eregorn

Which is strange considering this article was in the comments:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-bc-us-sci--30-years-of-war...

According to the data it's reporting from NOAA, scenario B has occurred (one degree of warming). El Niño seems to have little to do with it as well, as the warming is concentrated away from it (North America and Europe).

I'm wondering where you are getting your information from. Particularly, when I search my own zip on ISP search sites, I get anywhere from 4-6 providers even though I only have 2 options. There's possibly a discrepancy between what's reported and what customers actually have.

"better" doesn't seem a good description for the gaming community's connection to studios. In many cases, gamers themselves might even strong-arm media outlets for studios with or without permission, hence the inflated scores. The recent fake review on Mario Odyssey comes to mind.

I've speculated that it might be related to ransomware picking up in recent years. In particular, wannacry and notpetya coincided with some of bitcoin's surges in price.

Before this, purchases with Bitcoin not for investment purposes were niche in the illegal or attempts at regular purchases that only involved a few users. After these large-scale attacks, Bitcoin has basically been forcibly introduced to the populace at large to (possibly) retrieve their data.

I could argue that this has finally attached Bitcoin's value into something more than trust: data. Hence, bitcoin's value is mirroring the value of another increasingly valuable commodity.

Apparently this was an argument brought up back in 2014 as well[1]. While it focuses more on TV and porn instead of phones and 4chan, in the end the FCC only managed to actually use this power via the nature of the medium (since TV uses spectrum). The only internet that could fall under this is mobile internet, which already doesn't fall under net neutrality (since a lot of carriers have been introducing zero-rating for plans for awhile now without resistance).

[1]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140623/07052927656/rep-i...

Seems that they attempted to, but they can't definitively disprove it.

Basically, they couldn't find evidence, but they can't disprove the hypothesis and they can only tell from the year 2012. Thus, they can't see if stores let their advertising expire before that year or see the reviews stores had before advertising if they started before that.

He predicted an earthquake in the Philippines and other areas that didn't happen 2 months ago and one in New Zealand 1 month ago. He also made a prediction for a 9.0 earthquake in Nepal after the eclipse and slowly dropped the number over the days to fish out a "prediction". He was also hedging his bets on this earthquake and was giving preference to Japan, not Mexico.

The guy's a charlatan that was basically throwing predictions at the wall till they stuck and is now hoping no one notices his failures.

Well yeh, that's what I was getting at hence the "don't take it literally" part.

I've seen people still don't like what he said even after knowing it was not literal. Some people just don't want to see the internet as something not only invented by the government, but was not the total wild west they romanticized it as.

Interestingly, the 1 star reviewers are claiming the book was leaked and that they did in fact read it.

It does seem like they still didn't read it though despite having access to it. They're universally a sentence long and are either vague or GG talking points that don't really have to do with the book.

He still gets a lot of flak from that "invented the internet" comment. Probably one of the few comments in politics that makes critics of it even more angry if they don't take it literally.

You know, I've not paid attention too much when this argument is made since I usually keep my pony on snopes, not politifact, but I'm glad curiousity got me this time. This is a bit misleading in itself.

Bernie's saying its 50%~, Trump is saying its 60%~. Sure its a 8 percent difference at most, but that difference reveals how they got their number. The gist of both articles is that Bernie is inflating his number with people that have part-time work but want full-time while Trump is inflating with high school and college students.

The rulings on both articles basically point to this: Sander's number has more issue with semantics than actually including people that are not actively seeking a job like Trump's number. Trump doesn't get POF because of your objection: while derived wrong it's "decently" close. Quotes because an 8 point difference is very large when talking unemployment numbers.

The honest answer is it's not. There was an uptick from the North Korea situation, but the comments here just remind me of that New Yorker article.

As in, it is Valley-streamed right now.

I hinted it earlier, but if you insist:

The books except the one about presidents (which seems to be just history) and the Iraq war piece (which was in the tail end of being career-ending if you criticized), the organization he co-founded, and the speeches he's done that aren't about Israel.

I think you completely misunderstand me. A bit my fault cause I usually plan out how I argue and I honestly did not expect this type of questioning. I'll reiterate my first comment in that I know the guy's libertarian (I think, definitely not alt right)?

I mean shit, this whole argument has nothing to do with whether I want to listen to his arguments. It was an explanation of how silly things like this happen in the first place where a libertarian gets confused for an alt right person.

Maybe the goat metaphor wasn't the best thing to go for, since the goat lover is an actual goat lover regardless of the other things he does. Maybe framed 7 times with a goat makes more sense? Maybe plain words are better: He's advertised the things people consider alt right, but not the things about him that prove he isn't. The actual alt right notice these discrepancies regardless and correctly identify him.

Welp, I made a mistake. He's had multiple opinions on Israel, and he's currently pro-Israel at the moment, this was the offending quote:

"A decade later, however, Shapiro reversed his position. In an article published on March 13, 2013, Shapiro wrote, "Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestinians out of areas they have known for their entire lives will certainly not pave the way to peace" and while "both right and left agree that a population separation is necessary," he proposes that Israel "has no choice but to weather [the anti-Israeli propaganda]" until a realistic solution comes to light.[37]"

This however was followed by the UCLA section which I misunderstood. Either way, I don't think there's much point on focusing on Israel. The Don himself is probably more pro-Israel than he is. Opinions like that are less identifying of alt right and more as weapons to be used when the alt reich feel betrayed.

That mistake is also why I'm forgiving you on the whole being attacked by the alt right. I've already said why that doesn't matter, it was also in the paragraph right after that one: "I've experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump's candidacy than at any other time in my political career". If he was alt-right he wouldn't be the first to be turned on like with Milo and the Daily Stormer.

I think there's something I need to clarify here. Another poster here posted how alt right means Nazi now. I DONT believe that, and if you may notice I prefer to say Reich for the Nazi side. I see the alt right as someone who has taken to the right socially, possibly being opposites with libertarians with left economics, but are not evangelicals because they're a revolt on social justice (not against it, but specifically a "what about us?") and, most important here, the reaction to such opinions by colleges, news, and businesses. Also, please remember my second comment before you bring up Wikipedia's own article on the alt right.

Which makes the whole discussion a bit funny but confusing. The guy is definitely alt right, despite what everyone's saying here. A bunch of people here are alt right too but, again, don't want to say so. What happened is history has repeated itself as alt right is to alt reich/Nazi as liberal was to socialism/communism.

It doesn't actually matter in the end how I separate them in the end. Much like the mere mention of redistribution was likened to communism, The fact that alt right can be fiscally left has been taken advantage of to frame everything they believe as Nazi under a simplistic understanding of it. The end result is people seeing a thing as alt right, even if they define it differently somehow.

I'd recommend not replying to this comment as quickly as the last, it had to be long to clarify myself and I won't read the reply till tomorrow anyway.

You can complain about Wikipedia, but you missed the point of me mentioning it. Here's a question I want answered because otherwise he might as well present as such:

Do you think the Wikipedia page is missing anything important he's done? Specifically anything of note that has to do with the free market.

Otherwise, its basically a "just one goat" situation, except he done like 7 goats. the day to day things are just not gonna stick out as much as the big things so what he says on his podcast isn't enough to change that perception.

Sorry 'bout the delay. I didn't expect someone to even still be able to find the article after 5 hours much less reply to this.

Either way, the justifications are the point of my comment. He starts off with luxury homes being hard to travel between and traveling the world when many Americans don't travel internationally at all or even move out of their state.

I'd throw in that his first point was one I MOST agreed with all things considered. I can't deny A/C is important to all Americans, and basically makes the sunbelt hospitable to humans. And about 80% of Americans do fly so they might miss that (1) (however, should be noted about half fly less than once a year, it might be possible a lot of people only flew a long time ago in better times. I can't find the data though so that's the most I'll say).

For his other points:

Red Curry and Vindaloo Chicken? In a time where popping in the microwave or ordering fast food is at an all time high compared to preparing food or actually going out? A lot of people would be happy just to have a personal chef even if it's only local food.

The internet being gone? What a shame that people lose out on the largest source of depression in their lives! In 1916 you have the advantage of occupying yourself with activities modern society has stamped out, like English fox hunting or playing IRL Sims with a company town! Funny thing about that second part, since paternalism was already dead and towns in general was in decline, it kind of makes the argument that it would be better to be rich even further into the past.

Medicine's a bit of a wash. Modern Medicine is effective but you need to actually afford it in the first place. For a lot of people, it would just be a trade of actually having some treatment for not having as many vaccines. Speaking of which, 1916 was around the time anti-vaccination had lost in the original argument. Now its gaining steam again, so they might not even have that benefit soon. Dentistry is better, but its telling he only mentions the toothbrush. 22% actually floss, and its a bit telling the amount of people that getting a cavity before adulthood is the complement (2). I'd imagine a lot of people would be fine with dentures if it was still socially acceptable like it was in the past. They're already fine spending money to cosmetically have better teeth instead of actually taking care of them.

Overall, its a bit funny that, when you think about it, the article is basically written by a staunch right libertarian, but sounds like it was written for every stereotype of the "liberal coastal elite". Reminds me of that Popehat article where he realizes that while he's libertarian he's probably more "coastal elite" than the left overall.

[1]http://www.gallup.com/poll/1579/Airlines.aspx [2]http://www.statisticbrain.com/dental-hygiene-statistics/

I feel like this happened because it seems he accidentally presented himself to the outside world as alt-right. You'd only know he was a right libertarian (my impression at least) if you regularly listened to him.

For example, Look at his Wikipedia article vs his /r/politics AMA. His Wikipedia article paints him as alt-right, because all of his major accomplishments that reach outside the audience are hyper-focused on culture wars and academia influence on politics. His support of Israel was mentioned, but he did flip to an alt-right acceptable view. The only thing suggesting on the wiki page he's not alt right is not supporting Trump, but it doesn't help that its implied they mostly attacked him for being Jewish.

From that alone I would think it was a Milo situation, where they are alt-right that are unaccepted by the "alt-reich" because of a specific character trait.

The AMA however gave me the idea he's right libertarian. A lot of his answers seem to circle back to the free market. His pro-life opinion is even a slight extension of that, where he believes life needs to be guaranteed to at least participate in the market. This, however, required direct drilling of the guy to actually get.

So TLDR, He talks libertarian, but his noticeable acts are alt-right. I think this is a bit his fault, considering he didn't think to advertise his libertarian ideas at all in books or speeches even though he started his career before he even graduated college.

I'd like to note that in that article he wrote, he was careful to point out that he did not think government intervention was the primary factor. Specifically, he pointed out to veterinary care as an industry that has very little intervention but has the same cost disease problem as people care.

Its kind of difficult to find the similar strand in all of them to be honest. That's the reason the article ends on such a sour note: he never really figures out what's causing this.

An article that starts off the disadvantages of living back in 1916 with how hard it would be to travel across the nation and the world seems a bit suspect.

In general I find these "you're better off poor now than rich in the past" articles really highlight how thick the author's bubble is.

I'd like to throw in that I wonder if this article is a bit late, and in a way Americans are already coming out of exceptionalism.

I was noticing I cared more about international politics than I previously did, and I saw a lot of other Americans putting more skin in the game than in the past (Although the only way I know this is from the last days of the French Election, where a bunch of tone-deaf English/bad French memes were being pushed to save Le Pen). It is European focused but hey its a start I guess.

More importantly though, is the lack of trust in institutions. When the article started talking about conspiracy theories and the deep state I had be do a double take for a second on whether she was still talking about Turkey.

Regardless of what you think about the meme, it is an accurate description of the situation. If you feel uneducated workers are taking jobs Americans DO want, then by definition its not a job Americans don't want.

Its why I specifically mentioned the bill not actually decreasing immigration. Under this logic the last thing you'd want is to shift the immigrants to take the even better jobs. Most people that believe there isn't a shortage of uneducated workers don't believe educated workers are in short-supply either.

I'm pretty sure it's very easy to be against this. An immigration policy should ideally be either uneducated immigrants that take jobs Americans don't want and entrepreneurs to support more jobs. Preferring highly skilled immigrants that take the jobs Americans do want is the worst case.

Assuming an "American first" policy, this is ironically in a way very much the opposite since only refugees are being cut. People coming for work is going to be the same under this.

In fact this bill would probably not hit the senate floor at all [1]. It has too much opposition from Republicans whose states would collapse under the bill and Republicans that want an actual decrease in immigration. Democrat opposition is a given as well.

(1)https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/02/trump_...

I think it could be argued, though this article didn't seem to bother arguing it as much as it does for the other "pharaohs". Wasn't there an article here a few weeks ago about the green text bubbles?

I always wonder why the whole "facebook internet" isn't brought up more by pro net-neutrality folks. I think there's only one article that's been written about a particularly worrisome consequence it has as well [1].

While I think it'd take a very long time for Americans to actually be convinced of this, the reason why this is happening (because facebook might as well be THE internet for these users) is a lot more worrisome. Particularly when Mark himself is running soon.

(1)https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id...

Interestingly enough, this isn't possible at the moment, but probably possible in the future. I own a (edit: 980) and they do actually detect when they're on a carpet/rug (they turn on a carpet mode that is basically just sucking twice as hard). However, there is no indication they're saving this data (the maps don't give any information of where Roomba thinks there's carpet, and there's always a delay in the carpet mode when it enters the carpet so its not learning that).

Its these kinds of things that lead me to sort of trust the CEO here with current products. Even after 2 months the map isn't very accurate and the user can manipulate the data (the map gives no indication between walls, the blockers it comes with, and closed doors).

Probably will keep close attention to see if they ever make any upgrades though.

From what I can tell, this is more like 100 to 120 vs 200 to 215. The article starts off saying lyft increased bookings by 200 million while Uber is claiming a "mid-teens" number.

Is no one going to challenge your first part? You mention family, neighbors, and company and completely ignored one of these is not like the others. Someone that has loyalty to family and friends is socially competent, but someone loyal to a company these days is just a sucker.

That has always been my aversion to nationalism, because to me it occupies the second group in trying not only create loyalty, but much like the company, try to usurp natural loyalty. The power of which I've seen a family member go into nationalism's deep end and strain our relationship with them because I didn't agree.

That's not true at all, the thread title very much says Arab not muslim. That is specifically a term for the middle-east. Also, that article seems to pull the numbers out of its ass without any proof. I'll stick with the actual numbers I posted, which means it is not a statement of fact. It is an exaggeration at the expense of Arabs.

Which is basically where your argument falls apart for BOTH links I posted. Because that's how The_Donald gets away with bigotry: it posts vague "factoids" that overblow a situation to let users make the desired conclusion but create plausible deniability once the users start posting them. You know it wasn't that long after before someone posted something like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6p7do4/hard_fac...

Turns out, when your sub is constantly suggesting a whole demographic of people are retarded without literally saying it, the users eventually make the connection and start believing it. Ironically that may be breaking down soon when such a ridiculous post like that managed +710, probably due to recent events causing desperation. (Also before you say "buts that's only Somalis!" OP was kind enough to elaborate in the comments that he's talking about Arabian immigrants too).

Either way last post, feel free to have last comment. This thread is probably dead now and now I can definitely tell you're not honest. This conversation is basically pointless.

I'd assume it'd be unethical to move trained scientists to accountant jobs at tax-payer expense, no?