition, she physically committed that crime while standing in Italy.
But a website doesn't have the same kind of physical presence so the illegal act could theoretically happen anywhere the website is accessed. For instance Thailand makes it illegal to insult their dumbass of a king, but I don't anticipate myself being arrested and extradited to Thailand because someone in Thailand reads my comment.
So did anything specific happen only in the US? If Ireland did their own investigation could they have instead extradited the Americans to stand trial in Ireland?
An Irishman arrested for crime he committed while residing in Ireland (did he spend any time in the US?).
Presumably this happened because the Silk Road facilitated crimes in the US. But does it even go the other way? Are there ever people extradited from the US because their online activities broke the law in other countries? Could any country have done the same and the FBI is just the one to have bothered, or was there something specific to the US that happened?
I feel embarrassed to be using Slashdot. What the fuck is going on in this thread? Either one schizophrenic psycho has dozens of IPs to burn on AC posts, or the Cheeto Squad is in here crapflooding the discussion. I don't think one person could conceivably have written and submitted all the "Slashdot is FBI" garbage in the time this post has been up, even given an unlimited number of IPs to comment from. So it seems like the Trump trolls are out in full force.
Sadly I'm not that shocked, I think Trump supporters and MRAs have a pretty high overlap, and MRAs have been swarming any/. thread referencing women for a while.
That being said I wonder if it's possible to see how many of these/. posts have been written with an Android...
Imagine if any journalist put as much effort into ANYTHING Hillary Clinton does. What's up with the thousands of work-related emails she didn't turn over? Who's gullible enough to believe she installed a private server to send pictures of her grandkids? Why do many of the most repressive dictatorships in the world keep giving so much money to the Clinton foundation?
The only answer you ever get to any of these questions is "Shut up you can't prove anything" which is true, but the same can be said of Al Capone and OJ Simpson. We're just expected to take the word of a politician with countless lies already under her belt.
If only someone could find a major News network that would obsessively look for dirt on the Clintons for 20+ years.
This isn't whistle blowing anymore. For one thing a whistle blower _never_ reveals a source. Even if they're dead the sources family might be targeted. He's after Hilary. I can't say he doesn't have good reason ( she's part of the administration that arranged the false rape allegations ). I'm just not sure what he'll get out of this. Trump (and more importantly Mike Pence who's going to be the real president) aren't exactly favorable to Assange.
Four possibilities.
a) It makes Assange look that much more cool and badass. It's been pretty obvious since the start that one of Assange's big motives is lots of press time and notoriety for Assange. Being a potential target of assassins makes him look cool and badass.
b) He's a Trumpian and/or hates Hillary. Hard to test but sometimes people are motivated by personal politics.
c) He wants to distract from the fact that the Russian government gave him the leaks.
d) He's tired of living in the Ecuadorian embassy and by attacking Clinton he's hoping the Russians will let him claim asylum with Snowden.
In the 90's people who make excuses for the Clintons [I'm looking at you Snopes] suggested that anyone who knows so many people is bound to have some with questionable suicides. However I don't recall a similar list appearing either during the Bush II or Obama years. Just the Clintons. I guess we'll add that to the long list of amazing coincidences that continually surround the Clintons. For those too young to remember what I'm talking about, there is a long list of Clinton associates dying under questionable circumstances. The most notable was probably Vince Foster but there were others.
What about all the rumours that Bush was involved with 9/11?
What about the claims that Obama is a Muslim/Atheist/Keynan/lizard person sent to devour your soul?
Crazy rumours surrounding Presidents are completely normal, you just go fishing until you find a fact that seems unusual and away you go.
Until now, I have always found Snopes a reliable source of information. After having read what they had to say about Seth Rich, I do not understand how they can patently claim a "FALSE" status to this rumor. They offer no evidence at all to the contrary.
The rumour cites a bunch of facts, almost none of which have any corroboration (ie what happened to this captured hit team) and many of which actually contradict known facts.
I might as well say he was assassinated by a Donald Trump operative to throw the DNC's voter outreach operation into disarray, there's just as much evidence to back that rumour as this one. Every indication is this is just something cooked up on the internet, since the rumour presents it as fairly established fact I don't mind them marking it false.
The only thing that gives me pause is Assange, though Assange has been getting weirdly trollish the past few months and his statements are far from a "I think this was our source who got killed". Far more likely it's some combination of wanting to be part of the news cycle and wanting to distract from the common theory that his source is the Russian government.
Slashdot Mirror
With a user base in the millions (hundreds of millions?), there has probably been many billions of human activity hours spent on pokemon go. The fact that it requires movement and so far there is only one known death attributed to it means overall its probably responsible for a huge reduction in fatalities!
I don't think that's how death attribution works.
I think Pokemon Go is a good thing, and do the extend to motivates people to move around and engage it's a very good thing, but that doesn't mean the distraction aspect isn't a problem. Drivers using Pokemon Go is a huge concern for me.
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times!
That was 200 million years ago, even the days were 23 hours long and the years more than 20 days longer.
There's a reason scientists publish papers in peer reviewed journals, not every decision is as simple as jumping on the first convenient looking factoid.
Making the data fit the narrative since 1970.
Sneaky buggers.
As if all the math and calculations wasn't bad enough.
Now they've got the damn atmosphere in on the scam!
This is not Reddit, FFS!
How about an article on the dozens of predictions made by climate scientists that never ended up happening? The ones like " No more snow by 2012" etc?
Why always toe the line?
Yeah! Why isn't there an article blaming scientists for all the bizarre predictions you imagined them making?
"Legalist says it uses an algorithm of 58 different variables including, as [Legalist cofounder] Eva Shang told the Silicon Valley Business Journal, who the presiding judge is
That different judges give different outcomes is already common knowledge but putting an actual dollar value on it might have significant repercussions.
What happens when someone asks for a judge to recuse themselves because the litigation value tripled when the judge got assigned? It's a lot harder to defend the integrity of the system when supposedly impartial actors have quantifiable effects.
...is the Donald Trump of scientists.
Yeah, except for the ridiculous lying, misogyny, racist remarks, authoritarian tendencies, complete disdain for expert opinion, and hair that is the obvious result of a poorly executed medical procedure.
It's just like a bowl of icecream is the pile of compost of desserts. As in they're complete opposites.
I'd like to see what they say about me. I bash both parties all the time. My comments on every subject are usually sarcastic. Do they have a working sarcasm detector? Or is it all about the things you follow? George Takei is a gay rights activist. So would a conservative who likes ice cream (ben and jerrys) and George Takei be labeled liberal?
Or is someone who is far-left who attacks Hillary going to be labeled conservative for being anti-Democrat?
They could also look at your friends and their affiliations, your likes, the articles you read, how other people respond to the things you post, etc, etc.
They might have you completely wrong, but without knowing their specific approach or how much data they're using it's hard to say which people they will get wrong (or right).
I've seen those types of labels applied. They never work. I got rejected from a minimum wage job in college because the chain store had a standard questionaire. If you answered that you don't use drugs, but think they should be legal, you were considered a lying drug user. The makers of the test couldn't conceive of someone who thinks drugs should be legal and regulated, and wouldn't use them if they were. Though, this was 20+ years ago, so the modern legalization swing wasn't popular yet.
I'm not sure proof by incompetently written questionnaire holds.
I can only think that the labels are wrong much of the time, and the effectiveness of them is over-stated to increase Facebook's ad income.
The labels don't have to be perfect to help FB. Even if you've correctly categorized only 50% of people into one of three broad categories that's still very valuable information for advertisers.
I countered with a wager that by the end of the year the temperatures would be nothing of note.
[...]
I was told that even if the past year was a completely average year that I was not to equate weather with climate. You see, I was told, just because one year produced a completely nominal temperature average world wide that this was not evidence that global warming isn't happening.
What do you consider "nothing of note"? Because we haven't had a 'completely average' year in well over 20 years.
The heat was merely sunk into the ocean to appear in a later year, or something like that. For certain this "hidden" heat that didn't show in air temperatures was still there in water, rocks, or something. I was told that this heat would still result in some major hurricanes in the future, or some other extreme weather events.
Let's look at this again in six months, when we know the entire year's temperatures, before we make claims of global warming. I'd wager that this year, like so many in recent history, will be just as much a nonevent as it was those five or six years ago.
Oh, and where were those Category 5 hurricanes we were supposed to see?
Your co-worker's fuzzy understanding of climate science is only relevant to the discussion if your co-worker is a leading climate scientist.
Ok, abcnews does have it on front page, CNN, wsj, nytimes do not.
Blame readers.
At the end of the day newspapers are in the business of attracting readers. A story about NSA hacking tools is too esoteric for most of their readers and lacks the cool characters or personalized villains that drive narratives.
Even the last /. story only had 130 comments, and it's a story specifically about the NSA and hackers. If it barely interests the /. audience I don't imagine it's going to be a hit with the general public.
Was anyone surprised by this? If you use somebody else's intellectual property without first getting consent, it seems like you're dooming yourself to similar failures. I don't know what they were thinking using a heavily trademarked and copyrights franchise brand without first seeking legal advice. It's possible they may have been hoping for some "fair use" argument to prevail, but IMO that seems like a long shot.
Yeah, I'm kinda shocked they didn't see this coming, this seems like a pretty clear case of trademark infringement.
They'd probably be fine if they just rebranded their pokemon as fairies or some kind of magical creatures, but calling them pokemon is asking for a lawsuit.
Nobody was convinced by facile Facebook fluff. They were convinced that it wasn't good for their careers when people started getting fired for being against things like Prop 8 and various panics/protests were staged to villainize anyone who had different ideas.
And the weird thing is that people still deny that there's a 'homosexual agenda' even though homosexual rights activists have been so successful in normalizing it, as though it just happened by magic and not by the hard work of many activists cooperating with each other.
Mocking the effectiveness of social media to influence political views while railing against gay rights.
Oh I love the taste of irony in the morning...
They're looking at the wrong number by using the 94%.
If 6%, 8%, and 15% of people are swayed, and the vote is nearly 50/50, then these posts are in fact potentially effective...
More than that just because someone doesn't think they've been swayed doesn't mean they haven't been swayed. People typically underestimate how much their views change over time. I can say that my views have evolved over the years on many topics, probably more than I realize. How much of that came from social media?
At the same time I wouldn't expect a single post to radically change someone's opinions, in fact if it does than it's probably evidence that you never thought deeply about that subject to begin with. But give me a few days, weeks, or months to think about a set of arguments and evidence, then my views do indeed change even on established subjects.
But it almost never happens instantaneously in response to a single argument or piece of evidence.
If you study management even a little, you realize that the best managers are expert in their respective fields. This is not to say that software managers must be expert coders, but they need to have in mind the capabilities and limitations of the company products, the tools that the coders use, the current marketing trends, and some ad-hoc guesswork as to where the market is going.
The converse is also true, the best managers need to be really good at management.
I don't mind this cybersecurity board, they don't have the talent to personally implement great cybersecurity, but they have the knowledge to find and evaluate the people who can. (As well as figure out all the important laws and regulations, something a certain Secretary of State could have used).
Just a few years ago it was way warmer, and in just a few years it will be way cooler.
It's like these climate scientists don't know anything!
I'm no Trump supporter, but the media and especially the print media seems to massively misquote and misinterpret him. On too many occasions I've seen him speak in video clips and the stories that wind up in print about the same sound bites that appeared in the videos seem as if the reporters are paranoid schizophrenics. Maybe Trump has a manner of speaking that doesn't translate to print, or maybe reporters are willfully twisting his words, or some other reasonable explanation, but so often the media coverage of him seems entirely disconnected from reality, giving the appearance of extreme bias.
Do you have examples?
I can think of a handful, for instance his remarks on Ukraine were inaccurately taken as an assertion that he hadn't invaded Ukraine at all. I'm not sure what Trump was trying to say, but it wasn't that.
Otherwise I'm not really sure they're being unfair to him. Most of his controversial statements are have a really clear meaning, he'll often claim he meant something different later but the original statement is usually obvious.
I realize that when it's convenient to the narrative, Indians are "white" but if this guy had been actually white then God help him as he'd have been lucky to make it to court before the SJW lynch mob[0] got to him.
[0] Too soon?
Indeed! Has there ever been a race as badly discriminated against as white people right now!?!?
* Not a Trump supporter, just being sarcastic.
** If you are a Trump supporter, this is what sarcasm looks like.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it. Punish the police AND the lawbreaker. Letting the sociopath go free makes YOU liable for his future crimes.
The problem is the video was obtained by violating his rights, punishing the police is good, but his rights were still violated.
I think there's sometimes allowance for keeping the evidence if they would have found it anyway. But in general I'd much rather a government that errs on the side of respecting rights than the other way around.
I don't know if it has happened specifically with online criminal activity, but Americans do get extradited to other countries.
There was a CIA agent who was involved with some rendition during the Bush Administration who got tried in absentia in Italy, found guilty and then shipped over there. Let me see if I can find it...yes. Here it is:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
That's standard extradition, she physically committed that crime while standing in Italy.
But a website doesn't have the same kind of physical presence so the illegal act could theoretically happen anywhere the website is accessed. For instance Thailand makes it illegal to insult their dumbass of a king, but I don't anticipate myself being arrested and extradited to Thailand because someone in Thailand reads my comment.
So did anything specific happen only in the US? If Ireland did their own investigation could they have instead extradited the Americans to stand trial in Ireland?
An Irishman arrested for crime he committed while residing in Ireland (did he spend any time in the US?).
Presumably this happened because the Silk Road facilitated crimes in the US. But does it even go the other way? Are there ever people extradited from the US because their online activities broke the law in other countries? Could any country have done the same and the FBI is just the one to have bothered, or was there something specific to the US that happened?
I feel embarrassed to be using Slashdot. What the fuck is going on in this thread? Either one schizophrenic psycho has dozens of IPs to burn on AC posts, or the Cheeto Squad is in here crapflooding the discussion. I don't think one person could conceivably have written and submitted all the "Slashdot is FBI" garbage in the time this post has been up, even given an unlimited number of IPs to comment from. So it seems like the Trump trolls are out in full force.
Sadly I'm not that shocked, I think Trump supporters and MRAs have a pretty high overlap, and MRAs have been swarming any /. thread referencing women for a while.
That being said I wonder if it's possible to see how many of these /. posts have been written with an Android...
who suddenly feels embarrassed to be using an Android?
Imagine if any journalist put as much effort into ANYTHING Hillary Clinton does. What's up with the thousands of work-related emails she didn't turn over? Who's gullible enough to believe she installed a private server to send pictures of her grandkids? Why do many of the most repressive dictatorships in the world keep giving so much money to the Clinton foundation?
The only answer you ever get to any of these questions is "Shut up you can't prove anything" which is true, but the same can be said of Al Capone and OJ Simpson. We're just expected to take the word of a politician with countless lies already under her belt.
If only someone could find a major News network that would obsessively look for dirt on the Clintons for 20+ years.
This isn't whistle blowing anymore. For one thing a whistle blower _never_ reveals a source. Even if they're dead the sources family might be targeted. He's after Hilary. I can't say he doesn't have good reason ( she's part of the administration that arranged the false rape allegations ). I'm just not sure what he'll get out of this. Trump (and more importantly Mike Pence who's going to be the real president) aren't exactly favorable to Assange.
Four possibilities.
a) It makes Assange look that much more cool and badass. It's been pretty obvious since the start that one of Assange's big motives is lots of press time and notoriety for Assange. Being a potential target of assassins makes him look cool and badass.
b) He's a Trumpian and/or hates Hillary. Hard to test but sometimes people are motivated by personal politics.
c) He wants to distract from the fact that the Russian government gave him the leaks.
d) He's tired of living in the Ecuadorian embassy and by attacking Clinton he's hoping the Russians will let him claim asylum with Snowden.
In the 90's people who make excuses for the Clintons [I'm looking at you Snopes] suggested that anyone who knows so many people is bound to have some with questionable suicides. However I don't recall a similar list appearing either during the Bush II or Obama years. Just the Clintons. I guess we'll add that to the long list of amazing coincidences that continually surround the Clintons. For those too young to remember what I'm talking about, there is a long list of Clinton associates dying under questionable circumstances. The most notable was probably Vince Foster but there were others.
What about all the rumours that Bush was involved with 9/11?
What about the claims that Obama is a Muslim/Atheist/Keynan/lizard person sent to devour your soul?
Crazy rumours surrounding Presidents are completely normal, you just go fishing until you find a fact that seems unusual and away you go.
Until now, I have always found Snopes a reliable source of information. After having read what they had to say about Seth Rich, I do not understand how they can patently claim a "FALSE" status to this rumor. They offer no evidence at all to the contrary.
The rumour cites a bunch of facts, almost none of which have any corroboration (ie what happened to this captured hit team) and many of which actually contradict known facts.
I might as well say he was assassinated by a Donald Trump operative to throw the DNC's voter outreach operation into disarray, there's just as much evidence to back that rumour as this one. Every indication is this is just something cooked up on the internet, since the rumour presents it as fairly established fact I don't mind them marking it false.
The only thing that gives me pause is Assange, though Assange has been getting weirdly trollish the past few months and his statements are far from a "I think this was our source who got killed". Far more likely it's some combination of wanting to be part of the news cycle and wanting to distract from the common theory that his source is the Russian government.