When we had the march to war in Iraq, suspect intel was being selectively and deceitfully pulled out of context specifically to build a case for war in Iraq. By politicians, not by intel professionals. A bunch of former intel people went on record calling BS on it.
Right now, nobody's making a case for war with Russia. Retaliatory sanctions at best. They mostly just want to harden our election process and systems to prevent it from happening again, or worse.
Yet we see constantly moving goalposts from people who don't want that hardening to happen. What's their motivation?
I don't believe there are any claims Russia successfully hacked voting machines (I may have missed developments in the last week though). I believe there are claims they did successfully attack voter registration databases, but there are no real claims (except by left-wing conspiracy theory people) that they changed those databases - just stole data. I believe there is no non-classified evidence of this though (although I didn't read the document that Reality Winner sent to the Intercept, so that may document some evidence).
China has a well known hacking group (ATP-1) - see [1] for further information. There is no evidence or real claims they are involved in political interference within the US. OTOH they are quite good at industrial espionage and tracking Chinese dissidents.
I'm not very familiar with North Korea's group, but it is widely believed to be responsible for the Sony hack. I found that bizarre, but NK actions often are.
> but the last 6 months and this moment in particular is a level of shame, embarrassment, and disgust that I have never felt in my 45 years as an American citizen.
I personally felt more disgust when we bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital. But I guess Trump's kind of outlandish too.
"They can use the system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer." -Edward Snowden
Sorry, but I don't buy that they aren't in the business of data collection. I'll buy that they don't have the time to analyze everything if there's not a compelling need, but the data does exist and is readily available to be abused at any time.
I put some of this blame on the hospitals themselves as well. The fact is that I have no idea what I'm going to pay when I get to a hospital or doctor's office. They won't tell you anything up front. By the time you know what they cost, you're on the hook for some ridiculous amount. They won't give estimates, you can't shop around.
And medical coding to figure out what you're paying for and what a normal price should be is ridiculously hard to understand. Some of this is going to be their response to a litigious society, but you can't use that excuse for all of it.
Also, if someone doesn't have insurance, the fact that the hospital puts you on the hook for the full bill is ridiculous. Insurance isn't paying 100%, they are discounted crazy amounts, even only paying 20% in some cases. But you don't get this discount from the hospital. If you show up without insurance, you will be charged the full amount, less what you can negotiate on the spot. And most people don't know they can even try to negotiate it.
I agree that the insurance companies are a huge problem, but I don't think the hospitals and doctors' offices themselves should be absolved from their share of the blame.
> Also, if someone doesn't have insurance, the fact that the hospital puts you on the hook for the full bill is ridiculous. Insurance isn't paying 100%, they are discounted crazy amounts, even only paying 20% in some cases. But you don't get this discount from the hospital. If you show up without insurance, you will be charged the full amount, less what you can negotiate on the spot. And most people don't know they can even try to negotiate it.
And what happens with the majority of people who don't have insurance, they don't pay it. So the costs get eaten by the hospital and eventually by everyone else that can pay.
In that respect, we have socialized healthcare already. It's just a horrible implementation.
> the majority of people who don't have insurance, they don't pay it
Exactly so. They don't pay it because they can't. And they're ruined. Even people who have insurance -- good insurance -- can be ruined. This system is the ultimate form of price discrimination, perfectly tuned to extract the optimal amount of money from the consumer who has literally no pricing information, and maximize the profits of the business. When insurance companies pay out, it's referred to as "loss".
Markets and the profit motive may be "efficient", but they're not optimizing for health outcomes, and certainly not optimizing for morality. Insurance companies ultimately cannot be part of the equation.
Microsoft published a research paper on "Why Nigerian scammers say they're from Nigeria". Was that research paper a stereotype that painted Nigeria in a false and negative manner?
The paper is wrong. The reason they say they are from Nigeria is simple - "Follow the money." Those who don't have a means of collecting money from outside the country must mention Nigeria eventually.
Those who've been in the game for a while, have the ability to collect money from any country the "victim" feels comfortable sending money to.
Also, about the intentional grammatical error. It's not intentional. Many of them aren't educated. In fact, most learn to use the computer and internet on the job.
The thesis, for those less interested in buying the book, is that when we embraced blogs like Gawker and Buzzfeed as a source of news content, the quality of our news decreased drastically.
You went from sort of the New York Times subscription-based model, where people are subscribed already and your journalists can focus on the quality of your content, back to the days of "EXTRA! Read all about it," where everyone is just trying to be heard over the thousands of other available blogs.
So our headlines became clickbait, content became lies, and because it's so pervasive, there is little to no accountability.
The hogan case is important because it adds accountability.
>The potential solutions that come to mind range from, on the pessimistic end, apocalyptic, to technological if we are to be optimistic. We'll either think our way out of the crisis with cleaner sources of energy, or nature will have it's way and our population will dwindle.
That was the original statement. To me, the fact that 'range' is included, means there's more than just two choices implied. I do believe it misrepresents the argument to suggest that there's only two 'extremes' of "taxes and regulation" or else "we go extinct."
You don't need to be a heroic icon to be more valuable than a 100x developer.
The 100x teacher who molds the mind of the kid/teenager/adult who eventually cures cancer is worth more than just about any single 100x developer out there right now, and you'll never know that person's name.
(Yeah, I'm aware there will be multiple different cures for different cancers, the point remains)
It would be interesting to see if any great researcher could tie back their success to a teacher. My suspicion (based on nothing more than gut feeling) is that while a good/great teacher has some impact, that beyond a certain level it's 99.9% the individual and their environment/peers/parents/contacts, rather than any particular teacher.
Another way of saying this from a mercenary monetary point of view is that I don't think investing more than $250K/year on a K-12 teacher makes sense, though you might be able to make an argument that people who teach teachers might have greater leverage.
Who died? I'm curious because if that happened, I figure we would have heard about it. Do you have a link to a story I can read?