eregorn

I'm wondering where you are getting your information from. Particularly, when I search my own zip on ISP search sites, I get anywhere from 4-6 providers even though I only have 2 options. There's possibly a discrepancy between what's reported and what customers actually have.

"better" doesn't seem a good description for the gaming community's connection to studios. In many cases, gamers themselves might even strong-arm media outlets for studios with or without permission, hence the inflated scores. The recent fake review on Mario Odyssey comes to mind.

I've speculated that it might be related to ransomware picking up in recent years. In particular, wannacry and notpetya coincided with some of bitcoin's surges in price.

Before this, purchases with Bitcoin not for investment purposes were niche in the illegal or attempts at regular purchases that only involved a few users. After these large-scale attacks, Bitcoin has basically been forcibly introduced to the populace at large to (possibly) retrieve their data.

I could argue that this has finally attached Bitcoin's value into something more than trust: data. Hence, bitcoin's value is mirroring the value of another increasingly valuable commodity.

Seems that they attempted to, but they can't definitively disprove it.

Basically, they couldn't find evidence, but they can't disprove the hypothesis and they can only tell from the year 2012. Thus, they can't see if stores let their advertising expire before that year or see the reviews stores had before advertising if they started before that.

He predicted an earthquake in the Philippines and other areas that didn't happen 2 months ago and one in New Zealand 1 month ago. He also made a prediction for a 9.0 earthquake in Nepal after the eclipse and slowly dropped the number over the days to fish out a "prediction". He was also hedging his bets on this earthquake and was giving preference to Japan, not Mexico.

The guy's a charlatan that was basically throwing predictions at the wall till they stuck and is now hoping no one notices his failures.

Well yeh, that's what I was getting at hence the "don't take it literally" part.

I've seen people still don't like what he said even after knowing it was not literal. Some people just don't want to see the internet as something not only invented by the government, but was not the total wild west they romanticized it as.

Interestingly, the 1 star reviewers are claiming the book was leaked and that they did in fact read it.

It does seem like they still didn't read it though despite having access to it. They're universally a sentence long and are either vague or GG talking points that don't really have to do with the book.

He still gets a lot of flak from that "invented the internet" comment. Probably one of the few comments in politics that makes critics of it even more angry if they don't take it literally.

You know, I've not paid attention too much when this argument is made since I usually keep my pony on snopes, not politifact, but I'm glad curiousity got me this time. This is a bit misleading in itself.

Bernie's saying its 50%~, Trump is saying its 60%~. Sure its a 8 percent difference at most, but that difference reveals how they got their number. The gist of both articles is that Bernie is inflating his number with people that have part-time work but want full-time while Trump is inflating with high school and college students.

The rulings on both articles basically point to this: Sander's number has more issue with semantics than actually including people that are not actively seeking a job like Trump's number. Trump doesn't get POF because of your objection: while derived wrong it's "decently" close. Quotes because an 8 point difference is very large when talking unemployment numbers.

The honest answer is it's not. There was an uptick from the North Korea situation, but the comments here just remind me of that New Yorker article.

As in, it is Valley-streamed right now.

I hinted it earlier, but if you insist:

The books except the one about presidents (which seems to be just history) and the Iraq war piece (which was in the tail end of being career-ending if you criticized), the organization he co-founded, and the speeches he's done that aren't about Israel.

I think you completely misunderstand me. A bit my fault cause I usually plan out how I argue and I honestly did not expect this type of questioning. I'll reiterate my first comment in that I know the guy's libertarian (I think, definitely not alt right)?

I mean shit, this whole argument has nothing to do with whether I want to listen to his arguments. It was an explanation of how silly things like this happen in the first place where a libertarian gets confused for an alt right person.

Maybe the goat metaphor wasn't the best thing to go for, since the goat lover is an actual goat lover regardless of the other things he does. Maybe framed 7 times with a goat makes more sense? Maybe plain words are better: He's advertised the things people consider alt right, but not the things about him that prove he isn't. The actual alt right notice these discrepancies regardless and correctly identify him.

Welp, I made a mistake. He's had multiple opinions on Israel, and he's currently pro-Israel at the moment, this was the offending quote:

"A decade later, however, Shapiro reversed his position. In an article published on March 13, 2013, Shapiro wrote, "Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestinians out of areas they have known for their entire lives will certainly not pave the way to peace" and while "both right and left agree that a population separation is necessary," he proposes that Israel "has no choice but to weather [the anti-Israeli propaganda]" until a realistic solution comes to light.[37]"

This however was followed by the UCLA section which I misunderstood. Either way, I don't think there's much point on focusing on Israel. The Don himself is probably more pro-Israel than he is. Opinions like that are less identifying of alt right and more as weapons to be used when the alt reich feel betrayed.

That mistake is also why I'm forgiving you on the whole being attacked by the alt right. I've already said why that doesn't matter, it was also in the paragraph right after that one: "I've experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump's candidacy than at any other time in my political career". If he was alt-right he wouldn't be the first to be turned on like with Milo and the Daily Stormer.

I think there's something I need to clarify here. Another poster here posted how alt right means Nazi now. I DONT believe that, and if you may notice I prefer to say Reich for the Nazi side. I see the alt right as someone who has taken to the right socially, possibly being opposites with libertarians with left economics, but are not evangelicals because they're a revolt on social justice (not against it, but specifically a "what about us?") and, most important here, the reaction to such opinions by colleges, news, and businesses. Also, please remember my second comment before you bring up Wikipedia's own article on the alt right.

Which makes the whole discussion a bit funny but confusing. The guy is definitely alt right, despite what everyone's saying here. A bunch of people here are alt right too but, again, don't want to say so. What happened is history has repeated itself as alt right is to alt reich/Nazi as liberal was to socialism/communism.

It doesn't actually matter in the end how I separate them in the end. Much like the mere mention of redistribution was likened to communism, The fact that alt right can be fiscally left has been taken advantage of to frame everything they believe as Nazi under a simplistic understanding of it. The end result is people seeing a thing as alt right, even if they define it differently somehow.

I'd recommend not replying to this comment as quickly as the last, it had to be long to clarify myself and I won't read the reply till tomorrow anyway.