jlawson

52 ms·

481.
by jlawson 7y ago
Man, legally doing some scummy things with paperwork is one thing. Maybe they should take the money back. But violent crime is another thing entirely. The payoff matrix is totally different and hinges on the neutralization effect. And the d
482.
by jlawson 7y ago
Okay, so an innocuous display of generalized status. No indication Kushner would do anything (through any kind of back channel or otherwise) to use his position to aid these investors. No indication he has done anything of the sort. Prett
483.
by jlawson 7y ago
1932 neutron discovered 1942 first atomic reactor 1945 fission bomb Now for AI 1897 electron discovered 1940's vacuum tube computers 1970's integrated circuits 1980's first AI wave fails, AI winter begin
484.
by jlawson 7y ago
I want to know what that "invoking" sentence actually means. What exactly did Kushner actually say? Either he did something possibly illegal, or the media is attempting to leave the reader believing a damaging lie without actually
485.
by jlawson 7y ago
Even 'unemployed' women worked really hard back then. Without electricity, all the washing, managing the home heater, cooking, cleaning tasks have to be done on muscle power alone. Doing a load of laundry on a hand washer and scru
486.
by jlawson 7y ago
lm28469 was responding to the previous poster's specific claim that we now work longer hours "than ever".
487.
by jlawson 7y ago
Each person has the right to dictate what economic arrangements they will participate in. This does not mean they have the right to dictate what arrangements other people will participate in.
488.
by jlawson 7y ago
You are completely in your rights to get together with your fellow employees - or anyone else - to do anything you want. And others are entitled not to pay you to do things they don't want you to do. Nobody is forced to do things they
489.
by jlawson 7y ago
If you're the one paying for the work, you're entitled to say what the work will be. In this case 'you' is Google shareholders, through their representatives. Nobody is entitled to be paid to do what they choose. If you
490.
by jlawson 7y ago
This approach, known as Communism, has been tried many times. Turns out that although 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' sounds nice, wealth actually doesn't come from a fixed pie we get to cu
491.
by jlawson 7y ago
I really question the hearing one, at least. Shouldn't this basically just be the bandwidth of a headphone signal which is at the lowest quality where you can hear degradation if it goes any lower? For me that's something like 3MB
492.
by jlawson 7y ago
Advances in genetics technology have opened up massive new troves of data in just the last few years - not just in analyzing old bones, but in analyzing the genomes of millions of living people to trace their ancestry. It'll be some ti
493.
by jlawson 7y ago
Responding to your first paragraph. If you came to the same conclusion as the mainstream on every issue , it almost certainly means you're incapable of independent thought. Not just one issue.
494.
by jlawson 7y ago
It's not just that. Zero sum let's you shift blame for your own failures. You can say someone else took it from you (nefariously). When the game is positive sum, the cause of failure must be internal. You just couldn't do it
495.
by jlawson 7y ago
They control the pathways of modern speech. It's not like a baker where you can just get your wedding cake somewhere else. If Google doesn't like you they can damn near erase you from public view. If you have an internet business
496.
by jlawson 7y ago
Don't corporations also answer to employees? Employees will quit if they're dissatisfied enough, or just never apply in the first place. Don't corporations also answer to customers? Customers will stop buying from a corporati
497.
by jlawson 7y ago
>If the video is egregious enough, people with less mistrust than me will do the legwork, validate it, and will push it up the trust chain until I get it from a source I trust The issue is that this can't happen because the sources
498.
by jlawson 7y ago
Dismiss PV's analysis if you want. I do the same to some sources. But it's nonsense to discard a primary source, like that video, because it went through a particular person's hands. If hypothetically, ThinkProgress (who I do
499.
by jlawson 7y ago
The idea that a single group of people should be 'auditing the identification of truth' with no transparency, no diversity of viewpoint, and no accountability is frighteningly Orwellian. We are headlong sprinting towards a dark
500.
by jlawson 7y ago
They posted the full unedited video. It doesn't reveal anything deceptive about the editing of the first edited-for-time video. EDIT: Going to the substance - you really think Google employees don't want to prevent Trump's re
501.
by jlawson 7y ago
Probably referring most recently to the Project Veritas video where a Google exec talked about how they're going to work on "preventing the next Trump situation" and how if Google is broken up, the smaller companies won'
502.
by jlawson 7y ago
Yes, it's possible to say the word "phobia" after any religion's name. That doesn't mean the term has any currency. Proof: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Islamophob... Ha
503.
by jlawson 7y ago
Just another note on your last paragraph - I'm honestly not as concerned about financial corruption from the sales side. That's fairly predictable and orthogonal to most issues that really matter. It's the ideological bent of
504.
by jlawson 7y ago
Atlantic's chart from Poole says the Republicans now are far more right-wing than they were in 1955. That was during Jim Crow and Operation Wetback, when the US's immigration policy was formally, "whites only". I mean, s
505.
by jlawson 7y ago
You can flatly assert that, but it'd be more interesting if you made an argument or cited some evidence. On what issues have the Republicans shifted to the right since, say, 1985?
506.
by jlawson 7y ago
I don't see any major difference between NYT, for example, and CNN et al. Don't have time to list all the eye-poppingly blatant misconstruals I've seen in NYT. Big recent one that comes to mind is the Covington Catholic story
507.
by jlawson 7y ago
Fair enough. The figure did indeed come from Congressional testimony today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=235&v=q1YENAvOve... Timestamp: 4:00 It's certainly possible Cruz was wrong or using an unfair
508.
by jlawson 7y ago
The only reason people look to those independent journalists is because they notice the manipulation in the mainstream media. Some people are personally involved in a news event, and they read/watch about it and notice that the report
509.
by jlawson 7y ago
1980's Republicans supported sanctuary cities, gay marriage, free college, and socialized health care? No, they didn't. Data shows that the American left shifted far leftward over the last 30 years, with the left edge going the fu
510.
by jlawson 7y ago
You can't possibly compare the endless, breathless, full-court attack on Trump from the mainstream media with their occasional symbolic quibbles with Obama. The covered for Obama for years, all through his drone strikes, his kids in ca

More ›