I prefer Zero Hedge just because I enjoy reminding people it is an aggregator every time they try to criticize it as a source while totally ignoring the content. I hear a lot of people around here prefer eating their own vomit and then reporting on it as they spew it out, but I am not a fan.
Pretty much all your zero hedge links are blog posts written by 'Tyler Durden', the a pseudonym for the anonymous conspiracy theory/alt-right bloggers who work for zerohedge. (their true identity was revealed a few years ago) Also, when I go to zerohedge.com the primary content is a list of Tyler Durdens 20 most recent blog posts. Of those blog posts, 5 of them give credit to an author other than Tyler Durden. It appears the other 15 blogs are written by the owner/founder of zerohedge. zerohedge is an alt right/financial blog If you're interested in what a news aggregator looks like, check out DrudgeReport. The thread is called "What news sources do ya guys use?" not "TwittySeal Obsessively Beats His Wienerschnitzel Over Others Having The Audacity To Not Have The Same Opinions As His." I thought "the a pseudonym" was Duden... make up your mind. "Pretty much all" of your generalizations are fucking bullshit. You remind me of those teachers in the 90's who would always say "the internet is not a valid source" regardless of who actually published it on the internet. The internet had valid sources even back then, but much like those teachers you are incapable of differentiating the value of anything you are not trained to accept. At the very sound of the words "Zero Hedge" in your mind, like the sound of a bell, you are triggered to froth at the mouth by the mere existence of ideas outside of your bubble of confirmation bias. Knowing full well you would never be able to defend the ideas you have, challenged by the words contained within this venue of free thought, your only strategy is a blanket dismissal of everything contained within it to protect your precious and comforting confirmation bias. Also, just for reference these are the current references on the Zero Hedge front page first 10 articles: 1. Reuters, Sky News Arabia, Fox News 2. Paul Krugman (direct source) 3. Reuters 4. Eric Margolis (author) 5. Bloomberg 6. The Guardian 7. the San Diego Union Tribune 8. Adil Abdul-Mahdi (direct source), The Saudi Gazette, Fort Russ News, Bloomberg, Egypt Today 8. The Baltic Dry Index, analyst Karel Mercx (direct source) 9. The New York Times, Business Insider, Stripes, The Nation, CNBC, Quartz, CBS News, Tom Dispatch, The Hill, CNN, Telegraph, Forbes, Politico, The Guardian, Washington Post, L.A. Times 10. NY Fed Repo Operations, Fed Liquidity Injections, Curvature Securities What a filthy den of lunatics and conspiracy theories! Everyone go back to the controlled opposition Drudge Report! Not everyone has figured out Drudge doesn't control it anymore yet! To be dead honest with you TecShare, I thought that most articles written on ZH were just Tyler Durden and weird conspiracy posts. Has a teacher in school who would always use ZH as their source for outlandish claims and the author was ALWAYS - TYLER DURDEN. Kinda left a bad taste in my mouth, which is why I've always hated ZH. This info is actually pretty nice to hear. Thanks for that TS. I guess I'll use it as an aggregator now, just avoiding the TD posts. Conspiracy. conspiracy
[ kuhn-spir-uh-see ]
noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. Notice that a conspiracy can mean any group activity toward a goal (#5). Every person who works with another person for a certain goal is a conspiracy. So, without clear knowledge of governmental activities, government might simply be a conspiracy by the officials in government... a conspiracy that allows them the freedom to get together and make all kinds of other conspiracies. People who think that government is NOT a conspiracy, often have gotten together in simple agreement, to form a conspiracy to protect government conspiracies. Consider all the talk in this forum section about Biden and Pelosi, and their conspiracies that used government funds and politics to promote wealth for themselves and their sons. Is it a conspiracy to talk about them like this? Where does conspiracy end? This forum, itself is a great big conspiracy according to at least part of the definition of "conspiracy."  I always thought it was weird to label "conspiracy theorists" "conspiracy ' theorists'". In my opinion a conspiracy theorist is someone that takes a far fetched 'theory' and concludes that it's a fact. They aren't really 'theorizing' about anything, they draw conclusions and defend them at all costs. |
|
|
|
both is defamation, if jow is not a racist he should be able to sue the defamer, because racism accusations have defaming effekt on people.
both are an accusation. the important parts are HOW THE ACCUSATION EFFECTS people in america they love to put a price on 'mental stress' which makes it easy in america that the harm/loss caused has a financial value. other countries however think only true financial loss should be valued. eg loss of income, shelter theaccusation alone is not that unlawful. its the impact that accusation caused. lying. by itself in public is not a crime. if it was then there would not be a special custom to when in court ned to swear on a bible and commit to a contract of telling the truth or be punished when standing in court. again if lying by itself was a crime there would be no need for the special perjury condition using certain words is not a crime in of itself for instance i as a white man have good friendships with people of other ethnic backgrounds. if i called one of them the N word. well thats just being part of the banter.. yet if i said it to a stranger and said it in a derogatory way that then caused someone negative affect that can be proven as some form of harm/loss. then that can lead to trouble saying the N word in of itself is not a crime.. who, how, why and what impact it caused. could be a crime if you accuse someone of being racist in an egalitarian minded society, you can literally destroy his image and career, happened often in germany especially to celebrities and politicians. if that person is racist, it is not a defamation but if he is not racist, like for example trump, then it is massively defamatory. You can't prove that anyone isn't a racist though. And even if you could, you'd also have to prove that the person calling someone a racist didn't actually believe they were racist. At least that's how the law works in America. |
|
|
|
Project Veritas is a very well respected and legitimate source. It is only "fake news" because the work they are doing has been so absolutely devastating to corrupt organizations.
James O'Keefe is a joke, imo. PV makes cable news (from Fox to MSNBC) seem totally unbiased without any agenda (which is obviously not true). They found a drunk Bernie Bro and baited him into saying a bunch of stupid shit - red meat for alt-right blogs like zerohedge - but that's about it. Like I said, people like you just find it convenient to dismiss it as "fake news" because it is so absolutely effective and crushing to your preferred narrative. That was a Sanders campaign manager on video advocating for political violence, also known as terrorism under federal statutes. TIL drinking turns you into a terrorist. Who knew... This guy was an Iowa field organizer. He was making ~$150 a day to organize volunteers to go knock on doors in Iowa. Basically show up in the morning and give each volunteer a route (that someone else figured out). Volunteers come and go, so paying someone to do the basic management is more efficient. (They would be trained by someone higher up) He was probably interviewed and hired by someone 4-5 levels below the actual campaign manager (Faiz Shakir). |
|
|
|
Project Veritas is a very well respected and legitimate source. It is only "fake news" because the work they are doing has been so absolutely devastating to corrupt organizations.
James O'Keefe is a joke, imo. PV makes cable news (from Fox to MSNBC) seem totally unbiased without any agenda (which is obviously not true). They found a drunk Bernie Bro and baited him into saying a bunch of stupid shit - red meat for alt-right blogs like zerohedge - but that's about it.
The exchange between Bernie and Elizabeth Warren was kind of awkward. It's like Warren tried to attack Sanders by confirming he claimed that a women couldn't be President because she did not outright deny that Bernie said that to her. What's likely is that Bernie said some sort of off-the-cuff type remark about how a woman would have a tough time running against Trump like Hillary did because Trump plays a different game, and some Warren campaign staffer is twisting his words in order to formulate an attack against him. Sanders can't really clear himself up in what he meant because the deranged left will immediately take his statement and equate it with misogyny no matter what his intent was. I doubt anyone truly thinks that Sanders believes a women can't be President.
Other than that, this debate was boring. I think Joe Biden has this race locked up at this point. Without Bernie or Warren conceding to each other's campaign, the progressive left vote will be split between them while Biden gets the plurality. According to the DNC rules, a candidate that suspends their campaign has the option to endorse another candidate and have their delegates transfer to the new candidate. This could come into play because at this point in the race in 2016, it was Bernie vs. Hillary clear and cut. So if one of the two candidates dropped out, the other would win by default as pledged delegates had no choice but to switch over to the only remaining candidate. Here, we have four major players, Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg so transferring delegates could get interesting because there isn't an obvious candidate to switch over to.
Oh, and I forgot to mention Andrew Yang missing the debate while Tom Steyer makes it is actually insane. You don't have to like Yang's universal basic income freedom dividend to understand that Yang is bringing up issues that will effect the future. Not a single candidate is willing to talk about China's aggression in technological spaces and AI. Once you lose the race to AI to a foreign adversary like China, good fucking luck trying to compete with their economy. It's over.
What did you guys think of the debate?
I couldn't watch, but saw some clips. The whole 'Bernie said he didn't think a woman could be president' line was kind of lame. You can hate on Bernie all day for his policies, but she was basically accusing him of being sexist, while acting like she didn't really want to talk about it, but it was her campaign that brought it up...seems like it might backfire. I feel like Yangs comments were always most entertaining, pretty lame Steyer was there but not him. |
|
|
|
|
You have to prove that a false statement about someone is actually false.
It's impossible to prove someone is or is not a racist.
"Joe is a KKK member, he is in charge of bringing bagels and coffee to the weekly meetings, and burns a cross in his yard every year on July 4th" <=== defamation
"Joe is a racist" <=== nope
|
|
|
|
Didn't he predict some bad stuff happening (economically) if Trump wins the election which failed to happen?
Yeah. From early 2017: "The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear. Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the nation with the world's most important economy would be very bad news. What makes it especially bad right now, however, is the fundamentally fragile state much of the world is still in. ...
Now comes the mother of all adverse effects -- and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. ...
So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened." Anytime someone makes such a confident prediction about something so complicated I have a hard time taking it seriously. Even if they have a nobel prize. TBF though, the possibility of Trump being an economic disaster is still a possibility. Somehow he's convinced republicans to sign off on adding about $3 trillion to the national debt, the trade war with China is still up in the air and one misstep with with Iran or NK could cost us trillions more. The way he's running the country is eerily similar to the way he's run many of his business ventures: super aggressive negotiations, protect your 'brand' more than your actual investments, litigate (apply pressure in unrelated ways) often, and don't be afraid of going bankrupt. |
|
|
|
the fat cats picked biden long ago. warren is just an insurance policy to keep bernie from getting too many votes.
Creepy pedophile Joe will be the democratic nominee. Why? Because he polls better with blacks than any other candidate. The dems cannot let the black vote go. They must keep them on the plantation. X Parrot back Trump insult X Incoherent X Racist |
|
|
|
Which are those resources you pointed out to me? There s not a single reference.
Seriously? Do some googling. Research your competition, figure out why some have been around for years and maintain a great reputations with a solid player base and others are ghost towns (or already folded) and have a bad reputation. Find the people that developed the successful sites and ask them for advice, many of them would be very willing to help you out - but only if you stop being such an asshole. |
|
|
|
Booker is out and Bernie is surging (at exactly the right time). Warren lost too much support when she flipped flopped on M4A.
Quite a swing from just a few months ago when Warren was on Top and Bernie had just had a heart attack. FiveThirtyEights lastest forcastOur latest forecast for how many pledged delegates each candidate will win after all states have voted...
Utterly worthless, since the fat cats in the Democratic back room will decide all this. Who are these fat cats? Do you know who they will decide on? |
|
|
|
Booker is out and Bernie is surging (at exactly the right time). Warren lost too much support when she flipped flopped on M4A.
Quite a swing from just a few months ago when Warren was on Top and Bernie had just had a heart attack. FiveThirtyEights lastest forcastOur latest forecast for how many pledged delegates each candidate will win after all states have voted
FiveThirtyEight’s model simulates the primary season thousands of times to find the most likely outcome for each candidate. The chart shows how many delegates, on average, each candidate is projected to have pledged to them at each point in the primary season, along with a range of possible delegate counts. We’re also showing the distribution of simulated final pledged delegate counts in the table, where taller bars mean a more likely outcome. Right now, many candidates, even the front-runners, wind up with tall bars close to zero — generally, those are simulations where the candidate dropped out before having a chance to accumulate many delegates.
   |
|
|
|
I m not lashing anyone
Couple examples: Are you on drugs or something? You are clearly out of your fucking mind to even state stupid shit like this. If you want to at least "look" intelligent, better shut up.
This guy is as stupid as they come. Dismantling your shit: I m not sure if you are hired by a casino to do this yourself but you sure sound like it. |
|
|
|
Do you have any solution for this?
I've pointed you towards a bunch of resources that will help you figure out how to do it. There are plenty of developers around here that are experts in provably fair solutions that I'm sure would be happy to give you feed back. Of course this is assuming you're able to accept constructive criticism without lashing out and insulting the person trying to help you. |
|
|
|
Again as i told you, the "provably fair" system does not prevent me from cheating.
If you implement it properly, it should prevent anyone from being able to manipulate or know the outcome of a bet before all the players. Give me personalised solution that will prevent me from knowing the result in advance and also prevent me to create accounts to bet against my clients. If you have a viable solution for that, i WILL program it. I m waiting for your answer.
Allow each player to choose their own seed and then use those seeds to determine the result of each game. I don't think you would need a server seed since you will always have 2 or more player seeds, I could be wrong about that. After the game is complete, reveal all seeds used so that players can verify the result independently. I've pointed you towards a bunch of resources that will help you figure out how to do it. There are plenty of developers around here that are experts in provably fair solutions that I'm sure would be happy to give you feed back. Of course this is assuming you're able to accept constructive criticism without lashing out and insulting the person trying to help you. In regards to ticket prices and house edge, check out my calculation, you haven t said anything about it. As i said before, more tickets, more chances to win.
If you're taking 3% of every bet, your average players EV will be 97%. If some players find a way increase their EV, other players EV will drop below 97%, just like any other p. I'm not interested in debating this any more. |
|
|
|
Now you ADMIT that the "provably fair" system is of no use for my model
I did not say that. Let me be more clear. If you don't implement a provably fair system that can be verified, your product is interesting and looks good, but it will not be competitive in the crypto based gambling market if you do not have a provably fair system in place that prevents the possibility of you, or any other player from knowing the result of a game before hand. It doesn't matter whether or not you actually cheat, the fact that you could will hurt you. If you continue to insist that provably fair betting is worthless, your reputation will suffer. If you continue to personally attack and retaliate against people who criticize you, your reputation will suffer. (Expect lots of criticism, some valid and some not valid, it's inevitable that you will be accused of outright cheating on a regular basis) You're competing against sites that have been established for years and don't do any of these things. For every one successful site there have been dozens who have come and gone for doing the things I've pointed out to you. Don't take my criticism personally. |
|
|
|
|
Spiteful shitsposter complaining about not being on DT list in his own merit source request thread.
Probably wasting your time at this point woowoo
|
|
|
|
These media houses consider themselves as part of power pillars in every country. They make and break governments that's why even governments are afraid of them. You need to be a powerful guy like them to sue them else they will wipe you out.
Democracy dies in darkness. Without journalism, all we have is propaganda. Other peoples opinions are important also though. But don't confuse that with journalism. |
|
|
|
That's an op-ed. It's not written by a NYTimes journalist and does not reflect the stance of the NYTimes in any way.
It's literally just the opinion of a single person. In this case, Afua Hirsch. Interesting you don't feel the need to apply this same standard to Zero hedge. It is almost as if you are seeking to confirm your bias... Zero hedge is a finance/alt-right blog (mostly written by the same guy, but it may be more than one guy, but we're not sure who's actually writing it because they all just post under the same pseudonym). The problem I have with them is they write all their blog posts as if they are news articles and the opinion is only from one point of view. The NYTimes prints opinions for many points of views. It's not uncommon for them to have dueling op-eds right next to each other with completely different opinions on the same subject. |
|
|
|
|
That's an op-ed, not a news article. It's not written by a NYTimes journalist and does not reflect the stance of the NYTimes in any way.
It's literally just the opinion of a single person, which is why it says 'Opinon' at the very top, in this case that person is Afua Hirs.
|
|
|
|
I always wondered what it meant to be impeached. Clinton was impeached yet he was still President and fulfilled his full termed. It's pretty much a waste of time what they are doing.
Impeachment preserves democracy. Just because only 3 presidents have been impeached, and most likely all 3 will be acquitted doesn't mean it hasn't had any affect on the decisions of the other 42. Without the possibility of being impeached, there wouldn't be much standing in the way of the guy who's in charge of the military, Department of Justice and all the intelligence agencies to be an authoritarian. Impeachment affects every presidency. My reading on it will be the Senate trial will be timed so as to maximize the advantage to Biden being out campaigning, and maximize the confinement of Sanders into DC for six days a week. So those who were for Sanders get screwed a second time around by their own party! I don't think keeping Bernie/Warren not physically being in Iowa/NH will benefit Biden that much, if at all. Bernie/Warren have thousands of people who have been canvasing for months, which is more valuable than any rally, especially in Iowa. The fact that they are too busy trying the President might actually them a little bump. We can pretty much call SC for Biden already. Not really sure how NV works though, but that's the third or fourth week of Feb and I feel like there's a very slim chance the trial hasn't concluded by then. |
|
|
|
against all the retaliatory and defamatory feedback you received.
Huh. I don't recall JollyGood being in the center of any drama, but I could have missed it or forgotten. I'll have to take a peek at his trust page. He's got tons of untrusted negative feedback, flags with no support but plenty of opposition and a even a couple idiots following him around talking shit: [incoherent nonsense]
All signs of a successful scam buster:)  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
