|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 28 2018 20:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2018 20:08 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2018 12:19 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:08 thePunGun wrote:On January 28 2018 11:52 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 11:22 thePunGun wrote:On January 28 2018 10:59 zlefin wrote:On January 28 2018 08:15 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 08:10 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Utter hogwash. The fact that the majority of people here disagree with you doesn't make them all far leftists. Plenty of people hold plenty of different opinions, and for different reasons. I regularly find things I disagree on between myself and regular posters such as P6 or GH, even Kwark. The difference is I find them (largely) reasonable. If you feel like the world is out to get you, perhaps try examining the way you interact with people, or the positions you hold. Didn't this forum use to be pretty much 50-50 left/right before Trump? I think that speaks volumes in and of itself. Trump and the republican party just isn't reasonable any more. There is zero worth in there. It's an "opposition party" whose only values are to be opposed of the other party (and, as it turns out, to be opposed of any reason and intelligence). Also, as a quote has been going around states: "Everything is left when you're to the right of Mussolini" the forum has always been left-leaning iirc; though if you count just american posters i'm less sure, though it probably still was somewhat. it is true that the republicans have been getting crazier and crazier; and have gone full loco with trump, and this has afflicted many who post on that side (to varying degrees). also partisanship (plus people in general bein stupid) causes many right-leaning posters to defend other right-leaning posters even when they shouldn't be. Kind of ironic, but ...whether you're left or right-leaning doesn't actually matter. Because this system will always cater for its owners, the rich fat cats. They don't care who wins the 'dog race' because every single dog, that's running on that track is actually running for them. I'm the only one in my family who doesn't vote and whenever, they leave the house to 'place their bets'... I remind them: "Whoever you've chosen won't matter, the house always wins!" (edit: I used animal references, not because I loathe them, I love animals (I only hate politicians). Never understood the dog/ cat person thing though, both are awesome so why choose?  ) Unlike Zlefin I'm going to come out and say that this is entirely wrong. Yes, the US political system is completely fucked, maybe beyond repair, due to its "donations" (Which everywhere else in the world would be called corruption), first past the post, gerrymandering and electoral college to name a few. It's a system which caters to the rich so they can get their way. This does not(!) however mean that every party/president/senator is the same. There are wide differences, and some do actually try to fight for your interests along side those of his donors, to a varying degree. Some people do actually become politicians because they want to make a difference, and they are fighting their own system to attempt to fight for you. To pretend that Hillary would be the same as Trump is laughable. With Hillary you might not have felt a huge difference in your daily life, much like with Obama, but there's a good chance she would have steered the country in the right direction in the long run while simultaneously catering to her own interests. Trump on the other hand is hellbent on tearing the country apart. He gives no shits about your interests. He only cares about himself and how his rich friends view him, and he is willing to lie and attack every liberty you might think you have to do it. Even if you think Hillary would have been a bad president, you still should have voted for her as the lesser evil. This "my vote doesn't matter anyways" is a common misconception I hear a lot, but you not voting is literally why Trump is president right now, and your life and those around you either is or will be actively worse because of it. The 2 misconceptions here are, that the U.S. is a democracy and that every vote matters. It is not, it's a republic with an electoral college. The electoral college was established for a reason, for the very same reason I've mentioned above, to keep the rich in power. "Republic" means "representative democracy", which is a form of democracy. Your vote matters, just to a varying degree depending on your location. The electoral college was established for a variety of no longer valid reasons, but not because "the rich wanted power". This is history book material you can google so I won't repeat it here (tl;dr: long distances with long travel times, + wanted the president to govern the states more than the people directly). I know we all like to hate on the rich for greedily grabbing too much political power, but they're not some kind of Illuminati either. The misconceptions are all in your own view I'm afraid. Like I said this is a common one I've heard a lot, but it doesn't make it true. Certain elections have come down to just a handful of people, and more importantly you are not alone in thinking like you. If everyone who did actually went and voted instead, it would be enough to push every single election. So while you're sitting there smirking to yourself for being so wise, you are literally fulfilling your own prophecy of your vote not mattering because it's not cast in the first place. Who are some of the politicians that you think would trade a life of wealth, power, and job security for helping people less fortunate? None, but this also proves you didn't read what I actually said. It's entierly possible to work several interests at the same time. Unlike a certain few politicians who will only work for their own at the cost of everyone else. That sounds like a perception issue. Sounds to me like they are all on board to secure their own future by exploiting less fortunate people and some feel an obligation to bring a small group of people with them (but never in a way that endangers the secure control of their owners). That people will empower their owners while also making things apparently less shitty for the exploited is what I expect. It's actually sacrificing their own personal gain for the interests of the exploited which seems universally disregarded by anyone with influence politically. EDIT: to be clear, they I don't know a single national figure (save MAYBE Bernie) that would trade their own success and enrichment for the betterment of society, and as would follow, given the ultimatum, they would choose continuing the exploitation. What I wonder is if Bernie (or a political equivalent) is the Democrat nominee will those same people enthusiastically tell people it's Bernie or you might as well abandon American Democracy?
Aren’t there at least a few dozen good House members? And a variety of House members have histories as activists of some sort, although typically in management or leadership positions.
And there are a handful of good senators. I mean, I wouldn’t trust Elizabeth Warren not to sell out the left on foreign policy, but she also seems principled enough on financial reform. And Russ Feingold used to be principled on civil liberties before he lost his seat.
The main problem is that the DNC does not really try to elect more progressives and activists because they prefer sociopathic careerists that are good at fundraising.
|
Called it. Hence the reason Facebook, and Twitter are worthless and being propped up by nothing. Social Media companies will never take the fake news problem seriously.
These accounts are counterfeit coins in the booming economy of online influence, reaching into virtually any industry where a mass audience — or the illusion of it — can be monetized. Fake accounts, deployed by governments, criminals and entrepreneurs, now infest social media networks. By some calculations, as many as 48 million of Twitter’s reported active users — nearly 15 percent — are automated accounts designed to simulate real people, though the company claims that number is far lower.
In November, Facebook disclosed to investors that it had at least twice as many fake users as it previously estimated, indicating that up to 60 million automated accounts may roam the world’s largest social media platform. These fake accounts, known as bots, can help sway advertising audiences and reshape political debates. They can defraud businesses and ruin reputations. Yet their creation and sale fall into a legal gray zone.
Source
|
On January 29 2018 07:21 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2018 20:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2018 20:08 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2018 12:19 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:08 thePunGun wrote:On January 28 2018 11:52 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 11:22 thePunGun wrote:On January 28 2018 10:59 zlefin wrote:On January 28 2018 08:15 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
Didn't this forum use to be pretty much 50-50 left/right before Trump? I think that speaks volumes in and of itself. Trump and the republican party just isn't reasonable any more. There is zero worth in there. It's an "opposition party" whose only values are to be opposed of the other party (and, as it turns out, to be opposed of any reason and intelligence).
Also, as a quote has been going around states: "Everything is left when you're to the right of Mussolini" the forum has always been left-leaning iirc; though if you count just american posters i'm less sure, though it probably still was somewhat. it is true that the republicans have been getting crazier and crazier; and have gone full loco with trump, and this has afflicted many who post on that side (to varying degrees). also partisanship (plus people in general bein stupid) causes many right-leaning posters to defend other right-leaning posters even when they shouldn't be. Kind of ironic, but ...whether you're left or right-leaning doesn't actually matter. Because this system will always cater for its owners, the rich fat cats. They don't care who wins the 'dog race' because every single dog, that's running on that track is actually running for them. I'm the only one in my family who doesn't vote and whenever, they leave the house to 'place their bets'... I remind them: "Whoever you've chosen won't matter, the house always wins!" (edit: I used animal references, not because I loathe them, I love animals (I only hate politicians). Never understood the dog/ cat person thing though, both are awesome so why choose? ) Unlike Zlefin I'm going to come out and say that this is entirely wrong. Yes, the US political system is completely fucked, maybe beyond repair, due to its "donations" (Which everywhere else in the world would be called corruption), first past the post, gerrymandering and electoral college to name a few. It's a system which caters to the rich so they can get their way. This does not(!) however mean that every party/president/senator is the same. There are wide differences, and some do actually try to fight for your interests along side those of his donors, to a varying degree. Some people do actually become politicians because they want to make a difference, and they are fighting their own system to attempt to fight for you. To pretend that Hillary would be the same as Trump is laughable. With Hillary you might not have felt a huge difference in your daily life, much like with Obama, but there's a good chance she would have steered the country in the right direction in the long run while simultaneously catering to her own interests. Trump on the other hand is hellbent on tearing the country apart. He gives no shits about your interests. He only cares about himself and how his rich friends view him, and he is willing to lie and attack every liberty you might think you have to do it. Even if you think Hillary would have been a bad president, you still should have voted for her as the lesser evil. This "my vote doesn't matter anyways" is a common misconception I hear a lot, but you not voting is literally why Trump is president right now, and your life and those around you either is or will be actively worse because of it. The 2 misconceptions here are, that the U.S. is a democracy and that every vote matters. It is not, it's a republic with an electoral college. The electoral college was established for a reason, for the very same reason I've mentioned above, to keep the rich in power. "Republic" means "representative democracy", which is a form of democracy. Your vote matters, just to a varying degree depending on your location. The electoral college was established for a variety of no longer valid reasons, but not because "the rich wanted power". This is history book material you can google so I won't repeat it here (tl;dr: long distances with long travel times, + wanted the president to govern the states more than the people directly). I know we all like to hate on the rich for greedily grabbing too much political power, but they're not some kind of Illuminati either. The misconceptions are all in your own view I'm afraid. Like I said this is a common one I've heard a lot, but it doesn't make it true. Certain elections have come down to just a handful of people, and more importantly you are not alone in thinking like you. If everyone who did actually went and voted instead, it would be enough to push every single election. So while you're sitting there smirking to yourself for being so wise, you are literally fulfilling your own prophecy of your vote not mattering because it's not cast in the first place. Who are some of the politicians that you think would trade a life of wealth, power, and job security for helping people less fortunate? None, but this also proves you didn't read what I actually said. It's entierly possible to work several interests at the same time. Unlike a certain few politicians who will only work for their own at the cost of everyone else. That sounds like a perception issue. Sounds to me like they are all on board to secure their own future by exploiting less fortunate people and some feel an obligation to bring a small group of people with them (but never in a way that endangers the secure control of their owners). That people will empower their owners while also making things apparently less shitty for the exploited is what I expect. It's actually sacrificing their own personal gain for the interests of the exploited which seems universally disregarded by anyone with influence politically. EDIT: to be clear, they I don't know a single national figure (save MAYBE Bernie) that would trade their own success and enrichment for the betterment of society, and as would follow, given the ultimatum, they would choose continuing the exploitation. What I wonder is if Bernie (or a political equivalent) is the Democrat nominee will those same people enthusiastically tell people it's Bernie or you might as well abandon American Democracy? Aren’t there at least a few dozen good House members? And a variety of House members have histories as activists of some sort, although typically in management or leadership positions. And there are a handful of good senators. I mean, I wouldn’t trust Elizabeth Warren not to sell out the left on foreign policy, but she also seems principled enough on financial reform. And Russ Feingold used to be principled on civil liberties before he lost his seat. The main problem is that the DNC does not really try to elect more progressives and activists because they prefer sociopathic careerists that are good at fundraising.
On my less pessimistic days I could agree with that last part.
"good congress people' are kinda like "good cops" in my opinion. If they aren't snitchin on their colleagues (on the same side of the aisle for congress), they're mediocre and complicit at best.
I don't dispute that some cause more harm than others, but they're all keeping the wheel rolling.
|
On January 29 2018 07:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:That and in parts of the Arctic where the is no sunlight right now there is a record of ice, low levels of ice that is. Show nested quote +On ice caps specifically, NOAA, in its annual Arctic Report Card published in December, said the amount of the Arctic Ocean frozen over in the coldest points of winter set a record low in 2017 and is declining faster than at any time in the past 1,500 years. Source
The record thing is kind of amazing. It is similar to the trans people and sex crimes thing. It only works if the people who are the target never even listen to anyone trying to provide another point of view.
|
On January 29 2018 08:52 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 07:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:That and in parts of the Arctic where the is no sunlight right now there is a record of ice, low levels of ice that is. On ice caps specifically, NOAA, in its annual Arctic Report Card published in December, said the amount of the Arctic Ocean frozen over in the coldest points of winter set a record low in 2017 and is declining faster than at any time in the past 1,500 years. Source The record thing is kind of amazing. It is similar to the trans people and sex crimes thing. It only works if the people who are the target never even listen to anyone trying to provide another point of view.
Good thing they aren't then
|
User was warned for this post
|
On January 29 2018 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 07:21 Grumbels wrote:On January 28 2018 20:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2018 20:08 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2018 12:19 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:08 thePunGun wrote:On January 28 2018 11:52 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 11:22 thePunGun wrote:On January 28 2018 10:59 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
the forum has always been left-leaning iirc; though if you count just american posters i'm less sure, though it probably still was somewhat.
it is true that the republicans have been getting crazier and crazier; and have gone full loco with trump, and this has afflicted many who post on that side (to varying degrees). also partisanship (plus people in general bein stupid) causes many right-leaning posters to defend other right-leaning posters even when they shouldn't be. Kind of ironic, but ...whether you're left or right-leaning doesn't actually matter. Because this system will always cater for its owners, the rich fat cats. They don't care who wins the 'dog race' because every single dog, that's running on that track is actually running for them. I'm the only one in my family who doesn't vote and whenever, they leave the house to 'place their bets'... I remind them: "Whoever you've chosen won't matter, the house always wins!" (edit: I used animal references, not because I loathe them, I love animals (I only hate politicians). Never understood the dog/ cat person thing though, both are awesome so why choose? ) Unlike Zlefin I'm going to come out and say that this is entirely wrong. Yes, the US political system is completely fucked, maybe beyond repair, due to its "donations" (Which everywhere else in the world would be called corruption), first past the post, gerrymandering and electoral college to name a few. It's a system which caters to the rich so they can get their way. This does not(!) however mean that every party/president/senator is the same. There are wide differences, and some do actually try to fight for your interests along side those of his donors, to a varying degree. Some people do actually become politicians because they want to make a difference, and they are fighting their own system to attempt to fight for you. To pretend that Hillary would be the same as Trump is laughable. With Hillary you might not have felt a huge difference in your daily life, much like with Obama, but there's a good chance she would have steered the country in the right direction in the long run while simultaneously catering to her own interests. Trump on the other hand is hellbent on tearing the country apart. He gives no shits about your interests. He only cares about himself and how his rich friends view him, and he is willing to lie and attack every liberty you might think you have to do it. Even if you think Hillary would have been a bad president, you still should have voted for her as the lesser evil. This "my vote doesn't matter anyways" is a common misconception I hear a lot, but you not voting is literally why Trump is president right now, and your life and those around you either is or will be actively worse because of it. The 2 misconceptions here are, that the U.S. is a democracy and that every vote matters. It is not, it's a republic with an electoral college. The electoral college was established for a reason, for the very same reason I've mentioned above, to keep the rich in power. "Republic" means "representative democracy", which is a form of democracy. Your vote matters, just to a varying degree depending on your location. The electoral college was established for a variety of no longer valid reasons, but not because "the rich wanted power". This is history book material you can google so I won't repeat it here (tl;dr: long distances with long travel times, + wanted the president to govern the states more than the people directly). I know we all like to hate on the rich for greedily grabbing too much political power, but they're not some kind of Illuminati either. The misconceptions are all in your own view I'm afraid. Like I said this is a common one I've heard a lot, but it doesn't make it true. Certain elections have come down to just a handful of people, and more importantly you are not alone in thinking like you. If everyone who did actually went and voted instead, it would be enough to push every single election. So while you're sitting there smirking to yourself for being so wise, you are literally fulfilling your own prophecy of your vote not mattering because it's not cast in the first place. Who are some of the politicians that you think would trade a life of wealth, power, and job security for helping people less fortunate? None, but this also proves you didn't read what I actually said. It's entierly possible to work several interests at the same time. Unlike a certain few politicians who will only work for their own at the cost of everyone else. That sounds like a perception issue. Sounds to me like they are all on board to secure their own future by exploiting less fortunate people and some feel an obligation to bring a small group of people with them (but never in a way that endangers the secure control of their owners). That people will empower their owners while also making things apparently less shitty for the exploited is what I expect. It's actually sacrificing their own personal gain for the interests of the exploited which seems universally disregarded by anyone with influence politically. EDIT: to be clear, they I don't know a single national figure (save MAYBE Bernie) that would trade their own success and enrichment for the betterment of society, and as would follow, given the ultimatum, they would choose continuing the exploitation. What I wonder is if Bernie (or a political equivalent) is the Democrat nominee will those same people enthusiastically tell people it's Bernie or you might as well abandon American Democracy? Aren’t there at least a few dozen good House members? And a variety of House members have histories as activists of some sort, although typically in management or leadership positions. And there are a handful of good senators. I mean, I wouldn’t trust Elizabeth Warren not to sell out the left on foreign policy, but she also seems principled enough on financial reform. And Russ Feingold used to be principled on civil liberties before he lost his seat. The main problem is that the DNC does not really try to elect more progressives and activists because they prefer sociopathic careerists that are good at fundraising. On my less pessimistic days I could agree with that last part. "good congress people' are kinda like "good cops" in my opinion. If they aren't snitchin on their colleagues (on the same side of the aisle for congress), they're mediocre and complicit at best. I don't dispute that some cause more harm than others, but they're all keeping the wheel rolling.
I don’t really agree, because if you have an institution you want to reform you need people inside it who are rceptive to your message. On some level good cops might be complicit, but as a group they are capable of checking the more extreme authoritarian impulses of the organisation and taking the lead to implement progressive policy initiatives within the organisation. They can be reliable allies, as long as they are backed by a political movement that wants to address police oppression. Same for congress, these institutions might be broken, and maybe the good House members are complicit because they haven’t denounced Congress or fixed the system, but it is not like they are actually capable of doing so anyway. And the moment a real left-wing mcvement were to take power they would become reliable partners in reforming the system.
One of the problems with the Police or Congress is that they attract precisly the sort of people that should temperementally be disqualified, and worse, these people are enciurages and enabled by the leadership because they have no interest in reform. For instance, hiring standards are so low for cops that there really aren’t enough “good cops” to really influence the organisation from within.
I know this argument depends a bit on semantics, sorry for that.
|
|
|
Whoops?
https://washingtonpost.com/world/a-map-showing-the-users-of-fitness-devices-lets-the-world-see-where-us-soldiers-are-and-what-they-are-doing/2018/01/28/86915662-0441-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html
The site does not identify app users and shows many locations that may be connected to aid agencies, U.N. facilities and the military bases of other nations — or any group whose personnel are likely to use fitness trackers, said Tobias Schneider, an international security analyst based in Germany. But it is not hard, he said, to map the activity to known, or roughly known, U.S. military sites and then glean further information.
The location of most of the sites is public knowledge — such as the vast Kandahar air base in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has publicly acknowledged that U.S. Special Operations troops maintain a small outpost at Tanf in the Syrian desert near the Iraqi border, which shows up on the map as a neatly illuminated oblong, probably because U.S. soldiers wearing Fitbits or similar devices either jog around or patrol the perimeter.
But the data also offers a mine of information to anyone who wants to attack or ambush U.S. troops in or around the bases, Schneider said, including patterns of activity inside the bases. Many people wear their fitness trackers all day to measure their total step counts, and soldiers appear to be no exception, meaning the maps reveal far more than just their exercise habits.
Lines of activity extending out of bases and back may indicate patrol routes. The map of Afghanistan appears as a spider web of lines connecting bases, showing supply routes, as does northeast Syria, where the United States maintains a network of mostly unpublicized bases. Concentrations of light inside a base may indicate where troops live, eat or work, suggesting possible targets for enemies.
At a site in northern Syria near a dam, where analysts have suspected the U.S. military is building a base, the map shows a small blob of activity accompanied by an intense line along the nearby dam, suggesting that the personnel at the site jog regularly along the dam, Schneider said.
...
Strava issued a statement urging users to check the company’s website to be sure they understand the privacy settings.
“Our global heatmap represents an aggregated and anonymized view of over a billion activities uploaded to our platform,” the statement said. “It excludes activities that have been marked as private and user-defined privacy zones. We are committed to helping people better understand our settings to give them control over what they share.”
This is incredibly dumb. But I am actually glad this is a big problem for the military; a group with enough clout to actually get something done about this breach of privacy and start the conversation on what "anonymous data" means in the age of big data and deep learning. It definitely doesn't mean "remove name and age fields and call it a anonymous".
|
Is your Data supposed to be totally private or is it supposed to just anonymously show where people like to run/jog in an area?
Because if its the latter these Soldiers are just morons.
|
On January 29 2018 17:16 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2018 07:21 Grumbels wrote:On January 28 2018 20:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2018 20:08 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2018 12:19 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:08 thePunGun wrote:On January 28 2018 11:52 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 11:22 thePunGun wrote:[quote] Kind of ironic, but ...whether you're left or right-leaning doesn't actually matter. Because this system will always cater for its owners, the rich fat cats. They don't care who wins the 'dog race' because every single dog, that's running on that track is actually running for them. I'm the only one in my family who doesn't vote and whenever, they leave the house to 'place their bets'... I remind them: "Whoever you've chosen won't matter, the house always wins!" (edit: I used animal references, not because I loathe them, I love animals (I only hate politicians). Never understood the dog/ cat person thing though, both are awesome so why choose? ) Unlike Zlefin I'm going to come out and say that this is entirely wrong. Yes, the US political system is completely fucked, maybe beyond repair, due to its "donations" (Which everywhere else in the world would be called corruption), first past the post, gerrymandering and electoral college to name a few. It's a system which caters to the rich so they can get their way. This does not(!) however mean that every party/president/senator is the same. There are wide differences, and some do actually try to fight for your interests along side those of his donors, to a varying degree. Some people do actually become politicians because they want to make a difference, and they are fighting their own system to attempt to fight for you. To pretend that Hillary would be the same as Trump is laughable. With Hillary you might not have felt a huge difference in your daily life, much like with Obama, but there's a good chance she would have steered the country in the right direction in the long run while simultaneously catering to her own interests. Trump on the other hand is hellbent on tearing the country apart. He gives no shits about your interests. He only cares about himself and how his rich friends view him, and he is willing to lie and attack every liberty you might think you have to do it. Even if you think Hillary would have been a bad president, you still should have voted for her as the lesser evil. This "my vote doesn't matter anyways" is a common misconception I hear a lot, but you not voting is literally why Trump is president right now, and your life and those around you either is or will be actively worse because of it. The 2 misconceptions here are, that the U.S. is a democracy and that every vote matters. It is not, it's a republic with an electoral college. The electoral college was established for a reason, for the very same reason I've mentioned above, to keep the rich in power. "Republic" means "representative democracy", which is a form of democracy. Your vote matters, just to a varying degree depending on your location. The electoral college was established for a variety of no longer valid reasons, but not because "the rich wanted power". This is history book material you can google so I won't repeat it here (tl;dr: long distances with long travel times, + wanted the president to govern the states more than the people directly). I know we all like to hate on the rich for greedily grabbing too much political power, but they're not some kind of Illuminati either. The misconceptions are all in your own view I'm afraid. Like I said this is a common one I've heard a lot, but it doesn't make it true. Certain elections have come down to just a handful of people, and more importantly you are not alone in thinking like you. If everyone who did actually went and voted instead, it would be enough to push every single election. So while you're sitting there smirking to yourself for being so wise, you are literally fulfilling your own prophecy of your vote not mattering because it's not cast in the first place. Who are some of the politicians that you think would trade a life of wealth, power, and job security for helping people less fortunate? None, but this also proves you didn't read what I actually said. It's entierly possible to work several interests at the same time. Unlike a certain few politicians who will only work for their own at the cost of everyone else. That sounds like a perception issue. Sounds to me like they are all on board to secure their own future by exploiting less fortunate people and some feel an obligation to bring a small group of people with them (but never in a way that endangers the secure control of their owners). That people will empower their owners while also making things apparently less shitty for the exploited is what I expect. It's actually sacrificing their own personal gain for the interests of the exploited which seems universally disregarded by anyone with influence politically. EDIT: to be clear, they I don't know a single national figure (save MAYBE Bernie) that would trade their own success and enrichment for the betterment of society, and as would follow, given the ultimatum, they would choose continuing the exploitation. What I wonder is if Bernie (or a political equivalent) is the Democrat nominee will those same people enthusiastically tell people it's Bernie or you might as well abandon American Democracy? Aren’t there at least a few dozen good House members? And a variety of House members have histories as activists of some sort, although typically in management or leadership positions. And there are a handful of good senators. I mean, I wouldn’t trust Elizabeth Warren not to sell out the left on foreign policy, but she also seems principled enough on financial reform. And Russ Feingold used to be principled on civil liberties before he lost his seat. The main problem is that the DNC does not really try to elect more progressives and activists because they prefer sociopathic careerists that are good at fundraising. On my less pessimistic days I could agree with that last part. "good congress people' are kinda like "good cops" in my opinion. If they aren't snitchin on their colleagues (on the same side of the aisle for congress), they're mediocre and complicit at best. I don't dispute that some cause more harm than others, but they're all keeping the wheel rolling. I don’t really agree, because if you have an institution you want to reform you need people inside it who are rceptive to your message. On some level good cops might be complicit, but as a group they are capable of checking the more extreme authoritarian impulses of the organisation and taking the lead to implement progressive policy initiatives within the organisation. They can be reliable allies, as long as they are backed by a political movement that wants to address police oppression. Same for congress, these institutions might be broken, and maybe the good House members are complicit because they haven’t denounced Congress or fixed the system, but it is not like they are actually capable of doing so anyway. And the moment a real left-wing mcvement were to take power they would become reliable partners in reforming the system. One of the problems with the Police or Congress is that they attract precisly the sort of people that should temperementally be disqualified, and worse, these people are enciurages and enabled by the leadership because they have no interest in reform. For instance, hiring standards are so low for cops that there really aren’t enough “good cops” to really influence the organisation from within. I know this argument depends a bit on semantics, sorry for that.
I'd love to think there are a bunch of potential sleepers waiting for a public to back them but at best that's what your talking about. People with the potential not to be collaborators, but unwilling (or unable, to be generous) to stop. I'd be willing to redeem them after their righteous revolution, but until then they're pretty indistinguishable from people who would look past just about anything for a paycheck.
1000 cops and 100 congresspeople coming together coming out and exposing the corruption of their colleagues would do more to embolden a left-wing surge than the opposite. We've seen abundant evidence of the intransigence of both congress and police even when confronted with piles of evidence and virtually nothing in their corner.
I'm of the opinion the whole "sleeper" aspect is somewhat useless in that they're both so pervaded by corruption as institutions that you have to get rid of everyone and then consider rehiring the ones who would be your sleepers.
|
On January 29 2018 19:28 Velr wrote:
Is your Data supposed to be totally private or is it supposed to just anonymously show where people like to run/jog in an area?
Because if its the latter these Soldiers are just morons.
The statement makes it seem like by default the data is public but anonymous and there is a further setting to completely hide it.
|
On January 29 2018 19:28 Velr wrote:
Is your Data supposed to be totally private or is it supposed to just anonymously show where people like to run/jog in an area?
Because if its the latter these Soldiers are just morons.
Strava specifically is used to compare your runs/rides against others. It makes it so you can see who ran in your street or up your local bridge or hill the fastest this day/week/year and even get achievement and stuff for it. You don't need to use real name but sharing data is the whole idea behind the app. You can probably turn it all off and just use if for personal tracking, but the base idea is a cyclist/running social network. So yes the soldiers didn't think it through probably.
|
On January 29 2018 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 17:16 Grumbels wrote:On January 29 2018 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2018 07:21 Grumbels wrote:On January 28 2018 20:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2018 20:08 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2018 12:19 Excludos wrote:On January 28 2018 12:08 thePunGun wrote:On January 28 2018 11:52 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
Unlike Zlefin I'm going to come out and say that this is entirely wrong.
Yes, the US political system is completely fucked, maybe beyond repair, due to its "donations" (Which everywhere else in the world would be called corruption), first past the post, gerrymandering and electoral college to name a few. It's a system which caters to the rich so they can get their way.
This does not(!) however mean that every party/president/senator is the same. There are wide differences, and some do actually try to fight for your interests along side those of his donors, to a varying degree. Some people do actually become politicians because they want to make a difference, and they are fighting their own system to attempt to fight for you. To pretend that Hillary would be the same as Trump is laughable.
With Hillary you might not have felt a huge difference in your daily life, much like with Obama, but there's a good chance she would have steered the country in the right direction in the long run while simultaneously catering to her own interests.
Trump on the other hand is hellbent on tearing the country apart. He gives no shits about your interests. He only cares about himself and how his rich friends view him, and he is willing to lie and attack every liberty you might think you have to do it. Even if you think Hillary would have been a bad president, you still should have voted for her as the lesser evil.
This "my vote doesn't matter anyways" is a common misconception I hear a lot, but you not voting is literally why Trump is president right now, and your life and those around you either is or will be actively worse because of it. The 2 misconceptions here are, that the U.S. is a democracy and that every vote matters. It is not, it's a republic with an electoral college. The electoral college was established for a reason, for the very same reason I've mentioned above, to keep the rich in power. "Republic" means "representative democracy", which is a form of democracy. Your vote matters, just to a varying degree depending on your location. The electoral college was established for a variety of no longer valid reasons, but not because "the rich wanted power". This is history book material you can google so I won't repeat it here (tl;dr: long distances with long travel times, + wanted the president to govern the states more than the people directly). I know we all like to hate on the rich for greedily grabbing too much political power, but they're not some kind of Illuminati either. The misconceptions are all in your own view I'm afraid. Like I said this is a common one I've heard a lot, but it doesn't make it true. Certain elections have come down to just a handful of people, and more importantly you are not alone in thinking like you. If everyone who did actually went and voted instead, it would be enough to push every single election. So while you're sitting there smirking to yourself for being so wise, you are literally fulfilling your own prophecy of your vote not mattering because it's not cast in the first place. Who are some of the politicians that you think would trade a life of wealth, power, and job security for helping people less fortunate? None, but this also proves you didn't read what I actually said. It's entierly possible to work several interests at the same time. Unlike a certain few politicians who will only work for their own at the cost of everyone else. That sounds like a perception issue. Sounds to me like they are all on board to secure their own future by exploiting less fortunate people and some feel an obligation to bring a small group of people with them (but never in a way that endangers the secure control of their owners). That people will empower their owners while also making things apparently less shitty for the exploited is what I expect. It's actually sacrificing their own personal gain for the interests of the exploited which seems universally disregarded by anyone with influence politically. EDIT: to be clear, they I don't know a single national figure (save MAYBE Bernie) that would trade their own success and enrichment for the betterment of society, and as would follow, given the ultimatum, they would choose continuing the exploitation. What I wonder is if Bernie (or a political equivalent) is the Democrat nominee will those same people enthusiastically tell people it's Bernie or you might as well abandon American Democracy? Aren’t there at least a few dozen good House members? And a variety of House members have histories as activists of some sort, although typically in management or leadership positions. And there are a handful of good senators. I mean, I wouldn’t trust Elizabeth Warren not to sell out the left on foreign policy, but she also seems principled enough on financial reform. And Russ Feingold used to be principled on civil liberties before he lost his seat. The main problem is that the DNC does not really try to elect more progressives and activists because they prefer sociopathic careerists that are good at fundraising. On my less pessimistic days I could agree with that last part. "good congress people' are kinda like "good cops" in my opinion. If they aren't snitchin on their colleagues (on the same side of the aisle for congress), they're mediocre and complicit at best. I don't dispute that some cause more harm than others, but they're all keeping the wheel rolling. I don’t really agree, because if you have an institution you want to reform you need people inside it who are rceptive to your message. On some level good cops might be complicit, but as a group they are capable of checking the more extreme authoritarian impulses of the organisation and taking the lead to implement progressive policy initiatives within the organisation. They can be reliable allies, as long as they are backed by a political movement that wants to address police oppression. Same for congress, these institutions might be broken, and maybe the good House members are complicit because they haven’t denounced Congress or fixed the system, but it is not like they are actually capable of doing so anyway. And the moment a real left-wing mcvement were to take power they would become reliable partners in reforming the system. One of the problems with the Police or Congress is that they attract precisly the sort of people that should temperementally be disqualified, and worse, these people are enciurages and enabled by the leadership because they have no interest in reform. For instance, hiring standards are so low for cops that there really aren’t enough “good cops” to really influence the organisation from within. I know this argument depends a bit on semantics, sorry for that. I'd love to think there are a bunch of potential sleepers waiting for a public to back them but at best that's what your talking about. People with the potential not to be collaborators, but unwilling (or unable, to be generous) to stop. I'd be willing to redeem them after their righteous revolution, but until then they're pretty indistinguishable from people who would look past just about anything for a paycheck. 1000 cops and 100 congresspeople coming together coming out and exposing the corruption of their colleagues would do more to embolden a left-wing surge than the opposite. We've seen abundant evidence of the intransigence of both congress and police even when confronted with piles of evidence and virtually nothing in their corner. I'm of the opinion the whole "sleeper" aspect is somewhat useless in that they're both so pervaded by corruption as institutions that you have to get rid of everyone and then consider rehiring the ones who would be your sleepers.
Then GreenHorizons said, “The outcry against the congresspeople is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”
The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Grumbels remained standing before GreenHorizons. Then Grumbels approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the congress? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
GreenHorizons said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the congress, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
Then Grumbels spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to GreenHorizons, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the congress for lack of five people?”
“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”
He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”
Then he said, “May GreenHorizons not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”
He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
Grumbels said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to GreenHorizons, what if only twenty can be found there?”
He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”
Then he said, “May GreenHorizons not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”
He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
When GreenHorizons had finished speaking with Grumbels, he left, and Grumbels returned home.
|
On January 29 2018 21:31 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 19:28 Velr wrote:
Is your Data supposed to be totally private or is it supposed to just anonymously show where people like to run/jog in an area?
Because if its the latter these Soldiers are just morons. Strava specifically is used to compare your runs/rides against others. It makes it so you can see who ran in your street or up your local bridge or hill the fastest this day/week/year and even get achievement and stuff for it. You don't need to use real name but sharing data is the whole idea behind the app. You can probably turn it all off and just use if for personal tracking, but the base idea is a cyclist/running social network. So yes the soldiers didn't think it through probably.
Well, the soldiers might be morons, but it's far more likely that they aren't (complete) morons, but did do some innocuous-looking things wrong. And the whole chain leading to the publication of this dataset is a concatenation of people not thinking through what "anonymous data" actually means.
Firstly, two points about data collection and provision by individuals:
1. It's very possible that the soldiers declined to make an account, because they realize that running around the streets of Syria with a useful publicly viewable tag "Sgt. Johnny" would be a dumb idea, and some probably triggered that even making the profile private, Strava might be hackable by some nasty, who would then know where "Sgt. Johnny" goes for his morning run. However, they may have agreed to "provide anonymous data to improve the Strava app".
2. The TOU probably includes the standard spiel that Strava reserves the right to use whatever data they collect for research, marketing and even commercial purposes. Given that nobody reads the TOU and most people who do are actually okay with Strava using their anonymous data for this type of thing, they just click okay.
Now this is obviously not limited to Strava. Strava may have fucked up epically, but Google, Facebook, Apple and quite a few other companies are in the business of collecting vast amounts of (anonymous) data, and it just happened to be Strava who fucked up by posting this stupid data set online. However, that doesn't mean that the data isn't also available elsewhere. Google and Apple collect anonymous data (including location) from all Android phones unless you go deep into the account settings somewhere and turn it off. Facebook has vast amounts of information both from their own social network as well as all the "apps" that run on it (such as Fitbit's app that allows you to share your route with friends (or total strangers)).
It also isn't entirely predictable how such a dataset could be used. If Strava's demographic happened to be bigger than "most of the US, EU and some Russians", but included plenty of people from wherever the US has their army operations, it'd be far harder to use in this way. A camp in the middle of Syria could be US army, or it could be Syrian bedouins. However, as Syrian bedouins don't use Strava, it is almost certainly a US camp. To get real useful intel, though, you have to combine it with other (public, but also private) sources. So while to you or me a dataset may be anonymous, for someone who knows more about the data in question, it can be not anonymous at all and lead to key insights. Here is a short article about it, but generally, privacy is a really hard issue in a world where everything continuously collects data.
https://qz.com/232838/heres-why-you-should-stay-wary-of-anonymous-data-but-dont-go-full-luddite/
The reason I find this Strava data set interesting is because it is a huge breach of security, come about by a rather innocent seeming app, due to a whole chain of people not really thinking too hard about the impact their individual contribution could have. And insofar as I know this is the first time a public data set leads to actual real-world big problems rather than academics showing how a public data set *could* lead to big problems. And moreover, it's not a big problem to some random group of mostly unimportant users with little clout to change anything. It's a big problem to the US military.
|
On January 29 2018 22:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2018 21:31 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On January 29 2018 19:28 Velr wrote:
Is your Data supposed to be totally private or is it supposed to just anonymously show where people like to run/jog in an area?
Because if its the latter these Soldiers are just morons. Strava specifically is used to compare your runs/rides against others. It makes it so you can see who ran in your street or up your local bridge or hill the fastest this day/week/year and even get achievement and stuff for it. You don't need to use real name but sharing data is the whole idea behind the app. You can probably turn it all off and just use if for personal tracking, but the base idea is a cyclist/running social network. So yes the soldiers didn't think it through probably. Well, the soldiers might be morons, but it's far more likely that they aren't (complete) morons, but did do some innocuous-looking things wrong. And the whole chain leading to the publication of this dataset is a concatenation of people not thinking through what "anonymous data" actually means. Firstly, two points about data collection and provision by individuals: 1. It's very possible that the soldiers declined to make an account, because they realize that running around the streets of Syria with a useful publicly viewable tag "Sgt. Johnny" would be a dumb idea, and some probably triggered that even making the profile private, Strava might be hackable by some nasty, who would then know where "Sgt. Johnny" goes for his morning run. However, they may have agreed to "provide anonymous data to improve the Strava app". 2. The TOU probably includes the standard spiel that Strava reserves the right to use whatever data they collect for research, marketing and even commercial purposes. Given that nobody reads the TOU and most people who do are actually okay with Strava using their anonymous data for this type of thing, they just click okay. Now this is obviously not limited to Strava. Strava may have fucked up epically, but Google, Facebook, Apple and quite a few other companies are in the business of collecting vast amounts of (anonymous) data, and it just happened to be Strava who fucked up by posting this stupid data set online. However, that doesn't mean that the data isn't also available elsewhere. Google and Apple collect anonymous data (including location) from all Android phones unless you go deep into the account settings somewhere and turn it off. Facebook has vast amounts of information both from their own social network as well as all the "apps" that run on it (such as Fitbit's app that allows you to share your route with friends (or total strangers)). It also isn't entirely predictable how such a dataset could be used. If Strava's demographic happened to be bigger than "most of the US, EU and some Russians", but included plenty of people from wherever the US has their army operations, it'd be far harder to use in this way. A camp in the middle of Syria could be US army, or it could be Syrian bedouins. However, as Syrian bedouins don't use Strava, it is almost certainly a US camp. To get real useful intel, though, you have to combine it with other (public, but also private) sources. So while to you or me a dataset may be anonymous, for someone who knows more about the data in question, it can be not anonymous at all and lead to key insights. Here is a short article about it, but generally, privacy is a really hard issue in a world where everything continuously collects data. https://qz.com/232838/heres-why-you-should-stay-wary-of-anonymous-data-but-dont-go-full-luddite/The reason I find this Strava data set interesting is because it is a huge breach of security, come about by a rather innocent seeming app, due to a whole chain of people not really thinking too hard about the impact their individual contribution could have. And insofar as I know this is the first time a public data set leads to actual real-world big problems rather than academics showing how a public data set *could* lead to big problems. And moreover, it's not a big problem to some random group of mostly unimportant users with little clout to change anything. It's a big problem to the US military.
Sounds like Facebook, Strava and so on can get some lucrative data removal deals with the US military.
|
I doubt it's the first time seemingly minor data was significant and caused a problem when looked at closely; that's why open source intelligence gathering is a thing. It's just that the orgs doing that kind of intel gathering don't announce what they find.
|
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016.
|
On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016.
Does it matter any more? She can do whatever she wants now and not care about the outcome of some weird reality tv popularity contest to see who becomes the next president of the most powerful country on earth.
|
On January 29 2018 22:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
WTF is Clinton doing at the Grammy's for fuck sake. Her hubris is what sunk her in 2016.
You know she is going to continue to exist on this planet for another 20 years or so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
