stevenAthompson

> Didn't the documentary show possible ties President Clinton?

The documents do. However Clinton did not invite Epstein to his wedding, or buy Epsteins jet after his suicide because he liked flying it in so much.

More importantly, Clinton was asked about the release of the files last year, in court. He did not object then and he has recently stated that he does not now. Meanwhile, republicans actually dismissed Congress early, stopping the business of governing, to prevent it.

> redistricting in response to TX

It is "in response". They're trying to STOP the gerrymandering, not make it worse. Gerrymandering should be illegal in all cases. It's not, but I think we can all agree that it does not serve democracy and should be.

> Who set the precedent?

Are you seriously defending concentration camps because someone else has done it in the past? Take a look at yourself in the mirror and really think about this one.

I assumed he read the Illuminatus! Trilogy and wondered where Markoff Chaney's name originated... There might be something wrong with me, now that I think about it. /s

I have 64Gb, a 9800x3d, and a 4070Ti super. It's still a little slow if I set it to the highest settings, but it's usable.

Very cool either way!

I was going to argue that you seem like a bit of a rare creature, but I suppose you would know better than I. I didn't bring it up because I didn't want it to sound like a personal attack or something.

Do YOU feel that it's common for folks to change their minds about such deeply held beliefs? I've met a few over the years that I know of. Maybe there are more, and I just don't realize it.

I agree with most of what you said, and it was well said.

However, I disagree in two ways.

Firstly, while villainizing them is unhelpful convincing them is utterly impossible when religion is involved. It doesn't matter if we learn to understand their perspective, especially as logic/reason often doesn't apply and they aren't being honest about their goals and motivations.

I think the best anyone can hope for in such cases is for all parties to agree that we all have belief structures, and that we don't get to force those beliefs on others via the law. IE - "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." It's the only rational basis for a society in which different belief systems coexist. The United States used to understand this, but we seem to have forgotten.

Secondly, I do agree that it might be easier to reason with folks the further you get from the top of the ladder. The "true believers" who fly airplanes into buildings or who want to outlaw eating candy because it might lead to smiling on a Sunday didn't start down that path last week.

The issue with the bottom up approach is that the folks on the bottom seldom have any real power, and for good reason. If pawns were allowed to move backwards they would kill their kings.

> they are optimizing but under differing constraints

Most often this doesn't happen because one side fails to understand the other, it happens because one side is dishonest about their motivations or goals.

In this case, the censors would like you to believe that they think pornography is harmful. The reality is that they're religious zealots who feel the need to prevent other people from making their own choices about something their religious leaders have told them is evil. They can't admit their real goal though, or people will realize it's just westernized Sharia law and stop taking them seriously.

You have a solid point. I also ignore the fact that RTO actually does improve the bottom line in some narrow scenarios, such as when it's used as a backdoor layoff in companies that don't mind losing the best and brightest.

Some companies don't see an appreciable difference in performance between those that can easily find work elsewhere and those who are otherwise unemployable. For those companies RTO is a great, though immoral, way to lower headcount without triggering the WARN act.

"Our plan is perfect, it's the world that's messed up!"

I was being hyerbolic. I should have made that clearer. That said, there is a nugget of literal truth to my statement.

Market reactions are typically neutral to RTO announcements, which confounds some analysts who imagine that RTO adds some kind of value. However, studies have repeatedly shown that while the short-term impact of RTO is neutral these companies typically fair worse than peer companies over longer timeframes. To make it worse for the analysts, similar studies have also shown that companies which do embrace remote first work have outsized returns. Some estimates show that fully WFH organizations bring in about 7.5% higher annual returns on average than peer organizations that RTO.

Leaders continue to ignore the ever growing piles of evidence in favor of those analysts "common sense", and forget that "common sense" is just a laymans term for what scientists refer to as "making shit up."

Those same executives are most tempted to fall into this trap during times of duress, because being perceived as "doing something" is more important than long term impact on share price.

You're missing the point. Sure, they're going to just keep doing what they've always done, but this time they're going to do it HARDER and with 15% fewer people!

Has anyone backtested a stock bot that just shorts every company doing RTO? It's clearly a leading indicator for company collapse.

> If the overview becomes a trusted source of information

It never will. By disincentivizing publishers they're stripping away most of the motivation for the legitimate source content to exist.

AI search results are a sort of self-cannibalism. Eventually AI search engines will only have what they cached before the web became walled gardens (old data), and public gardens that have been heavily vandalized with AI slop (bad data).

I subscribe also, and prefer it for most things.

However, it's pretty bad for local results and shopping. I find that anytime I need to know a local stores hours or find the cheapest place to purchase an item I need to pivot back to google. Other than that it's become my default for most things.

I would argue that all models are inherently incomplete because they are models (IE - they are the map not the territory). Rather than worrying about completeness, it's better to ask if the model is useful, and if anything would change about the requirement for tradeoffs in security if we used a more complete model?

I would answer that the triad IS useful in this scenario and further that if we used an alternative model (The 7-C's maybe?) we would still find inherently contradictory requirements for almost every security scenario. In fact, we would just MORE more of those trade-offs, further proving that security can never be "perfect."

For example, I can think of several fundamentals the triad doesn't cover directly. Privacy and non-repudiation spring to mind as concepts that don't neatly fit into the CIA triad, but they are the antithesis of each other!

Perfect privacy would require that nobody (including data-owners) can identify the user, and perfect non-repudiation would require that no access be granted without 100% proof of the current user. Again, you are forced to choose and this means that some aspect will always be less than perfect.