The original clips I saw made it look more like Zelensky was behaving unreasonably. Watching more of the context, it seemed more like things escalated.
Watching Trump and Vance and others posture and try to score political points while you could just see the depth of exhaustion and horrors witnessed in Zelensky's face… I don't even know how to feel about it all.
I found it deeply uncomfortable to watch, to be honest. Both Trump and Vance acted like playground bullies.
Maybe that's what a bunch of citizens want? Pretty depressing, if so. I will say that I'm reevaluating my countries alliances and (lack of) security capability.
Arc is VC funded, and Brave has Brandon Eich's fingerprints all over it (and he sometimes posts here) so we would have to first start by defining what we want independent to mean here, first.
Did the title change since you asked, or what is claiming that they aren't? I don't see anything on the title, the README, or the website making the claim you want defended. It just says "a" truly independent web browser, that doesn't seemingly claim exclusivity to that status.
These comments are embarrassing. It’s a landmark album and being recognized as such by critics and us lifelong hardcore music fans. You see it’s not for any of you, or rather very few. It’s a sort of love letter to me and my ilk, aka those of us that started collecting records when we were teens and went on to own indie record stores in the 80/90s and early 2000 before most of them were shuttered. There are hints of Spacemen 3, Velvet Underground, hell even some more obscure nods to forgotten bands like Boo Radley, Crime and The City Solution and many many more. If you are not steeped in musical experience this record will not land with you. But for me and about 6 of my oldest collector friends (all in our 50s now) this is a towering achievement by a single person that wrote nearly every note on the record. On top of all that there is the utterly brilliant GeoCities website with its decidedly Twin Peaks vibe and oh so much fun to blade runner zoom around. Brilliance like this shines only a few times in life and us ex NeptureRecords and Play It Again forgotten staff and friends of those great record stores are having the time of our lives listening to the entries 2+ hours daily.
This is an excellent point. People have been discussing the album and music industry trends and have neglected to broach the most fundamental topic at hand here: that evo_9 is the poster that is best at listening to music
I've been a music fan since my first 7" vinyl in 1988, and my first CD album in 1990. I listen to all sorts, from all around the world. I live for each Friday.
So, yes, I can hear the influences on this album. No surprise as they're pretty in your face. But, for whatever reason, they didn't excite me. The disappointment is all mine.
(ps: it's The Boo Radleys; I loved their euphoric, trumpet-infused, cover of The La's "There She Goes")
I hear you. For example, I literally cannot find anyone I interact with who has even heard of this band called Islands (Nick Thorburn), but they are probably my favorite band of all time.
I was initially surprised to read this sentiment, since his prior band The Unicorns was relatively popular in indie rock circles. Then I realized that was a full two decades ago, and I suddenly felt old...
it's been interesting to see the public reaction to this album. i'm excited they're finally getting some well-deserved acclaimed.
all the haters are so fascinating. everybody chiming in about this artist, somebody they didn't know anything about until last week. like how everybody became an epidemiologist in 2020, financial expert in 2021-2022, ai expert 2023, bridge expert 2024, war strategist in 2022, etc.
Ask yourself a simple question - do you really know what RFK Jr stands for, or are you basing your comment on the headlines designed to silence him?
Here are just a few facts about his platform and what he believes that blew me away.
- Will pardon Assange day 1
- Will pardon Snowden day 1
- End the war in Ukraine by brokering a peace deal ASAP, and prevent the 'forever war' from continuing (there or elsewhere).
- Create an executive order to roll back Citizen United, as soon as possible (the ruling that made it so corporations are ‘people’ and that opened up unlimited donations).
- Create an executive order to roll back the pharmaceutical act from 1997 which destroyed our free press.
- RFK Jr is fully vaccinated excluding COVID, as are all 7 of his children some of which chose to get the COVID vaccine, which he left to each to decide); his stance is simply to test vaccines the same way non-vaccine medicines are tested.
- Clean house at the CIA, FBI, NIH, FDA, and virtually all federal branches that are no longer serving us, but the companies that donate massive sums of money to them.
- Decrim both weed and hallucinogens
- Stop further infringement on our 1st Amendment rights (worth watching, last week's subcommittee meeting 'Weaponizing the Government' censorship hearing in which they tried to censor RFK from speaking at all, and then during his own party members tried to censor him by calling for an Executive Meeting, which would have made the hearing private and televised).
Lastly, he has sued Monsanto multiple times and won.
'History has shown us that the people censoring are never the good guys' - RFK Jr.
he accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of using the pandemic to trigger a "coup d’état against Western democracy." (in his book The Real Anthony Fauci)
he claimed pandemic restrictions were worse than nazi germany ("you could at least hide in the attic like Anne Frank". She was sent to a concentration camp and died after being discovered.
On HIV and AIDS: he explicitly blames HIV on vaccine research. "Kennedy then claimed that “the medical research on these diseases and vaccine research has actually created some of the worst plagues in our history. Anybody who reads The River will come away pretty much convinced that HIV also came from a vaccine program, there’s plenty of evidence on that as well.”"
These are all quoted directly attributed to him, so it's hard to see how we're misinformed.
Right and he wrote a whole book on it and cited facts with multiple papers backing up his claims.
And ask yourself this - how is it that that book is still sold if it’s all bullshit?
That was one of the many things bouncing around the back of my head as I smugly dismissed him until I watched the Lex Fridman podcast.
Look, I used to think exactly like everybody on hacker news, until I actually listen to the man. Do I agree with everything he says, no, but pretty close… And if you take the time to actually listen to him, you’ll find that he’s pretty reasonable on every single topic. And he’s willing to change his position if anybody can refute and/or provide actual evidence to do so. No one has.
This is why no one will debate him either by the way, isn’t that a little curious? A.k.a. nobody from the virology community. Because they simply can’t refute him based on actual science and facts.
Seriously go listen to rfk on Lex Fridman, if you don’t, then you will never really know the truth will you? And I personally prefer the Lex Fridman podcast but he’s been on Joe Rogan and numerous other podcasts over the last few weeks and truthfully they’re all excellent.
> Right and he wrote a whole book on it and cited facts with multiple papers backing up his claims.
> And ask yourself this - how is it that that book is still sold if it’s all bullshit?
Give me an hour on Amazon and I could find dozens, if not hundreds, of similarly "qualified" books on:
- UFOs, aliens, and "close encounters"
- Bigfoot, Chupacabra, and other cryptids
- Ghosts, Poltergeists, and other "hauntings"
And, let me be clear: I am not talking about fictional novels which include such things; I am talking about "non-fiction" which purports to prove their existence.
Do you believe all of those books must be true as well? Why or why not?
The thing that made me question the narrative on RFK Jr was a random Twitter comment that pointed out that he had written a best-selling book that went after Bill Gates with some absolutely devastating claims yet Bill Gates with all his billions and all his lawyers never once attempted to sue the man for liable.
Why do you think that is? Could it be the fact that every single claim he made against Gates, Fauci and Big Pharma is well-sourced and air-tight.
Remember, it isn’t slander or liable if it is provably true.
I read the whole transcript of the Fridman podcast after your comment. There were a lot of interesting side discussions about history but I still can't avoid seeing him as an anti-science, anti-establishment conspiracy nut, even if I bend over backwards to be as generous as possible.
The virology community isn't debating him because if you debate the conspiracy nuts, you give them creedence and also it's 100X harder to disprove bad ideas.
Right and if you actually listen to what he says, and understand history, we promised Russia we would never move an inch closer to them, and we have repeatedly sone so since making that promise in the early 90s.
We also place aegis missile systems near their border, which allows us to strike at the heart of Russia within 12 minutes.
This is nearly identical to what Russia pulled on us in the Cuban missile crisis, we would not of tolerated that, nor should we and that’s why we nearly invaded Cuba.
We did the same thing to them in the Ukraine, and if you don’t think that provoke them to react, then you simply don’t know history.
I'm familiar with history (my Russian political history class was fascinating). For example, the US placed its missiles in Turkey before the Cuban missile crisis. Of course we did! We also have airplanes flying near their borders and a fleet of subs, too.
Russia's leadership is paranoid and not to be trusted- and their stated claims for why they invaded are ridiculous. Russia put themselves at far greater risk - because now half their force and hardware is destroyed. RFK's analysis of history - or rather his stated claims - are more part of his propaganda than they resemble any sort of truth.
He's really not some sort of genius who is misunderstood and being maligned by the establishment. I mean, maybe he's being maligned in excess of his actual stupidity, but it's hard to tell. I think specifically his claims that the CIA and FBI helped kill his father and uncle, along with the HIV_causes-AIDS denial really establish just how crazy he is.
Have you looked into this and the facts around everything you just mentioned or are you going with the headlines you’ve read and other online talking points?
Each there own, comes down to believing he’s not a lying POS like virtually all other politicians. Listening to him, yeah hard to not hear how driven he is for real change. My 2 cents anyway but I respect your opinion even if I don’t agree with it.
Yes, I've looked into the facts around this- I used to be a scientist/researcher and know quite a lot about HIV and AIDS since I worked in a group that actively researched medicine for HIV.
I maintain a wide collection of reading and an open mind, and often when I hear things that sound like bullshit, actively try to assume the person spewing bullshit may have a point and bend over backwards trying to understand their point, including exposing myself to facts or reasoning that I don't agree with.
It sounds to me like your beef is with the establishment, and that RFK possibly represents a way to break down the establishment, but I don't think he is the way to achieve that (nor is that a worthy goal).
It sounds like you are very knowledgeable and are actively interested on the topic of HIV/AIDS.
If someone with your background would take the time to read RFK’s book on Fauci with a critical mind and do your best to identify fraudulent claims or misinterpreted facts about the early days of HIV treatment under Fauci, it would go a long way to help discredit RFK’s book and the man himself.
If your critique uncovers new insights it could be very persuasive in dismissing RFK’s candidacy.
This is not a small ask, I realize that, but if your current perception is correct about RFK Jr. you would be doing America a great service by revealing the fraud.
I ask this as someone who is not an expert on HIV/AIDS or vaccines but who has been pursued by RFK Jr’s message on other important topics and would genuinely like to know if the man is genuine or one whose claims should be dismissed.
I have purchased a copy of his book, “The Real Anthony Fauci - Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health” but haven’t yet read it. I would gladly mail it to you to support this effort.
I believe RFK said he did NOT get vaccinated for COVID (he said that in front of congress).
I think if he truly wants to make a compelling case, he has to stop associating himself with truly bad ideas, for example, claiming that the CIA killed his dad and uncle (this was in a fox news article about his time on the Rogan show), that HIV doesn't cause AIDS (instead saying that it was caused by vaccine research: "Anybody who reads The River will come away pretty much convinced that HIV also came from a vaccine program, there’s plenty of evidence on that as well.".
It's really hard to parse out what he truly believes. It seems like he acftively skirts the truth and then backtracks when somebody calls him out.
That's the podcast where he said the CIA conspired to kill his father and his uncle.
Show us evidence. You can't make claims like that and not show real evidence. Not "Oswald was a CIA asset", show me documents that prove the CIA, as an org, conspired to kill the sitting president.
The legalization of pharmaceutical advertisement in 1997 was the start of the corruption of our news. If you pay attention to virtually any of the news orgs, such as CNN, or MSNBC, etc, you'll see pharma ads and / or sponsorship logos during the broadcast. In many cases, the pharma company account for 70% or more of their advertising revenue. They can effectively crush any story they don't want making the mainstream, while also pushing whatever health narrative they desire to drive profits. It's truly disgusting.
I've pretty much started watching Glen Greenwald's online newscasts, he is one of the few remaining true investigative journalists out there.
I'm unconvinced. There are many developed countries that don't allow pharmaceutical advertisements. If your theory was true, we'd expect stories that pharma companies want suppressed to show up there but not in the US. Can you provide examples of this? The best I could come up with is "support for public healthcare", but support for public healthcare wasn't something that got torpedoed starting in 1997.
You've missed the point. The fact is, most of the US does support healthcare. That doesn't matter to the legislators. They have lobbyists convincing them to fight against any public option, they don't want to piss off their backers, or their club.
The reason US citizens are not more pissed off about being ignored, and shafted, is that the media don't bite the hand feeding them. They playact as if they do sometimes, but they know where their bread is buttered.
Media covers the worst abuses, but treats them like bad luck stories (no matter how obviously 'orphan crushing machine') rather than anything systemic and national.
Corporate media could cover a lot more of the tragic stories, and make people aware of the true statistics. They don't.
Instead, they ignore and attack poeple like Bernie Sanders for his healthcare plan, which would have saved the country money while providing better coverage. They do the same to anyone threatening the racket.
That's why your follow up sentence doesn't matter. Public opinion has been nearly completely disconnected from the levers of power, so it doesn't matter how public opinion changed after 1997.
> You've missed the point. The fact is, most of the US does support healthcare. That doesn't matter to the legislators. They have lobbyists convincing them to fight against any public option, they don't want to piss off their backers, or their club.
I'm not denying there's a disconnect between what americans say they want in surveys, and what legislators actually do. I am skeptical that this purely a post 1997 phenomena, as like your theory would suggest. I suspect this disconnect existed well before 1997. The oldest survey I could find on this topic was was this[1], which showed public support for federally provided healthcare at 64%. Sure, it only dates back to 2000, but barring some major national event, it's hard believe why public opinion u-turn in the years prior. Furthermore, most developed countries had public healthcare way before this. UK and France implemented public healthcare shortly after ww2. Canada had public healthcare by 1984. This wasn't something that was on the cusp of getting implemented, and the pharma industry shot it down after 1997. Public healthcare clearly wasn't something that was going to be implemented in the 90s or in the 2000s, with pharma intervention or not.
>> You can always tell something is up when the use of certain words / phrases are used to discredit the other person, always without supporting data
You mean language like "The Republican project is a matter of getting turkeys to vote for Christmas by doing a lot of culture war bullshit, cruelly abusing disfavored sexual and racial minorities. This wins support from low-information voters who'll vote against their class interests"?
