naiveprogrammer

You are nto following the story, cleary. Not only some texts have been verified, they have a former business partner going on record, verifying the messages along the way. What else do you want? People involved in the threads are claiming the messages to be true. What else do you want?

And, by the way, I could care less for the video and photographic content of that laptop, to me that content is irrelevant --actually, I feel sorry for Joe Biden and I can't imagine how hard it must be to have a son who is a drug addict and a man child. But shouldn't that also corroborate the validity of the laptop content? Why isn't the media all over it?

And, please, let's not pretend that several Trump stories came from anonymous sources with no audio or text evidence. And the mainstream media danced all over it. For instance, the (supposedly) anonymous senior administration who was part of the resistance. Not only did the NYT run stories on his unverified accounts (no audio/text/video to back it up), they also wrote a book with his accounts. And we just learned that this senior admin wasn't senior after all. How can you really read thsoe stories and not come way perplexed by the blatant bias? I understand why people hate Trump, but is it worth to abandon journalism standards? Where do we go from here?

You'd think that after 4 years of intense scrutiny by the media, with a 2-year Special Counsel Investigation, people would finally let this go. If you don't see the parallel between this pipe dream and the QAnons of the world, I can't help you.

Instead of blaming fake news and misinformation for the 2016 elections outcome, maybe the Democrats should look themselves in the mirror.

I have yet to see a clear decisive causation link between the Russian interference (e.g. bot farms) and the outcome of the election. Of course there was interference, nobody denies it. But show me that these trolls swayed the election. There is none.

The media has been pedaling the Russian collusion story for 4 years and you don't seem to care because it fits your priors and political agenda. The bigger lesson here is that everybody is ready to accept censorship as long as they are not bearing the (immediate) costs of it.

Excellent post, thank you.

It does seem to me that blaming the whole situation on climate change is an exaggeration. However, it is a politically savvy move from Newsom et al. as west coast states are solid blue. They are pandering to their audience. It also happens on the right with different issues.

I have no doubt that had TikTok been a Russian app and its ultimate stakeholder were the Russian government, some of you here would have no problem with the ban. I am really tired of the double standard.

But most importantly, what the US is applying is plain and old-fashioned Reciprocity trade rules. It is a completely valid and accepted course of action. If China closes its market to US-based social network companies, then the US should do the same. It happens everywhere and you don't see people screaming bloody murder because of it.

In my opinion, it is about time. Not only we are creating a disadvantage to our local companies (FB, Whatsapp, etc), we are inviting a hostile agent to openly collect information on our citizens. I understand that some here want a more stringent policy concerning privacy and data collection. I think it is a fair point, but it is not mutually exclusive here.

Even if we accept the idea that CA was decisive to Trump's victory (I don't think it was, not even close), I think that you are absolutely on point here. I do think democrats were caught by surprise in 2016 and, instead of blaming themselves for their debacle, they sourced it elsewhere.

In other words, you pay what you pay to attend Harvard, to a large extent, because of its network effects. And that is really the reason at the end of the day. This is especially true in areas where network is expected to be a big factor --think Economics, Law, Business.

And that's why you pay that much to go to Harvard, to gain access to their network.

And why is that? I am a certified C noob and this really confuses me. Why `alphabet_pointer = alphabet;` points exactly to the first element in the array? Why not the whole array? Why not the last? Can we have a pointer that accepts a whole array?

Thanks

Seems like cherry-picking to me.

Italy has an older population to start with. I don't think the US will remotely reach the chaos we are seeing in Italy.

When it is all said and done, we will find out that the mortality rate is very close to regular flu (around 0.1%). Italy, China and other countries with high mortality rate are not a great model because they were caught unprepared and their health system cannot sustain a moderate peak in hospitalizations. Also keep in mind that a large segment of the infected people go untested in most places which affects the denominator. I see many epidemiologists estimating that the number of true infected is 5 or even 10 fold of what we are seeing being reported. If that is the case, then we can assume the mortality rate certainly drops to less than 1% and most likely ranges in the 0.5% to 0.1%.

Amen

I don't know whether this is a legit breakthrouhg. But technological progress is often a sigmoid (S-shaped) growth curve, it may take a while to get past certain steps but once you are through, money flows and more people devote time to that technology which accelerates the process. It is not hard to imagine, say, 20 years from now, we have power plants running on fusion given the interest we have in solving the climate crisis.

Sometimes I wonder if in some instances a low approval rating is endogenous to the company's employee makeup. I work in the HE sector and I can tell you that the lowest levels of student satisfaction comes from departments or disciplines comprising of mostly people complaining about society, yadayadyada

"play stupid games win stupid prizes"