0x7E3

> What is it about this website or this article that makes you think it's referring to this particular quote?

The quote is at the top of the page right next to their logo.

A few of the others for you since you don't see them:

[31] "The role of technology in online misinformation"

[7] "Who 'Created' Covid?"

[11] "How social media platforms are fighting coronavirus misinformation"

[28] "MAGA speech clashes with coronavirus misinformation crackdown"

[54] "Twitter bans Zero Hedge after it posts coronavirus conspiracy theory"

[3] "Conceptualizing "Dark Platforms". Covid-19-Related Conspiracy Theories on 8kun and Gab"

Here's a direct quote from that last one:

> ZeroHedge is infamous for making controversial commentaries on socio-political issues; during the pandemic, its Twitter account was suspended for propagating conspiratorial claims that blamed the Wuhan Institute of Virology for creating the novel coronavirus.

By all means don't take it seriously, but in the interest of conversation, Tyler Durden is a pretty obvious reference to the quote "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero". Would you be more inclined to take a website seriously if they simply said their articles were penned by "anonymous"?

ETA: One thing I appreciate about ZeroHedge is that they include their sources. For example there was an article earlier today about a court ruling and the text of the ruling itself was embedded right there, inline with the article. Similarly when they mention a post on Twitter you can usually read the tweet for yourself and decide if their analysis is appropriate. That is a breath of fresh air after spending time on so many news sites (both major and more "fringe" ones) that just expect you to take them at their word. I'm not saying everyone should follow their lead exactly, but is it too much to ask that the primary source that is the focus of an article at least be linked somewhere at the bottom of the page, CNN?

A surprising number of those citations are calling out zerohedge for promoting the "right wing conspiracy threory" that Covid leaked from a lab...

Two.

From Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-5-201

>(2) An employer shall disclose in each posting for each job opening the hourly or salary compensation, or a range of the hourly or salary compensation, and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant.

>Upon finding that an employer has violated this part 2, the director may order the employer to pay a fine of no less than five hundred dollars and no more than ten thousand dollars per violation.

Libertarians.

It seems that people who recommend LLSI rarely mention the accompanying workbooks. Do you feel like they are a good value add, or is Famillia Romana strong enough on its own?

Consider the perspective someone who does not know anything about this book previous to reading your comment. Searching Amazon for Hans H. Ørberg is not likely to make it clear which book (or books) you are actually recommending.

> only because it serves their ends.

Discrimination based on skin color is morally reprehensible. Doing it systematically at an institutional level is particularly damaging.

The 'conservative party' as you put it recognizes this. The 'other party' only recognizes it for certain skin colors, which is a subset of the aforementioned discrimination based on skin color.

So yes, you are correct in that the ends of the conservative party seem to be to end racial discrimination. The ends of the other party appear to be stoking racial hatred to garner support based on an outdated perception of their role.

I much prefer the conservative take on this issue in 2022.

Yes, I agree with several of the points made in the article.

Yep, and they are in the least information dense part of the page!

> We can all appreciate the aesthetic beauty of rounded corners.

Can we? Much like that top 40 song that comes on the radio way too often, I have come to find all the rounded corners off-putting. They are usually a signal of form over function, and often used by information sparse sites.

Give me square corners like HackerNews, old Reddit, or Vanguard any day.

I edited my comment to be more clear.

I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous. I'm saying that the 'levels' system seems to be broken. When "imminent danger of becoming an active war zone" is at the same level as "health risks similar to traveling domestically" the 'levels' no longer communicate much of use.