badkungfu

> The National Transportation Safety Board, a federal agency responsible for investigating rail accidents, told The Lever that the Ohio train that derailed was not fitted with ECP brakes.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-blame-ohio-train-derai...

Realizing that it's luck all the way down only reinforces my opinion that the wealthy pay a pittance in taxes relative to the value they get from our society. Those talented, hard-working people who will never see success deserve affordable healthcare, a functioning safety net that allows them to overcome difficulty and take chances, equal education opportunities for their kids, and a hope for a retirement that doesn't require giving up everything or overburdening their families.

Unhappiness that we (in the US at least) are not on that path is more than envy.

"[F]lew to Barcelona to collect a bribe before passing this regulatory change" seems too strong a claim, but there should be serious questions after AT&T paid Cohen and also got a meeting that was off the record.

I don't imagine it actually changed Pai's opinion, but it seems unethical.

I could see Apple et al resisting, but wouldn't a store still be useful for discoverability and giving the sense that an app is trustworthy? I agree stores would not be _required_ though, and I think that diminishes the value of a store and therefore the cost of listing your app in one.

Convinced by what? Many do use it outside of SPAs.

I think this study is too limited. The problem is not that a single article changes minds. It's a well-poisoning problem. Stories about the Clintons assassinating their opponents have been floating around right-wing media for decades.

When I was growing up, I heard an adult talk about the time their friend went to see the Clintons land at an airport. When the friend asked Hillary to end abortion because it was killing babies, Hillary supposedly replied "We will kill your babies."

Nonsense circulated for decades has a toxic effect on political discussion. "Fake news" is just the latest nonsense fad to join Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and their kind.

What do you call information that is produced to resemble reputable news sources but contains very little true information?

Is there any support for the claim that it was reported, and a term was coined for it, in order to limit competition?

Why should we think it's that vs genuine reporting on a trend where people profit from producing this material AND a complimentary trend for Americans (trending toward conservative views) to believe anything that fits their preferred narrative without question?

I think this is absolutely different from propaganda because it's done first and foremost from a profit motive. It did not generally (as far as we actually know) come from powerful groups who want to control a political narrative. [0] I'm sure that has already started to change- Russia and other countries will certainly use this attack vector. The material they produce would be fake news used as propaganda.

[0] http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503...

That always sounded like an unimaginative argument. Another possibility is that his followers exaggerated his words and deeds after his death.

Not native, but feels close enough for this type of thing to me.

But we'll probably do it anyway, without those things.

And I think I'd actually be ok with this method if our military/police/political leaders had a better track record of respecting rules for using the data.

In the article, he points out that Tesla's been given a lot of taxpayer money plus a lot of incentives for buyers to make their product more attractive. And now they now get to skirt around the market rules that other companies have been stuck with and had to build infrastructure and procedures to deal with more effectively.

Maybe Tesla's handouts should be pared back as they grow and are allowed to bypass the old rules.

If a large number of individuals or businesses are heavily invested in the-way-things-are, is it ever dangerous to rapidly change the market rules that we've built up- usually for the purposes of consumer protection or fostering businesses that benefit the larger community?

--

[0] http://www.peachpundit.com/2014/09/05/tesla-uber-internet-sa...

Of course not. I think OP is just pointing out that there are pros and cons.

OTOH, if I were leading a technologically sophisticated country to war and had the ability, I might look for ways to make my opponent look bad- say, by posting to internet forums using their hacked accounts- and trust that the internet would not forget.

But if it's not-technically-DNA-anymore because it can use an arsenate instead of a phosphate, it's still part of our tree of life. That's the part that seems to have dampened enthusiasm somewhat.

I had the same impression. This sounds really, really cool but it's still an organism that uses DNA, and we're still related to it. As a layperson, I don't see why this says a lot more about the potential for life elsewhere. If it's not a wholly new occurrence of life, then it's something that "did life" the same way we do until it happened to need this really cool adaptation.

I understand that my lack of biology training probably contributes to my not getting it, but that's where most people are coming from. A lot of time has been spent explaining the significance of Einstein's work and most people still don't "get it", we may need the same here.

So, instead of snarking...explain again/better/differently than others have.

http://www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks+insurance