> These things happened at SoMa, which is objectively known to be a "nicer" neighborhood.
What? After the Tenderloin, SoMA is absolutely the worst neighborhood for interactions with crazy people. What on Earth gave you the impression that it's "objectively known to be nice"? IMO it's the single worst neighborhood in the city; at least the Tenderloin has history and some great commerce.
You're right, I've lived and worked in both areas (several times during 2000-2016).
SoMA varies a LOT by exact location (at a per-block level) and changes with time of day, time of year, and has changed in cycles over the years. The area where this incident happened was historically one of the safer parts of SoMA, but not the safest, pre-Covid; I don't know how much worse it's gotten but directionally worse.
When I lived in TL (136 Taylor) I had someone brandish a firearm at me, witnessed two murders (in one incident), a bunch of people fighting other people, public drug use, etc., but SoMA is where more people I know personally were assaulted (partially because they're more likely to be walking around there...). I had a few non-consensual interactions which luckily stopped short of escalating too far, and a few times had to abort trips to an office, store, etc. to avoid stuff.
First-order, yes: Redistributive policies don't have the sum of the country's wealth as their primary optimization objective. Arguably, their goal is closer (but not quite) to the sum of national utility, which follows from diminishing marginal utility.
That being said, there are also claimed and real second-order effects of policies whose first-order economic effect is deadweight-loss. The entirety of government fits this description! To use the most trite and least controversial example, confiscating resources to build roads is redistribution from heavier taxpayers to heavier road users (incl downstream beneficiaries), but the second-order effects of a functional transportation are enough that we don't consider it to "make the country as a whole poorer"
Sure, I don't think either this[1] commenter or Ken Thompson were trying to say that the product category shouldn't exist. A computer is vastly overpowered for what the average user is capable of or interested in doing[2], which is why toy devices like iPads are so popular.
I interpreted both of their comments as claiming that the direction MacOS is taking is a poor fit for those who still get value from powerful, general-purpose computers (myself very much included! I occasionally have the misfortune of using Macs, but am much much happier on systems where I can dig as deep into its layers as I need to solve my problems or scratch my itches)
[2] Though I do think it's a minor tragedy that the increasing amount of guardrails has narrowed the opportunity for an inquisitive youngster to explore his computer's internals
I may be missing context here, but you're referring to the fact that they leaked the Russian-state-hacked DNC emails, right? Could you elaborate on why you think it's "selective" to have leaked those?
Otherwise, it seems like you're saying "they're bad [via an unsupported claim like 'selectively truthful'] because they hurt my $politicalside"
If you are smart, and Assange isn't an idiot, then you should not allow yourself to become a tool of a foreign government. Having an open pro-information stance is all well and good, but when it is obvious that the people sending you information are doing so according to their own timetable, you have to take a higher stance. This is where journalistic ethics come into play. You must ask your source, why today? If you had this why did you not give it to me months ago? A good journalist isn't a mouthpiece for one government as it attacks another.
The US was a foreign government to him. So why does it matter? Again, this is sort of weird blue-ultra-patriotism post 2016 is just extremely weird coming from the democratic voter base. It's almost as repulsive as GWB era "you're either with us or with the terrorists". A foreigner has absolutely no allegiance to the US government. In fact, he is much much more threatened by the American government. In huge part because he exposed a series of crimes and war crimes that were committed by said government. So why in the hell would you expect him to spare any kind of "courtoisie" to such a government?
I think the higher stance is to report as a journalist and not exercise your own bias into when you choose to publish. And regardless, if you choose to delay it, your source will simply go to someone who won't. There's never an instance where it makes sense to delay, and it never makes sense to decline to write on reputable information, since it's not like wikileaks has a monopoly on journalism
> Having an open pro-information stance is all well and good, but when it is obvious that the people sending you information are doing so according to their own timetable, you have to take a higher stance. This is where journalistic ethics come into play
I think this is a well-articulated representation of a specific (and much more common) journalistic ethos, but he quite explicitly holds a different ethos that is much more radical about transparency.
Plus, this answers the opposite of my question: I asked how GP comment supports his claim that Assange's is "selectively truthful", and you responded by saying that he's not selective enough!
GP could have made an argument like the one you made, disputing the very foundations of Assange's open-information philosophy. What piqued my curiosity was his novel claim of unprincipled selectivity, and I charitably wanted to avoid the assumption that his comment was simply word-salad covering up a politically-motivated dislike of WL.
Lots of private companies (there's a list on Wikipedia) performed their own analysis and came to the conclusion that Guccifer 2.0 was/is Russian, what says you?
FireEye's Mandiant - CEO at the time was Kevin Mandia, who's a known associate of Hillary Clinton and also publicly a democratic financial supporter.
SecureWorks - owned by Michael Dell, a known donator to the Clinton Foundation
ThreatConnect - not much info, but also explicitly only said "likely"
Trend Micro - Hillary and DNC are customers of Trend Micro, and they also did not actually say anything at all about a connection to Russia.
Additionally, the reports don't say it was Russian. They say the tools are ones that Russians have been thought to use, with no context into whether everyone uses these tools, to what confidence level they believe that Russians actually use these tools, no context as to whether someone would deliberately use these tools to make it look Russian, or virtually anything at all that substantiates this argument. They also almost universally use phrases like "likely" or "points to". Trying to characterize this situation as confirmed is just outright wrong.
Anyway, this is exhausting. Hyperbole becomes fact and I'm tired of having to disprove hyperbole.
Likewise, I don't have any illusions about medium fully defining the quality of content: eg reading 50 Shades of Grey isn't more rewarding or meaningful than watching The Wire.
But apples-to-apples, watching video is the only common activity that feels maximally passive.
I guess with the exception of listening to music? Not sure how this fits in
Music consumption itself is passive, but we frequently use it as a backdrop to do other things. Or we dance to it. I would like to think that the curation of playlists or mp3 libraries is considerably more involved than doing so with videos, on account of how limited in scope most songs/tracks are compared to video.
Agreed about background music, but I definitely spend time listening to music and doing nothing else, and the medium feels active to me in a way that television doesn't.
On the other hand, I've been a musician since I was three, so perhaps the way I'm processing music is different from normal. One facet might be that I usually don't find myself focusing much on lyrics (if any), which means it ends up as a semi-meditative activity in a way that TV can't.
I DJ in the local techno underground and produce it as a hobby, music is a very active and deliberate activity for me. That there are so many different ways to engage with it is part of why I don't lump it in the same bucket as TV.
This is not true for everyone. It's mostly true for me (although I play Guitar Hero, which makes it quite active). It's not at all true for my girlfriend, who listens to music very actively.
Are you kidding? I bet a ton of us go to raves or undergrounds or festivals, Burning Man has been pretty much taken over by SV tech dweebs, and I meet tons of tech folks in the local scene here, and that scene is just a tiny fraction of the overall picture for this area
If YOU don't, I would highly recommend considering it. Hell I'm pretty sure I got my COVID 19lbs because I couldn't go out and dance at parties when lockdown hit
Hospitals and the medical system in general are always the last to get a memo about health. I wouldn't touch a good chunk of hospital meals with a ten-foot pole even when I'm in perfect health; the fact that any hospital is feeding patients shit like this[1][2][many such examples] borders on malpractice.
This definition easily encompasses the people who post their kids' lives for no monetary gain,which is the vast majority of social media users. A lot of the people in their 20s who share every detail of their life on social media continue to do so once they have kids.
Any one of those stories is worse than anything I've experienced in decades of living in large California cities