blackrose
Joined 10 years ago
Karma
41
Submissions
46
Member since
Jan 16
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
But seriously, what are your motives in defending Facebook so much?
Comment · 8 years ago
Right, and it's echoed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [0] and elsewhere.
Comment · 8 years ago
It's not that she's evil, just that her "philosophy" is what you said: one person's view (i.e. opinion). She couldn't reconcile many critiques of Objectivism and didn't do much self-analysis on it. So despite how good many of her individual ideas sound, together they're thin and don't really make up a coherent theory that many people can take seriously. Unless you're a jerk using her name to justify being self-centered :) (just kidding)
Comment · 8 years ago
Yep, nailed it. For those of us who still read despite all that, here's the browser extension you've been looking for (Make Medium Readable Again): https://github.com/thebaer/MMRA
Comment · 8 years ago
> Mr. Trump, who is known to watch Fox News while he is tweeting, posted his tweet shortly after a Fox News legal analyst appealed directly to the president during a Thursday morning segment about the coming House vote. The analyst, Andrew Napolitano, turned to television cameras and said, “Mr. President, this is not the way to go.” He added that Mr. Trump’s “woes” began with surveillance.
lol.
But seriously we need someone in the oval office who feels strongly about protecting the privacy of Americans (and everyone else!). Trump is just another one in the line to rubber-stamp this. Not holding my breath though...
Comment · 9 years ago
Nope. A lot revolves around them, but there are plenty of ultra-rich ideologues pushing their agenda this way. You can find some good investigative research on this in "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer, which details a lot of the history behind dark money influencing politics, and the ideals these guys are trying to advance.
The Mercers are another influential family she's written about [0]
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/the-reclusive-...
Comment · 9 years ago
The formula works! If it can get that guy in the White House, it can sell anything.
Also, I think it's kind of delicious when a variant like this is used to actually describe a previously "Y/Great" thing (Medium was readable at some point). Kinda hijacks the meaning from the original phrase and makes it less shitty.
Comment · 9 years ago
> ... but they returned money when they stopped.
After they took a couple mil for themselves :) [0]
[0]: http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-founders-pocket-6-mill...
Comment · 9 years ago
Isn't greed self-centeredness?
> society at large is unquestionably a cesspit of low consciousness, and self-centered thinking
That's a heck of a personal projection :)
And pg disagrees with that last sentiment in the footnotes:
> Many think successful startup founders are driven by money. In fact the secret weapon of the most successful founders is that they aren't. If they were, they'd have taken one of the acquisition offers that every fast-growing startup gets on the way up. What drives the most successful founders is the same thing that drives most people who make things: the company is their project.
Comment · 9 years ago
Yes, it literally is. You just needed to scroll down the page a little more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Conspiracy...
Comment · 9 years ago
This is a seriously debunked conspiracy theory [0][1] that damages us all when people continually spread it.
[0] http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/
[1] http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-...
Comment · 9 years ago
People in the intelligence community consider Snowden a Russian asset now. Russia could've flipped or co-opted Assange since the Bush years, or maybe it's only now coming out. Either way much of this stuff is classified, so we can't really know details one way or the other. But if you keep up with folks in the IC and look into how Russia does warfare, you see they've been doing this forever, and they're pros at it.
Comment · 9 years ago
That's the point -- the CIA, FBI, and NSA determined with "high confidence" [0] that Russia worked to influence us through (among other outlets) the media -- especially social media. It worked, and because of it our votes weren't free.
> Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.”
Comment · 9 years ago
From the intelligence community assessment [0]:
> The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks. RT’s editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media. Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become "the only Russian media company" to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to "new leaks of secret information." RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States.
Comment · 9 years ago
It could be you or your family having connections to powerful people. Being famous. But what's important as it pertains to our conversation: being in an authoritative position, e.g. a teacher, law enforcement officer, manager, or company executive. All of these people can have an influence, or "power," over others -- including, but not limited to, women.
As your question doesn't really have anything to do with our debate, I respectfully decline to answer. It was nice talking.
web; python; OSS