You are nto following the story, cleary. Not only some texts have been verified, they have a former business partner going on record, verifying the messages along the way. What else do you want? People involved in the threads are claiming the messages to be true. What else do you want?
And, by the way, I could care less for the video and photographic content of that laptop, to me that content is irrelevant --actually, I feel sorry for Joe Biden and I can't imagine how hard it must be to have a son who is a drug addict and a man child. But shouldn't that also corroborate the validity of the laptop content? Why isn't the media all over it?
And, please, let's not pretend that several Trump stories came from anonymous sources with no audio or text evidence. And the mainstream media danced all over it. For instance, the (supposedly) anonymous senior administration who was part of the resistance. Not only did the NYT run stories on his unverified accounts (no audio/text/video to back it up), they also wrote a book with his accounts. And we just learned that this senior admin wasn't senior after all. How can you really read thsoe stories and not come way perplexed by the blatant bias? I understand why people hate Trump, but is it worth to abandon journalism standards? Where do we go from here?
Instead of blaming fake news and misinformation for the 2016 elections outcome, maybe the Democrats should look themselves in the mirror.
I have yet to see a clear decisive causation link between the Russian interference (e.g. bot farms) and the outcome of the election. Of course there was interference, nobody denies it. But show me that these trolls swayed the election. There is none.
> Instead of blaming fake news and misinformation for the 2016 elections outcome, maybe the Democrats should look themselves in the mirror.
Uh, that's not what left-leaning people are blaming the election results on. That's what right-leaning people claim left-leaning people blamed it on.
Left-leaning people blame the election result on racism, sexism, xenophobia, and intolerance. Donald J. "Grab 'em by the pussy" / "look at my large hands" / "birther in chief" / "interrupting cow" Trump is the direct result of the hatred that has been pouring out of talk radio and Fox News for the last several decades.
Is there a word for the typical arguments that you see where there are 100 false premises and to even make your case you have to dismantle each one?
The Russia conspiracy theory is laden with these. So many conversations are very tedious because of the number of falsehoods you have to break down before you make any progress. Many folks seem to accept it as a given that troll farms were successful. The posts themselves are laughable.
The media has been pedaling the Russian collusion story for 4 years and you don't seem to care because it fits your priors and political agenda. The bigger lesson here is that everybody is ready to accept censorship as long as they are not bearing the (immediate) costs of it.
"The media has...", really? There's no coordinated media, there are several media corporations (like Twitter, BBC, News Corp (NY Post owner)) with their own bias and their own audience.
Exactly all the sheep follow and believe what their side says.
To me from pizzaGate to RussiaGate to the impeachment to this Hunter Biden thing is all junk ... arbitrary distractions to the issues that are important ... the economy, healthcare, equality, etc.
Each side will do whatever it takes/strategy to try and win and too many sheep follow along/get soaked up in the soap opera drama.
I'm not American, but the same thing is happening in many countries. A stable country where the citizens trust the government and judicial systems is resistant to corruption. If you can destabilize those countries by spreading lies, hate, disinformation, etc. there's an opportunity for the most corrupt morally bankrupt scumbags on the planet to come in and seize control of important assets and infrastructure.
Just watch closely for a while and you'll see it happening everywhere. There are lies and misinformation and hate and fear directed _everywhere_ no matter what "side" you're on and the volume of it is massive. Then the media and influencers and regular people amplify it and spread it and debate it until they all hate each other and don't trust anyone.
It's working too. America is imploding. The UK got duped into Brexit. Several countries have a growing following of citizens that think immigrants and minorities are the cause of their misfortune even though those tend to be vulnerable groups that are exploited the most. Cancel culture is dialed up to 11. It's crazy and scary.
The evidence that there was some kind of attempted coordination between the Trump campaign and various Russian individuals is actually stronger than you give credit for. I feel like you didn't actually read the Special Counsel report.
Well, multiple members of the Trump campaign have literally pleaded guilty to lying about involvement with Russia; that story does have that going for it :)
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html over, and you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
You'd think that after 4 years of intense scrutiny by the media, with a 2-year Special Counsel Investigation, people would finally let this go. If you don't see the parallel between this pipe dream and the QAnons of the world, I can't help you.
Well, it doesn’t help that the “infamous dossier” literally states that a sitting President can’t be charged for the crimes that were investigated. And the author explicitly stated that he did not find Trump or his campaign innocent of the described crimes.
Note: this opinion is independent of the current president, and I'm not stating any opinion on President Trump's conduct.
This seems like a really bad standard to apply to the president. I'd argue that morally there are two relevant factors when it comes to finding someone guilty: the damage that would be done to others by failing to punish the perpetrator, and the damage that would be done to the alleged perpetrator by punishing them. We choose different standards depending on those two factors. For example, in civil cases, someone specific has lost something and someone else has gained at their expense. And you're not seeking to imprison someone, but to take away some of their wealth. So we pick a standard of evidence (preponderance of the evidence) that's lower than in criminal cases (with a very high injury to the perpetrator and typically lower injury to the community).
In contrast, an impeachment is not a prison sentence. It would injure a president only insofar as that president would no longer keep the most prestigious title and position of power in American society. And failing to impeach for serious corruption or crimes (say, if a president were conspiring with China to weaken America's standing overseas) could be catastrophic. So I think a much weaker presumption of innocence is in order.
If you're talking about Flynn, he was entrapped by the FBI, his lies weren't material, his lawyer had a conflict of interest, when his new lawyer uncovered all of that in discovery, the prosecutor moved to dismiss (because they had committed misconduct), Sullivan, in AN UNPRECEDENTED MOVE, appointed his own Amicus to say they couldn't dismiss the case.
Flynn was then charged for lying when he plead guilty, because ht wasn't actually guilty. Seriously. This is a Kafka trap.
On top of that, it's now clear Sullivan was getting e-mail, exparte, and ENTERING THEM into evidence!!!
There's a conflation of issues whenever someone comes along claiming the "Russia collusion" story is fake news. Russia did meddle in the election and did hack the DNC. Russia also had close ties to high level members of the Trump campaign. It is not reasonable to dispute these facts. The question of whether Trump personally colluded with Russia is in doubt. But I don't see this specific claim made much at all from legitimate news organizations. The dishonesty is how people want to cast doubt on Russia's efforts to elect Trump by conflating it with the issue of whether Trump personally colluded with Russia.
> But I don't see this specific claim made much at all from legitimate news organizations.
You really missed all of 2017-2018. My wife is a never-Trumper and this issue got her to tune into Rachel Maddow and all the podcasts and the idea that the collusion was two-sided and went to the highest levels in the Trump campaign was pervasive.
It does seem to me that blaming the whole situation on climate change is an exaggeration. However, it is a politically savvy move from Newsom et al. as west coast states are solid blue. They are pandering to their audience. It also happens on the right with different issues.
I agree, this is something politicians on all sides try to do, and I am not trying to single out the left for it more generally. I am just especially frustrated in this instance, because this issue directly affects me, my friends, and family. Our governor in Washington state, Jay Inslee, blamed climate change for wildfires in a round of press conferences back in the 2018 season as well, and he's doing the same thing now. His own Department of Natural Resources has been consistently asking for more investment in prevention before 2018, between 2018 and 2020, and still today in 2020. And yet there has been little to no movement from Inslee on the matter, so I feel he is lying to us. However, due to how polarized politics are these days, most constituents are giving Inslee a pass and blindly accepting his claims without examining the facts or surveying a diverse set of expert opinions.
Forest management is helpful, but the task is unsurmountingly vast and yet compared to climate change, it’s dwarfed. But we have to tackle the big one because it has so many other effects that are catastrophic. Forest management is basically lost in the noise with climate change.
I think that environmentalists want prescribed burns, right-wingers want to just cut all the forests down, and the compromise position is to do neither and then call the fires an act of God.
I have no doubt that had TikTok been a Russian app and its ultimate stakeholder were the Russian government, some of you here would have no problem with the ban. I am really tired of the double standard.
But most importantly, what the US is applying is plain and old-fashioned Reciprocity trade rules. It is a completely valid and accepted course of action. If China closes its market to US-based social network companies, then the US should do the same. It happens everywhere and you don't see people screaming bloody murder because of it.
In my opinion, it is about time. Not only we are creating a disadvantage to our local companies (FB, Whatsapp, etc), we are inviting a hostile agent to openly collect information on our citizens. I understand that some here want a more stringent policy concerning privacy and data collection. I think it is a fair point, but it is not mutually exclusive here.
Even if we accept the idea that CA was decisive to Trump's victory (I don't think it was, not even close), I think that you are absolutely on point here. I do think democrats were caught by surprise in 2016 and, instead of blaming themselves for their debacle, they sourced it elsewhere.
In other words, you pay what you pay to attend Harvard, to a large extent, because of its network effects. And that is really the reason at the end of the day. This is especially true in areas where network is expected to be a big factor --think Economics, Law, Business.
And that's why you pay that much to go to Harvard, to gain access to their network.
That's writing off a lot of the educational benefits of a university. YouTube lectures don't recreate the college educational experience. You don't get the group sections with the TA, office hours, personal feedback on your assignments, a group of students studying the same thing who you can work with, undergrad research experience, personal tutoring from graduate students (which undergrads at some elite universities like Harvard and Oxbridge get through their dorms), etc.
Most people don't pay much to attend Harvard anyways. Only the rich pay anything near full tuition. It's probably cheaper for the average family than most state colleges.
It really does suck you have to pay upwards of thousands of dollars just to get some brand name on your education credentials. And thereby having those credentials do opportunities open up. Have you ever seen Suits? The premise of the show was about a young man who gets into a top law firm in New York by lying that he went to Harvard Law School.
And why is that? I am a certified C noob and this really confuses me. Why `alphabet_pointer = alphabet;` points exactly to the first element in the array? Why not the whole array? Why not the last? Can we have a pointer that accepts a whole array?
Because most of the time* an array name decays to a pointer to the first element of the array.
So when the array is declared
char alphabet[10] = {'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'};
What the alphabet variable "holds" can be seen (this is not exactly true) as a pointer to the array.
Then when you do
alphabet_pointer = alphabet;
You just assign to alphabet_pointer the position in memory of the (first element of) alphabet.
Then alphabet_pointer can be dereferenced to access the content of the array (and not the address of a pointer to the array).
__
* There are some situations where an array name is not considered as a pointer to the array. Notably &array gives you back the address of the array : &array == array.
> Why `alphabet_pointer = alphabet;` points exactly to the first element in the array? Why not the whole array?
Someone decided it has to be so, because it is pretty convenient. Usually when dealing with an array, you want to do things with its elements and therefore it's extremely convenient that an expression with array type is converted to a pointer to the array's first element. If that didn't happen, then you'd very often have one extra layer of annoyance to go through in order to access array elements.
> Why not the last?
The first element is convenient because then you can reach for the other elements by adding a zero-based offset or index to the pointer. How often do you operate on an array starting from its end? How often do you like to work with negative indices? That's why not the last.
> Can we have a pointer that accepts a whole array?
We can have a pointer that points to a whole array:
int a[50];
int (*p)[50] = &a;
printf("%zu %zu %zu\n", sizeof a, sizeof a / sizeof *a, sizeof *a);
printf("%zu %zu %zu\n", sizeof *p, sizeof *p / sizeof **p, sizeof **p);
> 200 50 4
> 200 50 4
But what is an array anyway? It's just a bunch of (contiguous) memory. That bunch of memory has to start somewhere.
Since an array is just a bunch of memory, by pointing to the beginning of that bunch of memory you are pointing to the entire array.
Here follows a more complicated version:
What the tutorial is not telling you (and now you will hate me for doing things more complicated) is that in C, the alphabet variable is (or can be) treated as a pointer.
If you print the value of alphabet as an number (casting it to unsigned int, for example), you will see that is a position in RAM. That position is the beginning of the array. When you do `alphabet_pointer = alphabet;` you assign to alphabet_pointer the value of alphabet.
If alphabet array starts at address 0x1234, then basically you are doing
alphabet_pointer = (char*) 0x1234;
Also note that doing `alphabet_pointer = alphabet;` is the same as doing `alphabet_pointer = &alphabet[0];`, being alphabet[0] the first element in the array.
a c array is literally just a sequence of objects in memory (possibly with padding, but you can ignore that for a while). you can think of pointing "exactly" to the first element as being equivalent to pointing to the whole array. you need to know where the array begins and its size to do anything with it. but once you know where it starts, you can access the next element by adding sizeof(char) (or whatever the element type happens to be) to the pointer.
If you declare a structure of unaligned size, the compiler might (probably must) introduce some padding bytes at the end of the structure to fit the alignment. In some architectures you cannot do unaligned accesses (ARM for example).
Unless you pack the structure with the alignment you want.
Yes, so the structure itself has padding (added by the compiler). But that is regardless of whether it is in an array or not. OP seemed to suggest that C arrays introduce padding of some sort, which they do not.
When it is all said and done, we will find out that the mortality rate is very close to regular flu (around 0.1%). Italy, China and other countries with high mortality rate are not a great model because they were caught unprepared and their health system cannot sustain a moderate peak in hospitalizations. Also keep in mind that a large segment of the infected people go untested in most places which affects the denominator. I see many epidemiologists estimating that the number of true infected is 5 or even 10 fold of what we are seeing being reported. If that is the case, then we can assume the mortality rate certainly drops to less than 1% and most likely ranges in the 0.5% to 0.1%.
And, by the way, I could care less for the video and photographic content of that laptop, to me that content is irrelevant --actually, I feel sorry for Joe Biden and I can't imagine how hard it must be to have a son who is a drug addict and a man child. But shouldn't that also corroborate the validity of the laptop content? Why isn't the media all over it?
And, please, let's not pretend that several Trump stories came from anonymous sources with no audio or text evidence. And the mainstream media danced all over it. For instance, the (supposedly) anonymous senior administration who was part of the resistance. Not only did the NYT run stories on his unverified accounts (no audio/text/video to back it up), they also wrote a book with his accounts. And we just learned that this senior admin wasn't senior after all. How can you really read thsoe stories and not come way perplexed by the blatant bias? I understand why people hate Trump, but is it worth to abandon journalism standards? Where do we go from here?