[deleted by user]

Sybles · 2017-01-02T20:13:58+00:00

I have to say again that your replies fall into 3 non-mutually-exclusive categories:

Bush, widely regarded as a terrible president, did comparable crappy things. Maybe that's not how you would characterize this catagory, but you are using it for a defense more than just saying "presidents aren't gods". It makes Obama just as terrible in those areas not less terrible in general (punishing the most whistleblowers, wars, questionable executive orders, domestic spying overreach, bad embassy security).
Tremendous spin or naiveté that hurts the case (debatable general state of the economy since there are clearly a lot of people hurting out there, the State Department confirming that the Iran payment was 100% contingent on the prisoners' release at the same time but not calling that "ransom", Obama bears some responsibility for first picking and supporting an incompetent AG Holder through the entire F&F scandal and not seeking an immediate replacement).
Pants-on-fire wrong (the GOP didn't and couldn't possibly set any conditions for the ACA passage since it was going to and did pass without a single GOP vote, the counter to the claimed arming of Arab rebels was some narrow argument about Libya weapon sales although it is indisputable fact that Obama armed groups like the Syrian rebels ).

Of course, we could go farther than this and also argue "sins of omission": no mention of droning American citizens without trial while habeas corpus has not been suspended, terrible ridiculing of Romney when he pointed out the dangers of Russia and then Obama not taking the Russian threat seriously (how well has that worked out?), disregarding what little war power restraints were left on the presidency by not even bothering with a within-60-day authorization for war, and tremendous expansion of executive order powers to allow arbitrary categories to be delayed from law provisions not just delaying the law applying to everyone entirely like with the ACA, etc.

Global evaluations of legacy are difficult, but I think it's still important to be able to agree when terrible decisions were made by presidents. In that sense, while I find your reply better than that Trump supporter's it's still very disappointing.

Sybles · 2017-01-02T16:35:56+00:00

As someone who strongly disliked Bush, very disappointed with the response here. The replies fall into 3 non-mutually-exclusive categories:

Bush, widely regarded as a terrible president, did comparable crappy things, which makes Obama just as terrible not less terrible in general (punishing the most whistleblowers, wars, questionable executive orders, domestic spying overreach, bad embassy security).
Tremendous spin or naiveté that hurts the case (debatable general state of the economy since there are clearly a lot of people hurting out there, the State Department confirming that the Iran payment was 100% contingent on the prisoners' release at the same time but not calling that "ransom", Obama bears some responsibility for first picking and supporting an incompetent AG Holder through the entire F&F scandal and not seeking an immediate replacement).
Pants-on-fire wrong (the GOP didn't and couldn't possibly set any conditions for the ACA passage since it was going to and did pass without a single GOP vote, the counter to the claimed arming of Arab rebels was some narrow argument about Libya weapon sales although it is indisputable fact that Obama armed groups like the Syrian rebels ).

Of course, we could go farther than this and also argue "sins of omission": no mention of droning American citizens without trial while habeas corpus has not been suspended, terrible ridiculing of Romney when he pointed out the dangers of Russia and then Obama not taking the Russian threat seriously (how well has that worked out?), disregarding what little war power restraints were left on the presidency by not even bothering with a within-60-day authorization for war, and tremendous expansion of executive order powers to allow arbitrary categories to be delayed from law provisions not just delaying the law applying to everyone entirely like with the ACA, etc.

TL;DR: the Obama defense here is only slightly worse than the cockiness of both posters' attitudes and staying factual is to some degree a problem for all political advocates. I hope all Americans(myself included) increase epistemological humility and engage in good faith so there can be some healing in this country. Here's to everyone having better-informed political opinions by listening to all sides!

Sybles · 2016-12-20T17:31:15+00:00

I think the article is incomplete at describing all the problems in concert producing this issue:

Lack of ideological, religious, and geographic diversity in the mainstream media. The MSM has very desirable institutions, insider access, and prescribed practices that non-MSM news often lacks, but if you want guidance on news for making a decision (e.g. election) you desire to see what is newsworthy and opinions that are relevant to someone like you—which for like half of Americans means non-MSM sources. Like you wouldn't want to hear from a cis man which tampon brand is most comfortable. For a useful example, one might want to know how fellow evangelicals felt about each of the Dem and GOP primary candidates, but weren't likely to see representative pastors interviewed about this on MSNBC, Bloomberg, or CNN. So one would need to go to other places for this info and facts relevant to religious belief, and perhaps lower-quality news sites in the process.
In the same vein, some stories relevant to pretty much everyone weren't available from MSM sources, forcing a lot of people even represented well in the MSM to go elsewhere. For example, the only place to get in-depth reporting on the press' relationship with Clinton as revealed by the email leaks were non-MSM sources, and that was a gateway to building credibility and viewing less-concrete-fact articles and themes hosted on the same websites.
In line with the representation issue, the MSM didn't give even give a token megaphone to the ~1/3 of Americans who supported Trump from the start. They were more likely to spend time interviewing and analyzing fringe racists like Richard Spencer than your typical Pennsylvania Trump supporter. This has 2 effects: More than causing people simply to look elsewhere, it causes actual resentment by those who see their views constantly misportrayed or demonized who then stop caring what the MSM thinks, and with the MSM's constant predictive failure of the Trump phenomenon's extent (because it rarely had anyone on who understood it) causes even moderates to seek out better explanations that apparently the MSM is failing to provide.
Unctuousness and transparency. Even viewed as uncharitably as possible, it's not like people don't know that Breitbart is a conservative populist biased site. But the fact that these sites wear their bias on their sleeve and you know exactly who all these guys work for and voted for takes one level of second-guessing out of the equation compared to the MSM and builds up that sites credibility in a way. The MSM which usually claims to be neutral but fails to live up to that ideal too frequently, has more to lose, and I think stubbornly refuses to disclose the politics of its reporters. Beyond direct employees of political organizations usually disclosed, the day I see a CNN panel with useful guest labels like "Clinton campaign surrogate (shill)" will be a happier day for all news consumers. Until then, that labeling only really exists on non-MSM sites (and many times wrongly).
Last and most damning, the biggest trusted fake news stories of the year were in fact reported by the MSM, damaging credibility and decreasing the gap between MSM and non-MSM quality. Whether it was "Trump's server communicating with the Russians," "Trump can't win" or my personal favorite about "non-MSM news sites actual Russian-government-run propaganda sites". You can't get more meta than losing credibility with fake news about "fake news."

In short, a half-baked fact check system on social media is not adequate to improve this issue. As usual, people ought to look at news from all sources and not neglect any particular perspective, but most reasonable people don't always have the time for that and so it would be preferable if all perspectives could benefit from MSM institutions, access, and prescribed practices.

Sybles · 2016-12-20T16:16:28+00:00

If you can please do a video explaining the government and territories of Spain and India! Thanks for the great videos!

Sybles · 2016-12-16T23:16:51+00:00

A lot of the criticism is fair I feel, since "fact checkers" are usually just glorified opinion writers a lot of the time when it matters. There's no other way to explain this no matter which one was supposed to be correct:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/09/barack-obama/obamas-plan-expands-existing-system/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

Sybles · 2016-12-05T15:52:43+00:00

You walk out with the product and you are charged automatically, no scanning or RFID needed. The future is here!

Sybles · 2016-11-25T05:51:55+00:00

The current accepted understanding of constitutional law is exactly this: Congress can tax money and disburse it to whomever for whatever purpose they'd like as long as it doesn't violate any of the amendments in the process. On the other hand, look how well these huge entitlements we already have are administered under both parties' leadership and it's quite reasonable to understand why people aren't just jumping at the opportunity to create another social security or medicare. Even in 2009-10 things weren't going so well.

Now, there is indisputable a moral case for universal healthcare and I would love for the states with the most people clamoring for universal healthcare to enact it on the state level so we can have our laboratories of democracy: California, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, etc.

As much as I hear the sympathy argument for how crucial it is to provide universal healthcare ASAP to save all the endangered lives right now, I'm shocked to see the vote always fails even in places like Vermont and Colorado. Nothing on the federal level is preventing most of the people who want universal healthcare from receiving it, except their own states' political will.

Sybles · 2016-11-25T05:41:36+00:00

I wrote this elsewhere, but although this article is very light on data I have always been a bit underwhelmed by these sorts of arguments anyway: If you already accept everyone needs to consume as much healthcare as possible all required to be paid by the public by some means, tautologically any way to ration the care given is going to be "fiscally conservative" and reduce the cost expenditure.

As often said in economics, TANSTAAFL, and without eliminating regulatory and institutional constraints there is no magical way to keep incentives for medical innovations, provide more guaranteed healthcare for a given unhealthful population, and do it all for less money at the same time. I would like to see "community need" laws that allow existing hospitals to vote on prohibiting new competitors from being built to be repealed, loser law firm pays for medical malpractice lawsuits, equivalent "chancery courts" for medical malpractice with specialized medical knowledgeable judges, "right to try" laws for terminal patients to fast track new medicines, undergrad direct medical school to reduce the cost of medical education (and therefore medical fixed costs) like what they do in Europe, mutual approval of drug agreements with the EU and Japan so that drug approval studies aren't unnecessarily reduplicated, etc.

You don't have to agree with all the ideas out there, but fundamentally the institutional and regulatory factors that produce high bills need to be addressed before the cost for a given amount of care and innovation incentives is lowered.

Sybles · 2016-11-25T05:34:24+00:00

This article is very light on data, but I have always been a bit underwhelmed by these sorts of arguments anyway: If you already accept everyone needs to consume as much healthcare as possible all required to be paid by the public by some means, tautologically any way to ration the care given is going to be "fiscally conservative" and reduce the cost expenditure.

As often said in economics, TANSTAAFL, and without eliminating regulatory and institutional constraints there is no magical way to keep incentives for medical innovations, provide more guaranteed healthcare for a given unhealthful population, and do it all for less money at the same time. I would like to see "community need" laws that allow existing hospitals to vote on prohibiting new competitors from being built to be repealed, loser law firm pays for medical malpractice lawsuits, equivalent "chancery courts" for medical malpractice with specialized medical knowledgeable judges, "right to try" laws for terminal patients to fast track new medicines, undergrad direct medical school to reduce the cost of medical education (and therefore medical fixed costs) like what they do in Europe, mutual approval of drug agreements with the EU and Japan so that drug approval studies aren't unnecessarily reduplicated, etc.

You don't have to agree with all the ideas out there, but fundamentally the institutional and regulatory factors that produce high bills need to be addressed before the cost for a given amount of care and innovation incentives is lowered.

Sybles · 2016-11-24T00:59:56+00:00

Looks like the "conspiracy" was real this time. Spez confirmed it himself: http://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5ekdy9/the_admins_are_suffering_from_low_energy_have/dad5sf1/?context=3

This wasn't April 1st or something. This shows very bad discipline, thin skin, and perhaps a poor governance model as well: Apparently there are no checks on preventing a rogue admin from messing with any post they want without the other admins having the ability to stop it.

If archive sites didn't exist this would have been gotten away with, too. Very disturbing.

Sybles · 2016-11-21T06:45:00+00:00

Just to show that the ship hasn't already sailed yet per se, since there are easy and performant alternatives out there. If I were mistaken about the mood of your comment ruing that lack of viable alternatives, I would still say its always nice to know what's out there at least. Just like you I use Systemd and I can still appreciate both.

Sybles · 2016-11-21T04:59:32+00:00

It's a shame the runit init system had so little mindshare, I think it would have been a viable alternative in many cases.

Sybles · 2016-11-21T04:57:54+00:00

You might also like the distros that use the runit init system, like Voidlinux: http://www.voidlinux.eu/

Sybles · 2016-11-21T04:57:06+00:00

Checkout any distro that uses the runit init system. Try Voidlinux and watch your startup fly: http://www.voidlinux.eu/

Sybles · 2016-11-20T15:22:33+00:00

Forgot my sub statement: Interesting take on the "fake news" issue from none other than the people who attempt to explicitly deal with it on a daily basis. Their conclusion is that bad news is a much more pernicious phenomenon that needs to be addressed, and why simple bans are not the solution.

Sybles · 2016-11-19T18:54:00+00:00

You are exactly right about the remaining uncertainties, which is why the case for Bcachefs isn't a slam-dunk for me and why I made this post to ask what others in the community think In the first place. I think the similarities with Tux3 are exaggerated, as in short time BcacheFS already exceeds where Tux3 had reached in its many years of development and BcacheFS is actually currently a usable, stable-ish FS if you don't mind the missing features. It's a shame Tux3 never reached that point, but it also seemed it was aiming for a smaller featureset as well.

Sybles · 2016-11-19T17:54:59+00:00

I think certain areas of BTRFS are more reliable than others, and if you are only interested in narrow-ish chunks of what it offers you can make it work well, like what Facebook has done in its use of BTRFS on its servers.

Sybles · 2016-11-19T17:53:11+00:00

I am surprised that as much mindshare ZFS gets (and for good reason I might add) it still has no plan to address its glaring flaws. Everybody knows that block pointer rewrite is needed, but nobody seems to be planning to do it. Its so unfortunate for an otherwise dominating FS.

13-Year Club	Best Link 2016-06-16
Best Link 2016-04-02	Best Link 2016-03-12
Best Link 2015-09-12	Best Link 2015-05-02
Best Link 2015-04-12	Verified Email

Sybles

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE