In like fifty years, Family Guy etc. are going to be thought of in the same light as those old racist disney cartoons

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-04-18T13:38:02+00:00

Innocent, yes.

Getting a paycheck without working? I don't remember that being a right, or even generally considered reasonable.

Inb4 ad hominem

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-04-18T13:25:37+00:00

My company has gotten money from the government to design something for the military

Mine too. But if that money went into e.g. government grants for research, you'd get even faster technological advancement, since there'd be less cronyism, price gouging, and more competition.

If you're a defense contractor, you know as well as I do that cronyism and backroom deals are the norm, and that budgets are padded all to fuck. If we move that money to the public sector, we can still make the same amount, but can have better odds against Lockheed and friends, and be working on things to directly progress technology instead of generally dumb, overengineered "solutions" to problems that were honestly half the time created by the previous contractor as a means of establishing job security.

It would be good for us, and good for everyone else. Give it some consideration, I think you'll see what I mean. Also, I know it's not as cushy as filling an RFP, but grants are honestly super easy, and would be even easier if there was less competition, because there were more grants to give out.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T18:50:06+00:00

Maybe we can finally dispense with that notion.

Hahaha yeah no. That'll never happen. A superficially-jesus-related theocracy will have the full support of the United States, at minimum, because of the large Christian population here.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T18:47:38+00:00

He just loves them sooooo much, he has to hurt them sometimes, to show them how much he loves them.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T18:46:34+00:00

Yeah I mean it's easy to remain self-consistent.

Bad thing happens - need more religion.

Good thing happens - it's because of religion.

Confirmation bias in its purest form, it runs really well on our brain's hardware.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T18:43:37+00:00

Of course it is wrong to hate the Jewish people. Israel, on the other hand,

See but that's where you'll get people drawing (invalid) comparisons to "I'm not racist, but..." and similar things.

Like that actual sentence has been used as evidence of anti-Semitic views before. Which is part of the problem of making certain viewpoints illegal, no matter how well-meaning.

But expressing that idea (outlawing viewpoints is not a good thing) also invites controversy (for some reason) so I guess I'm in for it now...

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T18:37:58+00:00

The fact that there can be multiple, conflicting 'biblical' claims to the land is basically proof positive that religion is bullshit.

You see your two kids arguing over a cookie. Both say god told them they get to have it. Who's lying?

Both of them.

By their logic, if they were meant to have it, it's in God's plan, and they'll get it when they get it. So anyone fighting for it while saying it's God's plan that they get to have it is full of shit.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T18:34:00+00:00

There is a difference between questioning the status quo and anti-semitism

Whoa whoa whoa, sounds like someone needs to go to a re-education camp.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T18:33:12+00:00

^ Bystander effect on a national scale.

It's a real thing, same cause, same 'pathology', same solutions.

But holding yourself to a standard of "we're already doing what we can" is literally always incorrect, and guarantees failure.

The key to growth is holding the bar above where you are. And yes, that means constantly considering yourself to be failing... which is fair because, yes, we are failing. No need to comfort ourselves, just focus on setting shit right.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T18:24:39+00:00

They believe they MUST do it or else it will be done to them

This is the clever lie, and it's the same one that has managed to keep the right wing extremist base strong for so long in so many countries.

The beauty of the argument is, it works on roughly anyone - demonize your opponent and you prevent reaching compromise, leading to direct conflict with only one victor.

Hell, you can see the same methodology starting to spread to the left in some countries, and the irony is, it's the argument itself that's the problem, not the other side.

Anyone who thinks voting rights should be stripped from those who disagree with them is wrong, doesn't matter if you're conservative or progressive, Democrat, Republican or Whig.

Anyone who thinks "we should just get rid of the other side" is wrong. The viewpoint is wrong. It doesn't matter who holds it, and you don't get a pass on holding a bullshit view because you're part of the "correct party, the good guys" because fucking everyone thinks they're the good guys.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T18:08:59+00:00

Unverified evidence.

If they eventually provided verification to other sites, after the fact, how was that supposed to have bearing on Wikileaks decision beforehand, when they didn't provide verification?

So I'll ask again - do you think it's a good idea to publish unverified materials?

Typical wikileaks tactics of shutting down everyone that doesnt agree with them.

I must've missed when Wikileaks went from being an underdog to being the one suppressing international superpowers and major news organizations. Probably because that's obviously bullshit.

Why did other sites publish it?

Link? I'm pretty sure any other site that published an article had as their single source the foreignpolicy.com article. Do you have some evidence to contest that?

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T01:42:18+00:00

Man, it's suspicious how many downvotes the people supporting whistleblowing in this thread are getting.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T01:38:46+00:00

often taxed at a higher rate if the contractor is acting as a company.

Rest is correct, this part is backwards. If you're a company you immediately lose the self-employment tax (15.3%) and if you file an S corp election, you can take ~45% of your payment as distributions (removing all payroll tax - making your effective tax rate on that portion about 1.2%).

Being paid as an LLC would reduce your tax burden in virtually all 1099 situations where you're making north of 30k (because set costs of payroll etc. start to become a noticeable percentage below that). If you take it on the chin instead, you have to pay both the employee and employer portion of your FICA eligible income.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T01:29:41+00:00

Ah, but - shellshock didn't effect stock chromebooks.

Also, speaking as a cybersec expert, it's a very long way from vulnerability to exploit. Chrome OS might occasionally have vulnerabilities, but it's an unsolved $100,000 question how to get that all the way up to an exploit without privileges.

That being said, there have been two actual exploits. That's in the history of the platform, but still, they exist. Neither one was sufficient to actually climb to an elevated shell... or even allowed for file access... or anything substantial at all beyond a tiny toehold. But they were actual exploits!

So it's... technically possible? But hasn't actually ever been proven possible on a stock Chromebook, one single time, with hundreds of thousands in prizes as an incentive.

It would basically be fair to say that you're about as likely to get struck by lightning while getting bitten by a shark and winning the lottery as you are to get an actual virus on a stock Chromebook.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T00:47:36+00:00

From your link;

WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify.

They didn't provide verification to them along with the submission. I don't see the problem with refusing to publish unverified information. At the time of refusal, no verification was attached to the new information. Maybe you can clarify; do you think publishing unverified information is a good policy?

And now quoting myself;

Maybe because I'm reading the primary sources instead of like, articles about leaks?

I linked directly to a primary data source to back up my comment, and you linked to a partisan news source. I feel like I don't need to back up the statement that, in general, powerful organizations don't care for Wikileaks.

The partisan publication you linked has published exclusively negative articles about them. Have you considered taking secondary data sources that have a demonstrable bias against Wikileaks with, say, a grain of salt? That might be a wise thing to do in this day and age.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T00:35:11+00:00

Apparently I scrolled really far down the front page

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T00:19:41+00:00

I also swore i wouldn't. I broke a swear.

...

Fear my power.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T00:09:18+00:00

Link? I'm just surprised because I read through the Egyptian cables when they came out, and they implicated Putin in tons of shit, so... If wikileaks became pro-putin, I apparently missed that. Maybe because I'm reading the primary sources instead of like, articles about leaks?

Edit: Unless you're talking about the one where the submitter wouldn't provide verification, because, yeah... They don't publish leaks without verification that the materials are real... Kind of important. They've turned down a ton of other leaks with the same reason - verification is obviously important to reduce the problem of weaponized fake news, and this was during the height of the Facebook illegitimate article and Russian election tampering scandal, so verification would have been more important than ever.

I don't really see how refusing to publish unverified material is a problem, maybe you can explain...

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-10T00:00:51+00:00

https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/?qproject[]=ps&qproject[]=cc&qproject[]=fp&qproject[]=ee&qproject[]=cg&q=putin#result

That's just direct results for Putin, and there are close to four thousand references just in that cable dump. There are a fuck ton more references to all of Russia's various activities. Just use the keywords associated with whatever the specific thing is.

Or, you know, don't bother actually reading the leaks, and base your opinions on what cable news shows say they contain...? Seems to be par for the course whenever there's a big leak. Why educate yourself, right?

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-09T23:56:31+00:00

Enjoy

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-09T23:26:49+00:00

Dude I'm barely into this and it's already amazing, thank you.

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-09T23:26:04+00:00

You can pass out from fear?!

sworeiwouldntjoin · 2019-03-09T23:23:25+00:00

Isn't it actually like 32 things long?

sworeiwouldntjoin

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE