whybroke

9 ms·

31.
by whybroke 10y ago
It's really a cultural (judicial?) shift that is immensely reluctant to apply the traditional standards of public interest (of which privacy is a sub set) to new technology. The continued expansion of IP rights and copyright extension
32.
by whybroke 10y ago
There was also a 'Night Gallery' episode centered sin eaters this with a typical Rod Serling (or who ever he copied in this case) twist ending.
33.
by whybroke 10y ago
It's not just about survival economics and technologies. We need to establish societies independent of an earth which might become dominated by unshakable planet wide tyranny at some point. Physical distances and gravity well energy re
34.
by whybroke 10y ago
Actually the discrepancy stems from underestimating voter turnout for Trump and over estimating it for Clinton and is not caused by the mythical timid Trump voter.
35.
by whybroke 10y ago
>Perhaps allowing interpersonal communications to be dominated by a handful of companies was not the best idea. Absolutely. Especially since tabloid like self confirming facile nonsense has broader user retention and thus profitability t
36.
by whybroke 10y ago
On the contrary. The discovery that social media, as currently implemented, is in the process of annihilating rational discourse is the single most important discovery of this election cycle. Possibly of the last decade. Even now, because o
37.
by whybroke 10y ago
I do not google a term to get a false result that I happen to agree with. Especially not one that is doing so just to sell ads. I am not interested in soothing nonsense on _any_ topic not just political ones. For some reason it is being arg
38.
by whybroke 10y ago
A real pity because the intercept might be saying something important buried in the over/under emphasis, hyperbole and unnecessarily agitating tone. But it's hard to tell and harder to take seriously. I hope they think about tweak
39.
by whybroke 10y ago
More damaging would be if it implicitly changes the message from 'audits should always be done' to 'we're doing it because there was monkey business'
40.
by whybroke 10y ago
An org publicly posted it's inner process for the benefit of the industry and was attacked randomly by a political extremist without regard for truth, damage to that org or damage to the core value of this site. I'm sure I'll
41.
by whybroke 10y ago
There is massive harm done by an intentional lie to a non public figure for no reason. Would you consider that a good outcome?
42.
by whybroke 10y ago
What a curious default view of humanity and reality.
43.
by whybroke 10y ago
um, no. Educated people voted against him. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-pre... (Unless of course not graduating from college makes someone a college graduate in the post-fact world.)
44.
by whybroke 10y ago
Annihilating a family owned pizzeria as a satanic pedophile front for Clinton is pretty close to yelling 'fire' isn't it?
45.
by whybroke 10y ago
>...people who are being churned out by our American colleges, they are useless opinionated, closed minded, biased, paid off stooges... And that group, as it turns out, was the real hate target this election.
46.
by whybroke 10y ago
>She shouldn't have a veto. Absolutely. Regardless of how likely or unlikely manipulation is, an independent group should be able to request an audit. If for not other reason than she could be silenced by a tacitly threatening to en
47.
by whybroke 10y ago
The electoral college favors rural states and rural areas vote Republican. And elections hereafter will tend to be close owing to campaign strategizing and optimized campaign financing. And even then, politicians are only interested in swin
48.
by whybroke 10y ago
On what grounds do you assume these statisticians are Democrats? If the fact that they want to do a statistical study is the sole proof of their political alignment and then any request to do an analysis by someone of that political asking
49.
by whybroke 10y ago
Screaming 'the whole press lies!' and falsely equating it with deliberate fabrications has been done by the far right for 80 years. Spamming what would be intelligent discussions with such nonsense is a new thing.
50.
by whybroke 10y ago
>What exactly are you suggesting here? There is no coherent suggestion. What he and his cohort is doing is yelling 'Lugenpresse' into every discussion on the topic they can find.
51.
by whybroke 10y ago
In your opinion. An opinion has no nothing to do with what a fact is and whether snopes accurately debunks them.
52.
by whybroke 10y ago
And therefore what he says is true? Like climate change denial and the birther movement? Apparently logic has a liberal bias to.
53.
by whybroke 10y ago
A parallel false equivalence: snopes sometimes makes mistakes therefore it's as bad as breitbart. And the idea that misinformation has no impact is the equivalent of saying advertisement has no impact. Or propaganda. What is happening
54.
by whybroke 10y ago
If he knows in advance that he's not going to believe it anyway, why would he bother?
55.
by whybroke 10y ago
>...then democracy, as an effective tool of government, is largely over. That is the goal they seek isn't it?
56.
by whybroke 10y ago
Sorry, I had written and removed something a bit snide like 'the fetishization of...' the edit left a bit of incoherence. And, if my opinion maters, I don't deprecate gun ownership automatically. But I do think the only path
57.
by whybroke 10y ago
It's a curious argument that says un-nuanced insults should be permitted but pointing them out as such should not. Or that in the past insults differed therefore we should ignore today's. Or that hypothetically something hilarious
58.
by whybroke 10y ago
>gun owners were driven by decades of stark atrocities committed by government agents This is a revisionist narrative only recently adopted. Gun ownership and lobbying for same began immediately after the civil rights movement and all la
59.
by whybroke 10y ago
Unless the point of forcing a physical signature is to terrorize that group as much as to collect names. For example, lynchings were not intended as genocide but to keep blacks in fear as much as being a source of psychological indulgence f
60.
by whybroke 10y ago
How is it remotely blocking someone's free speech or access to information when you politely and automatically tell them that the blatant racial slur they just used might offend someone?

More ›