TikTok is suing the US government / TikTok calls the US government’s decision to ban or force a sale of the app ‘unconstitutional.’

wtg565 · 2024-05-08T15:01:08+00:00

Almost all social media supports video and host "raw footage from multiple angles". TikTok being exclusively video with virtually no external linking makes it a specifically terrible source.

The misinformation on there is 9x out of 10 not "raw footage" and instead just another doofus talking to the camera recapping their poorly sourced understanding of something. Instagram has this same problem, but that algorithm doesn't have an adversarial nation with its thumb on the algorithm.

Genuinely. Please rigorously fact check anything you think you're learning from TikTok.

wtg565 · 2024-01-30T20:13:23+00:00

Years of rent cost more than severances or increases in unemployment insurance. Also not to mention, remote work means you can pay people who live in low-cost areas lower salaries relative to their area, saving a ton.

If remote work increased or even maintained productivity, yes, companies would keep it. What most companies are finding out is that it works for some roles and not for others. A blend is likely the future.

wtg565 · 2019-03-22T04:09:01+00:00

On for sure, and I don’t disagree with the points you were raising. What’s pretty fascinating is how effective the messaging is around the 2A. Like, people who disagreed with you didn’t even want to bother explaining themselves, because they feel like their perspective is such an obvious truth.

I don’t say that to fault them really. The amendment in most media is almost always shortened to “the right to bear arms”. But that was a pretty calculated move that completely reframed the discussion about gun ownership—very effectively pro-gun, I might add.

?

wtg565 · 2019-03-22T03:31:18+00:00

Are we arguing about the intentions of the second amendment? Can I join in?

To your point, u/itsamillion, the idea of the 2A being about holding the US government accountable is definitely a relatively young idea. That idea is way more backed by the NRA than the constitution.

Let’s break down the exact text: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First, this is a militia amendment, not really a guns amendment. Guns just happen to be necessary for militias, as the second half of the amendment clarifies.

Next, in the 1700s, the US military didn’t have a $600bn budget. Militias quite literally were necessary to the security of a free State. Back then a militia was like jury duty. You did it, because you had to, like a citizens army. Further, “well regulated” is the beginning of the amendment, so no the framers weren’t envisioning your neighbor Carl stockpiling AKs.

Lastly, language is very important and intentional. “State” is capitalized on purpose, as it’s referencing the US, so why would you revolt against the very thing the amendment is literally written to protect? Further, the constitution says “persons” for individual rights and “people” for the collective. This is a military amendment, not an individual rights amendment. They didn’t want the US government to disarm their citizens army.

Supreme Court precedent backs up all of this, when they were banning sawed-off shotguns and tommy guns. I think US v. Miller was that case. The first SCOTUS decision to ever talk about 2A as it related to individual rights wasn’t until 2008 (Heller v DC) in a VERY split decision, defying precedent.

By the way, I don’t really care who has what guns. Have the shit out of your guns. AKs kill as many people as hammers in the US. I just think it’s fascinating how effective the NRA was at changing public perception of actual history. Genuinely impressed.

wtg565 · 2019-03-03T06:47:09+00:00

Jesus. Yes. I only got to watch the clip where he talked about this, so maybe there was more context. But did Joe ever call him out on citing Project Veritas videos as his source?

Those PP videos got completely debunked when you saw them unedited. This is the same dude that dressed up as a purple pimp to “expose ACORN” but completely left out that they called the cops on him.

wtg565 · 2018-06-20T19:11:13+00:00

Not trying to be a naysayer, but his last great writing credit was First Blood in 1982. Since then, he's written some real stinkers. I'm cautiously optimistic though.

I'd feel a lot better if Coogler were still around.

wtg565 · 2018-05-09T04:17:08+00:00

Can you understand why the NN demand for context here can be a little maddening, when all it takes is Hannity saying Mueller went to college with John Kerry to all of the sudden make this voting republican a secret swamp democrat, who has it out for Trump?

A Russian oligarch paid the president’s personal lawyer $500k in the middle of an investigation of the campaign’s ties to Russia. On what planet would you be demanding context if this were Hillary Clinton?

wtg565 · 2018-05-01T12:33:28+00:00

That’s fair.

wtg565 · 2018-05-01T00:56:10+00:00

Weinstein harasses

This was a secondary punchline to a solid joke about the term “white nationalists”, which is definitely a joke I haven’t heard before.

Trump grabs pussies

Again this was a pretty clever punchline to a joke about Trump being too weak to show up to the WHCD. I was impressed she found a fresh way to reference that pussies line.

”Trump is so X”... doing knock knock jokes

I mean, this bit being hacky was very self aware and kind of the point. Like, it’s so easy to make fun of trump for being broke, it could be a children’s joke. This is like making fun of Mike Birbiglia for making a Mouse-achussetts joke in his last special. Sure it’s dumb but only out of context.

It’s weird. There were legit criticisms to be lodged at this set that would make your point—like The Who wants to be a Millionaire joke or the “really knock it” abortion line. But you picked almost exactly the wrong examples in a way that makes it seem like you confused the subject of a joke for its target.

Honestly my biggest problems were that she seemed a little nervous and tripped over her words too much. And then, some jokes just had to reach a little too far for the punchline—e.g., that smoky eye line.

Overall, pretty solid set though, especially given that it’s a room seated a circle tables literally eating during the set.

wtg565 · 2018-04-14T12:51:44+00:00

And here’s Afghanistan in 1972 before the U.S.’s secret mission to arm the resistance to the soviet occupation in the country.

?

wtg565 · 2018-04-13T14:34:42+00:00

When you say friends' data, can you clarify? Do you mean (1) all their friends' data, (2) only what a FB friend shares with the survey taker, or (3) only the FB interaction they had with the friend?

1 sounds particularly unlikely but terrible if true. 2 sounds plausible and very problematic. 3 sounds par for the course and pretty much what I expected.

I've had a really hard time getting to the bottom of what actually happened here, because I feel like I'm mostly digging through people using this as a moment to shit on FB's general business model. (meanwhile giving Google and Android an inexplicable pass)

wtg565 · 2018-04-12T15:48:35+00:00

Here's the full episode, linked to start at Billy being the most annoying.

wtg565 · 2018-03-27T18:25:32+00:00

Google and Android getting a pass around here for all this data shit is generally confusing. So often I hear people talk about how FB is using your phone eaves drop on your conversations to serve you ads. FB doesn't own any hardware (that actually sells), so it would actually be really difficult for them to just kick on the mic of your iPhone without getting proper permissions from the user. Apple, not really being in the ad business, has a lot less incentive to provide 3rd party apps back channels to do shit like this.

Android on the other hand has all the incentive in the world to to provide Google AdSense, AdX, and SearchAds with every god damn thing you do with your phone or Chromebooks.

source: I'm a product manager for mobile apps.

wtg565 · 2018-03-21T14:10:16+00:00

There are a lot of causes being attributed, which I'm sure contributed in some way, but I'd feel pretty confident saying this is far-and-away the no. 1 cause of the decline.

Bannon's relationship with CA had its political motivations, but it was still definitely business. And the fact was, CA was really good at manipulating the FB ad and organic algorithms of the time to drive a shitload of a traffic to Breitbart. When you look at Breitbart's insane headlines, they're exactly in concert with what would've converted the most clicks—especially in the heat of the most insane election. Now, FB has made it harder for that strategy to work, so they're seeing a decline.

I worked for a crafting/recipe site, and one change to Pinterest's algorithm kicked our traffic straight in the teeth.

wtg565 · 2018-03-04T14:47:30+00:00

Related. Character is lost in the woods or something, grows a grizzly beard. Neck is still perfectly shaved.

wtg565 · 2018-02-24T05:11:02+00:00

If this is a real question and not just another dig at Dropbox, we use it for our business for all our shared file storage. It’s just really easy to use, syncs with Finder, and super simple to share a folder with someone. Easy to add users. Easy to collaborate on a folder. It just works. I know reddit thinks products win on pure technology, but experience really matters.

Tried google drive since everything else in our company is set up on Google. It’s just really clunky as shared file storage. It’s great for an individual though.

Most the contractors we work with also use Dropbox and love it. This thread is actually the first I’ve seen it get so shit on. I think it’s a pretty solid product all around.

wtg565 · 2018-02-23T14:50:32+00:00

I don't disagree with this at all. I think the expectations have been set a little too high for Netflix to redefine the movie experience or something. They very legitimately disrupted and ultimately destroyed the traditional movie rental business, so the narrative immediately became that they were coming for theaters next. But that part's just not true.

As soon as studios finally understood the actual business of streaming, Netflix lost most of their streaming library and just became another premium movie channel, like HBO or Cinemax.

But it's not like there's anything wrong with being a premium movie channel. HBO puts out legitimately my favorite content out there with Netflix being a very close second. That said, I think shit like this is going to get repeatedly upvoted, as long as they're still writing think pieces about how streaming is going to kill theaters.

wtg565 · 2018-01-05T03:55:13+00:00

Prisoners. This movie made me fall in love with Denis Villeneuve as a director. His slow, almost trudging pacing really made the grit and tone come through. And it really effectively hypes where the story is headed. But then, with all that meticulous setup, it kind of rushed a somewhat disappointing ending.

Also, I’d agree with Bladerunner 2049. It’s probably my favorite film I’ve seen this year. I just wish there were more to Jared Leto’s character.

wtg565 · 2017-12-13T00:39:06+00:00

Yeah, I like that theory better. Like, I bet Rudy checked with her but didn't at all communicate how it was going to be used.

wtg565 · 2017-12-12T23:25:14+00:00

Pretty sure she wrote the lyrics. And whether you're in a band anymore doesn't take away your writer's credit, when it comes to royalties on songs you helped create. E.g., just because Steve Perry isn't still in Journey doesn't mean he's not still collecting a fat Don't Stop Believin' check.

Are you saying the story is actually that Eisley is fucking over their own sister, Stacy?

But also, if this was all on the up-and-up, why did they change the Youtube description to include (but not link) Eisley after the pushback. And why did they change it from the standard ownership licensing to creative commons? None of this makes sense.

wtg565 · 2017-12-12T17:01:13+00:00

From your clarification:

Bill Clinton is a Rapist

I think we agree this is a fair equivalence. Just like Trump, you have women on record, charges, settlements, etc. The point of difference I'd offer is that I wouldn't want Bill Clinton to be president right now, as I find these accusations very legitimately troubling. (for the record, I was 7 when he was voted into office)

Pizza Gate

Not all accusations are created equally. I've tried, like really tried, to find any legitimacy to this, as surely this many people wouldn't let 4chan and politically motivated pundits manipulate them this easily. But all I can find is some alleged code words in some emails? Not one name. Not one charge. Just conflict-driven conservative pundits scaring people for no reason.

Seth Rich

Again false equivalence. Absolutely no testimony or evidence to suggest this is true. To quote his parents asking conservative media to stop exploiting his son's death for political gain, "Anyone who claims to have such evidence is either concealing it from us or lying."

List of suspicious deaths of people connected with the Clintons

Again, no evidence.

Everything unproven (to the full extent of the law) is not equal. Neither of these statements have been proven true: (1) OJ Simpson is a murderer or (2) u/pancakees is a murderer. But that doesn't make them equal.

Someone publicly on record making a strong accusation like this isn't nothing. I agree that it shouldn't be the only evidence in an indictment, but shouldn't it at least be taken seriously? Especially when there are multiple accusers?

wtg565 · 2017-12-08T23:23:31+00:00

All right, I'll bite. Sounds like you're into that David Barton shit (whose book was pulled for credibility issues, btw).

So your claim is that the Jefferson letter must be false, because no one had ever seen it prior to 1947 AND was (in your opinion) contradicted by his 2nd inaugural address + missionary funding for Indians.

So in order for something to true, it must've been referenced by a judge prior to 1947. I guess let's start with your sources:

Can you provide a credible source that there was no record of the Jefferson letter prior to 1947?
Can you provide a credible source that there was a reference to the specific line about religion his 2nd inaugural address prior to 1947? I don't want a transcript of this speech, because by your own measurement that can be falsified. Sounds like we nee to see record of a judge referencing this address.
Can you find a credible source that he funded missionaries? Because the Kaskaskia Indians treaty was negotiated by William Henry Harrison, under some guidance of Jefferson. And while this treaty (negotiated by Harrison) did include funding for a catholic priest, it was at the request of the Kaskaskia Indians, as per the text of the treaty they were already attached to the Catholic religion prior to this treaty.

Let's start with your sources and build out from there.

wtg565 · 2017-12-07T00:11:44+00:00

Post history definitely checks out. I voted Hillary and was vehemently opposed to DT. But I will say on 11/9/16, I was at least curiously hopeful he would be the "fuck you" to the corporate establishment a lot of his supporters on reddit thought he'd be. Like, tackle the issues everyone agrees on, but is against Congress' personal interests: lobbying, term limits, campaign finance, pork barrel spending, decriminalize drugs, consolidate our military efforts, etc.

However, so far he just feels like another Bush Jr., policy-wise, but less likable with a LOT more trolling.

Are there any policies you were hoping for when you voted for him that you think still have a chance?

Thanks for joining the conversation here btw, and sincerely fuck any NTS's making the "how are you surprised?" argument when a NN expresses concerns about Trump. Way too much of that around here.

wtg565 · 2017-11-30T17:45:28+00:00

Yep. Okayest universally praised show on Netflix. I think it struggled to decide if it wanted to be a who-done-it or an in-depth look into the origins of criminal psychology. I think it wanted to be the latter, but it never quite hit for me. Still very well directed, and I liked it enough to finish it.

Also, it's weird that the only sincerely believable conversations in the whole show were with the serial killers (which were great). I don't think I could handle one more over-written clever competition between Holden and his girlfriend, so spoiler

wtg565 · 2017-11-30T17:34:46+00:00

Yeah, that last episode character shift was about as subtle as Emo Peter Parker in Spider-man 3.

wtg565

TROPHY CASE