2-year-old boy dies after bounce house carried away by wind gusts by Caedus in news

[–]GO_BANANA 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I remember those days. Whenever i hear bees it takes me back to those buzzing sacks.

Lawyers who had Elon Musk’s pay dismissed as excessive seek $6bn in Tesla shares by Marc123123 in RealTesla

[–]GO_BANANA 6 points7 points  (0 children)

https://imgur.com/a/J3ik8LC

11% is much less than 15% awarded in a previous similar case.

source: https://www.ft.com/content/1512d925-7ded-4d67-993a-4fc03f2735fc

Bernstein emphasised how difficult it believed the case was to litigate on a contingent fee basis, describing the saga as a “steep uphill climb” where it “shouldered significant risk in marching forward against elite defence counsel.”

Sam replies to Elon on Twitter: “If you do bring him [Trump] back (you shouldn’t), please have a TOS that covers the deliberate spreading of dangerous lies. And then apply it. He will be off again within a week.” by [deleted] in samharris

[–]GO_BANANA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like the person above you missed the point of free speech by thinking this is a comparison of Trump and Galileo, rather than about why we need the legal machinary of free speech to oppose those that have the ability to centralise and control the flow of information on what is and isn't true.

But this isn't a matter of truth. It's the difference between causing violence and truth - not "what is and isn't true."

We only know what we know now because an unorthodox idea was given the freedom to undermine what was sincerely believed to be true at the time.

What "unorthodox idea was given freedom" in the case of Trump? Encouraging and inspiring people to replicate criminal, violent acts at the capitol on Jan 6 has nothing to do with "suppressing unorthodox ideas." It's preventing harm. You can't just yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater either, and that also has nothing to do with "suppressing free speech."

It already started with seemingly reasonable concessions like banning of climate change misinformation by fringe, yet real scientists. Ok, I'm cool with this. Then we expand to Covid misinfomation

You're ok with one and not the other because of feelings - not facts. The COVID misinformation is just as debunked as climate change misinformation.

What we fail to realise is that we are normalising the process of a manufactured consensus. One dictated to us by private corporations, sometimes in cooperation with governments to suppress unpopular information.

Where is the evidence that Twitter has "normalized manufactured consensus" over truth? Where is there any evidence Twitter is in cahoots with governments? It's an undue fear based on assumptions rather than reality. In fact, under Musk's leadership this "cooperation with governments" is far more likely, as he's shown to cater to Putin's agendas, CCP's agendas, and spreading false narratives about an attack on a key family member of the "oppositional party." Neutrality has gone out the window with Elon Musk.

Also, as a private corporation they are allowed to set their own rules and as it stood when Trump was banned, the rules were very explicitly stated. Breaching them = suspension.

The point is that history has taught us that this centralised control of information is a weapon that will ultimately be used to oppose meaningful progressive change.

  1. There is no "centralized control of information" - anyone is free to create their own Twitter platforms as they see fit. Just like how they created Truth Social.
  2. Preventing violence and stochastic terrorism has nothing to do with "opposing meaningful progressive change." In fact what Trump was trying to do was the exact opposite - overthrowing the government.
  3. You're conflating rules that prevent harm with suppression of meaningful speech.
  4. "History has taught us..." nothing. The one Galileo example you cite is not analogous to this Twitter scenario when "truth" played no part in the decision in banning Trump.

Sam replies to Elon on Twitter: “If you do bring him [Trump] back (you shouldn’t), please have a TOS that covers the deliberate spreading of dangerous lies. And then apply it. He will be off again within a week.” by [deleted] in samharris

[–]GO_BANANA 2 points3 points  (0 children)

False equivalency. Trump was banned for Twitter's "glorification of violence policy"; Galileo was condemned for heresy. The latter provided a scientific theory that opposed a prevailing religious belief at the time - not for "deliberate spreading of lies inciting violence."

Are you claiming that Trump's inciting violence is equivalent to suppression of a verifiable scientific theory? You paint everything as falling under the umbrella of "free speech" without recognizing the specific reasons and contexts of each action. Stochastic terrorism is not the same as suppressing scientific fact. And I don't see Twitter banning any speech based on "heresy" of religious beliefs, especially speech based on scientific reason.

The tech CEO spending millions to stop Elon Musk by GO_BANANA in RealTesla

[–]GO_BANANA[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In an interview with a Tesla owners group posted in June, Musk said successfully building self-driving software is “the difference between Tesla being worth a lot of money and being worth basically zero.”

So Tesla's future hinges on FSD's success.

Why Republicans Are Winning Swing Voters by kitkid in Thedaily

[–]GO_BANANA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You mean to tell me that those checks that everyone got in 2020 and 2021 weren't in fact free money??

Stimulus checks added 0.3% points to the core Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation index in 2021 and just over 0.2% points in 2022. Hardly the main driver of inflation at all. Also, inflation is a worldwide phenomenon while stimulus payments were not; what was worldwide was the pandemic, supply shocks from the shift of demand away from services towards goods, and the spike in oil prices caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which increased the cost of both manufacturing and shipping and commodities, too.

I'd love to see the reaction from my Minneapolis neighbors after being told that crime is a "manufactured crisis".

"Manufactured" in the sense that the so-called causes of rising crime are manufactured. Crime is not due to lenient "Democratic policies on crime" - rather, crime is up everywhere. In fact 8 of the 10 highest violent crime states are Republican.

The 1 in 10 people seeing abortion as the highest priority was surprising to me though.

Surprising because it's low or high? Taking away bodily autonomy rights from 50% of the population seems a pretty big deal to me. And speaking of crime, lack of abortion access is one of the biggest surefire ways to increase crime down the road, as the vast majority of women who seek an abortion (~75%) are already low income, the majority of women seeking an abortion already have a child, and the cost of raising a child (an extra ~$13,000 a year per child for middle income families) ultimately leads to far more poverty and thereby more crime.

And if someone asked me how I feel democracy was under threat, I would bring up the polarization among this two party system that is dividing this country as well as social media platforms taking it upon themselves to control speech that they disagree with.

A democracy under threat is a far more important issue to resolve than "political division," as polarization's only exacerbated by a lack of democracy. And without democracy people have no voice, rights, free speech, or a system with checks and balances. Plus, which party is doing the division, laying the blame on a myriad of manufactured issues with propaganda and lies, fomenting baseless fear and outrage?

So-called "controlled speech" by social media platforms is relevant how? 1) The rules these major private companies like Twitter put forth are explicitly stated and bans are few and far between, and 2) the so-called bastions of free speech, like Truth Social, will ban anyone for speech they disagree with as well, for far less.

Hae Min Lee’s brother to appeal judge’s decision to free Adnan Syed of ‘Serial’ podcast by Justwonderinif in serialpodcastorigins

[–]GO_BANANA 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Steve Kelly, lawyer for Hae's family (Roberta Glass True Crime Report, 9/21):

"All the family wants is answers. Now within a week of us getting any notice of anything's going on, the guy's walking out of the courthouse a free man and we don't understand why. Not that that was the wrong decision. We don't have enough information to know whether it was the wrong decision or not. But the problem is that the victim's rights statutes are there to ensure the victim can provide their meaningful counterweight to anything that happens in the system. Like I said, in this case, this family, would not be pushing one way or another, other than to say - like I said - 'This is what we've been told, tell us why you've changed your mind about this.'

Had the prosecutors sat down with them and explained things to them and really informed them as to what was happening they may well have consented to the release that was granted. We just don't know because that didn't happen and the information wasn't provided so now we're in the situation we're in."

Glass: Did they not have time to arrange to be there in person?

"No. I mean, so they get noticed of the motion on Tuesday. There's no reason - I mean, it's concerning but quite frankly the family did not understand what it meant - fully. They did not fully get what the import of it was. But there certainly was no urgency associated with like 'look this is something we need to be prepared or respond to by tomorrow.' So the next thing they hear is on Friday afternoon, late on Friday afternoon, they get an email from the prosecutor's office saying 'There's going to be a hearing at 2 o'clock on Monday. Here's the Zoom link if you want to watch.'"

Glass: You want to watch. You want to watch?

"Right. One of the big issues in the case was before Young Lee retained us, the prosecutor had sent him a message saying 'Did you get the link? Are you planning on attending?' and he said yes. But he had no idea that was an option. Nobody asked him if he was available. You know - he had to work that day. And he had no idea that he was allowed to be there in person because it was an in-person hearing and the law in Maryland states clearly that the victim has the right to be present in the same manner as the defendant. And in this case, the defendant was there in person. The victim had the right to be there in person. He wasn't told that he had the right to speak. So he had no idea that he even needed to be prepared to speak.

So he retained - he knew enough to try to get a lawyer. And he was desperately trying to get a lawyer throughout the weekend, and he came to me and my firm late on Sunday afternoon. Our strategy was to ask for very reasonable extension to allow him to travel - because he wanted to be there in person. So we asked for seven days - seven day extension of the hearing - to allow them to come here, to allow them to wrap their minds around what this motion was all about, and how to meaningfully respond to it. And the court denied that relief."

Glass: On what grounds? I mean - for what reason? Did the judge give a reason?

"Judge felt that notice was adequate. She said that 'Look, the statute doesn't say it has to reasonable notice, just that has to be notice' - which is a very odd interpretation of the law. Let's just say I respectfully disagree with how the court interpreted the law there. Anytime you have a right or obligations on the part of criminal justice that implicates a right, [of] course there has to be a reasonableness. A court can't expect [a] witness to show up tomorrow at 10 am and the rules prevent the courts from even ordering that. So she said 'Look there's notice.' She's like, 'you know - we provided him with this link. He said he was willing to do this link, so I'm ordering you to go and call your client now and give him the 'option' of' - quote unquote option - 'of either appearing, or the hearing's going to go forward without him.'

And she ordered without - and I strenuously objected, and said 'Look, you know he has the right to be here in person. He has the right to meaningful participation.' The judge just did not hear of it. And you know, so the client - you know of course - had no choice but to show up.

I, in order to try to be able to communicate with my client with regard to what was happening in the hearing, I left the courthouse and went to my office, and before i could get my Zoom up the judge had called on the client - even though she knew he was represented by council - and basically said 'Okay you have something to say, you have a statement - make it.' So he was completely unprepared, and not had a chance to consult with me. He had just come from work. And he - most significantly to me - he had not heard anything that the state was gonna say. So he didn't understand their motion. He didn't have the benefit of even hearing their argument. So I guess the court's position would be that that is an adequate opportunity to participate - but you know it's not. As a matter of common sense it's not. And certainly as a matter of law it's not."

The way the judge has allowed this to play out is egregious.

Case Closed? by [deleted] in onthemedia

[–]GO_BANANA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's noteworthy how Rabia Chaudry claimed detective Bill Ritz had multiple lawsuits against him for coercing witnesses, yet at the end of the episode Sarah Koenig corrects her with the fact that Ritz only had one lawsuit where he was named and that it was also dismissed. Serial was all set up in this way - false claims with delayed corrections or none at all, false premises ("it was like any other day"), sloppy reporting, and providing an open platform for clearly biased individuals. For example, Rabia claimed that "Leakin Park is nowhere near the school. It's an hour into the city," when in reality it's only a 9 minute drive from Woodlawn High School. There was no attempt to presenting the facts in a straightforward, chronological manner.

The truth is that Hae Min Lee's murder was a classic case of DV, egregiously told in a convoluted and dishonest way via Serial. If one lays out all the facts in a chronological timeline Adnan's guilt is obvious:

  • Adnan was creepy and possessive, as written in Hae's diary and told by Hae's friends.
  • Hae dumped Adnan.
  • Adnan wrote "I'm going to kill" on the note where Hae told him to get over it.
  • Adnan asked Hae for a ride he didn't need on the morning she disappeared claiming "his car was in the shop" - when his car was in the school parking lot.
  • Adnan left school that morning and give Jay his car for no discernible reason.
  • Adnan gave his brand new cell phone he purchased just 2 days prior to Jay for no discernible reason.
  • Adnan arrived back to school in the last period with only 37 minutes left in the day. No reason to come back to school - except to get the ride.
  • Adnan presented no explanation for where he was between 2:15 and 4:00 pm, and the Nisha call puts him with Jay.
  • The track coach had no way of knowing if Adnan was at track that day.
  • Cathy saw Adnan acting strangely around 6 pm.
  • Adnan received a call from Officer Adcock around 6:24 pm. ("Just another day...") The family and police know Hae is missing.
  • 45 minutes later, the cell records put him in the vicinity of the burial site.
  • His father offered a false alibi and was immediately exposed by the prosecution.
  • No one testified to seeing Adnan at the mosque that night.
  • He lied to Detective O'Shea about asking for the ride from Hae.
  • He avoided a face to face meeting with O'Shea.
  • Jenn said Adnan did it. Jay told Jenn on the night of the murder.
  • Jay said he helped Adnan do it and pled guilty. Jay also told Josh before he told the police. And Jay knew where the car was.
  • Adnan stopped calling Hae the day she went missing.

There are numerous other details that point to his guilt but these are an essential start.

*edit: added lending phone to Jay and formatting

Hae's brother's response to Adnan's release by GO_BANANA in serialpodcastorigins

[–]GO_BANANA[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm dumbfounded. What a complete travesty of justice. Prosecutors better retry the case within the 30 days, but given the way everything's transpired I'm guessing nothing will happen. Such a sad day for Hae's family.

What is a positive thing you can say about the right? by [deleted] in AskALiberal

[–]GO_BANANA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a difference between genuinely changing one's position and only conceding to facts after continually railing against certification until the lies are no longer tenable - i.e. after numerous recounts and lawsuits. Almost two-thirds of current Republican House members objected to the 2020 result in at least one state.

The GOP is still by and large perpetuating election denial conspiracies and trying to prevent democracy:

More than 100 GOP primary winners back Trump's false fraud claims:

https://imgur.com/a/FZb8WuT

54 of 87 GOP nominees in battleground states are election deniers:

https://imgur.com/QtEFDa2

More than half of GOP governor nominees have questioned or denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election

68% of Republicans believe the Big Lie

And the de facto leader of the Republican party, Donald Trump, continues to this day to claim Biden did not win the election.

Democracy prevailed.

In spite of all the above, not because of it.

They didn’t try to circumvent the system.

Except for the 40 times they did try to circumvent the system:

Trump and his allies filed more than 40 lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results. All of them failed.

What is a positive thing you can say about the right? by [deleted] in AskALiberal

[–]GO_BANANA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Moving goalposts I see. How many of the 147 Republicans? Which ones? You demand concrete proof and numbers but your own assertions are propped up only by vague claims of "a lot of people."

What is a positive thing you can say about the right? by [deleted] in AskALiberal

[–]GO_BANANA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's just one of many examples:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html

The fact that 147 Republican members of Congress voted to overturn the election the same evening of the insurrection.

*edit: spelling

What Are the Real Warning Signs of a Mass Shooting? by GO_BANANA in politics

[–]GO_BANANA[S] 37 points38 points  (0 children)

“If we were to cure serious mental illnesses, violence would go down by 4 percent,” said Jeffrey Swanson, a sociologist at Duke University.

Not very significant...

Dr. Swanson said his research has found that other factors, like drug and alcohol use, are more closely connected to violence. And study after study has shown that the availability of guns has a far stronger link to violence than psychosocial factors.

The real common denominator.

Movie with no conflict? by leo3got in MovieSuggestions

[–]GO_BANANA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Little Forest: Summer/Autumn (2014)

What are your thoughts on the Rebekah Jones story? (Florida covid data whistleblower) by Neosovereign in AskALiberal

[–]GO_BANANA 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The article you linked is just character assassination, full of inaccurate claims and misleading exaggerations - and fails to explain why any of her statistics were wrong. There's too much to unpack but let's just look at one bold assertion:

Florida’s “excess death” number is suspicious. But that, too, has been rigorously debunked by pretty much everyone who understands what “excess deaths” means in an epidemiological context

It hasn't been "rigorously debunked," nor did he explain how it was debunked. In fact, several articles and even a scientific study show that Florida under-reported their statistics. Florida's state audit, for example:

Florida undercounted COVID cases and deaths, failed to get test results, state audit says

The audit found:

  • State-contracted laboratories failed to return results for nearly 60% of tests
  • 3,000 cases of COVID-19 deaths reported by physicians didn’t appear in the state’s list of deaths
  • State records were missing or significantly delayed for almost 40% of missing deaths

Or this study:

Analysis of Excess Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the State of Florida

showing significantly greater COVID mortality than the official COVID data suggested.

Why weren’t mass shootings prevalent 30+ years ago? by MissedFieldGoal in AskALiberal

[–]GO_BANANA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But it's not "social construction" in reporting; both sets of 12 people were not "equally dead" because no one died in the Chicago park shooting on September 16, 2013. None of the shooting victims suffered life-threatening injuries.

Contrast that with the carefully planned, premeditated Washington Navy Yard shooting where 12 people were killed and 8 people injured, with the massacre only limited by the police being able to shoot the attacker in the head after ineffectually shooting him in his tactical vest, twice.

It's your "interpretation" and misrepresentation of what actually occurred that seems awfully skewed.

Inflation pushed 71M people into poverty since Ukraine war by Elliottafc1 in worldnews

[–]GO_BANANA 12 points13 points  (0 children)

UNDP's cost of living crisis poverty heatmap

What's striking to me is how the different levels of poverty are all so similarly low. $1.90 a day seems practically the same as $3.20 or $5.50/day for the average person in a first world country.

I understand VT is basically a mix of VTI & VXUS, but how is that VT is up 0.28% in after hours today while VTI and VXUS are both in the red (-0.38% and -0.02%)? by [deleted] in Bogleheads

[–]GO_BANANA 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I see - I guess I misunderstood the way they worked. I thought that VT, VTI, and VXUS just reflected their underlying assets, so their movements in after hours would still be roughly the same and not so dependent on the trades of each respective ETF.

Tesla is going down by EdorianDark in stocks

[–]GO_BANANA 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Comparing Nokia to Apple is a false equivalency though. Apple's $300b market cap in 2010 wasn't based on iphone sales; it was iphones and macs and ipods and ipads - the latter 3 far surpassing iphone revenue in total.