This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags. Let Lauda bury themselves... they are now fighting an uphill battle. |
|
|
|
Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it. I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given). They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer.... I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change). In many cases it would require action from a total of 3 members per the tagged user. All in all, it's probably closer to 5k flags and at least 5k-10k support clicks. Who has time to do that? It's just not plausible (even though it would be worth it). I think that is kind of the point, that people who make an industry of leaving negative ratings aren't incentivized to do so any more, leaving the task to those directly effected. You personally have done more to bring about this change than anyone. I won't hold my breath for the sky falling, but you feel free to. |
|
|
|
|
While I will reserve my judgement of the outcome of the new trust system implementations, I must say I find them highly encouraging and I very much support the intent if not the outcome. Good work Theymos.
|
|
|
|
A security minded person should assume that these devices are capable of some level of TEMPEST attack (for high-value targets) although that may or may not be the case. I also would suspect the same of other devices though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFWgIAgMtiAIt is basically a hard wired always on tempest monitoring system complete with microwave transmitter... not even a question, the linked articles show how much information they can pull from your power usage. It can somewhat be limited by filters and the use of a UPS and such. |
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't be a scalable test. Socialism/Capitalism only really works at small scale. Also Socialism/Communism require Capitalism to function, but not vice versa.
|
|
|
|
I see the issue differently from you. Whenever there is a unbalance of power or wealth there is the ability to get away with more using good lawyers but those people become equally vulnerable to unscrupulous behaviour from predators. Women making false complaints are jnvolved in unethical and illegal activity. There is no excuse for it.
Wealthy women get targeted as well.
Rich people and politicians often get targeted by blackmailers. It doesn't matter how you frame it but "making false claims about someone" for monetary or political gain is blackmail.
Men and women should have equal rights. That is different from being "the same".
There is also a big difference between being accused of something and being found guilty of something by a court. While the system is not perfect - most false claims are unsuccessful. With the high standard of proof required often guilty people get exonerated as well. This is not just a matter of opinion. You are making self contradictory conclusions. Men and women should have equal rights you say, but men don't have any right to be protected from false accusations based on your metric. Saying it is wrong is not the same as advocating for basic standards (such as evidence) which protect both men and women from these false accusations and the aftermath. Even if you don't give a fuck about men, these things still destroy the lives of women who's sons, brothers, and husbands, etc. who are destroyed by this behavior. The problem is the atmosphere that not only advocates destroying these men without evidence in or outside of the criminal justice system, but the excuses and the lack of prosecutions of false accusers. Did you ever stop to think that these false accusations are probably causing real victims to be dismissed, and allowing actual rapists to continue to rape as well? There is no justification for it, period. |
|
|
|
Speak of the devil and who shall appear? 'They' just showed up and switched my three of my power meters over to 'smartmeters'.
Now I get to try to figure out if the ill-effects I will be feeling are psychosomatic or real. For a month or so anyway before I flee the country.
Depending on what state you are in you can opt out, but they usually charge a fee. |
|
|
|
''You don't think it is at all strange that one man from so far away was able to kill and injure so many people in such a short period of time? Why is it nearly every other mass shooting there are endless details about the situation and the shooter along with their motives plastered all over, yet this incident just suddenly vanished from public consciousness without any of that examination? Stop being so willfully ignorant.'' I don't actually, why is it strange? Was this case not investigated, where did you see that? ''Eyewitness testimony — it’s often thought of as solid evidence in criminal cases, but researchers including Iowa State University’s Gary Wells have found that our memories aren’t as reliable as we think. Sometimes, we can even build false recollections about people we only think we saw.'' https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.htmlConsidering how insanely stressful this event was, it's not weird at all. Who said the case wasn't investigated? Now you are literally making up things and attributing them to me instead of arguing what I actually said. That is called a strawman and is a common logical fallacy. Furthermore it is a clear demonstration of your bias, because you aren't even critically examining any of the information that is presented before you project your own concepts of what you think it is upon it. I said in other cases the information is made public and plastered all over, and in this case they barely released any information and the media was quick to bury it, which is very unusual considering how hard they beat the dead horse of any mass shooting in almost every other case. Your link doesn't prove anything. I never said witness testimony is infallible. I did however say errors in witness testimony are usually related to mistaken identity or mistakes in relatively minor details. Stress doesn't make you hallucinate entire teams of armed men. Furthermore there are now multiple witness statements coming out that state there were other shooters, I guess they are all hallucinating huh? You are so obviously terrified of having to adjust your world view to incorporate the possibility of this new information. You are looking for any excuse at all to dismiss the mounting evidence that something other than what was reported happened because you can not handle the cognitive dissonance. You aren't examining or arguing the issues, you are summarily dismissing them. |
|
|
|
Oh well, easy come, easy go. I figured I'd get the boot from DT eventually and I have no hard feelings about it whatsoever. Things change, and I do thank the people who had me on their trust lists (or still do). Hopefully everything will work out A-OK from here on out. This is just a result of the random selection Theymos just implemented. You will cycle back through next time. |
|
|
|
The term conspiracy has become associated with crazy people. People laugh when they heard the word conspiracy because of stupid things like flat earth.
Really don't hear much at all about the Vegas shooting or the Colorado theater shooting, still hear more about George Zimmerman. I'm not sure what to say about those witnesses because during mass panic like that your only concern is to survive and hide and you aren't really looking around and observing things clearly.
See I can respect a reply like this. You aren't automatically being dismissive and making prejudgments. You remain skeptical, which is perfectly reasonable, but you also aren't pretending like anyone who is asking questions is some kind of nut. This incident begs for questions to be asked, and there are so few answers. |
|
|
|
I am sure a lot of you have heard about this, but since the legacy media can't compete with the alternative media, they have opted to attack their ability to not only present their views, but earn a living from doing so. People are so hungry for truth and so tired of the old dried out turd that is the MSM, they literally can not compete with a guy in his garage on his web cam. This is only going to get worse, not just in the digital sphere, but in meat space.
They started with the fringes, now they are moving into quite main stream commentators. They are crafting a Communist style system of political correctness, and anyone who doesn't comply will be unpersoned and cut off from using the banking system, from transportation, from internet platforms, and even the ability to earn a living. Prepare yourselves, because when you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.
This is an outcome of the recent Law that passed from the European Parliament about the copyrights. Prolly youtube is trying to establish a new policy that it will affect all the Youtube community and not only the European one. The censorship has nothing to do with copyright nor any Europe law. It is primarily affecting right wing vloggers. It is a way to move the opinion of the population to the left. And who told you that the EU has not this as a goal? Right wing stances are growing in the EU and this is a huge headache for European Leaders. You are both kind of right. EU laws are definitely influencing the situation, and they are using things like copyright as a pretext to achieve this goal of censorship. |
|
|
|
Witnesses are extremely unreliable, just saying. Also, this conspiracy shit happens every single time, every time there is a shooting, there is some weird ass conspiracy about it, every time someone famous dies, boom, nope, they are alive, it's a conspiracy, don't people get tired of this shit?
The unreliability of witnesses is usually the kind of thing you would attribute to a false ID or mismatching details, not imagining armed teams of people running around. People who fear that they might have to adapt their belief system to new and challenging concepts so often use the term "conspiracy" to dismiss everything and anything as a way to end that difficult cognitive dissonance they are experiencing. By every metric this was a conspiracy. Two guys planning to rob a 7-11 is a conspiracy. A conspiracy is simply a legal terminology for planning a crime between 2 or more people. Stop using that word as a lazy cudgel to avoid for what is for you a difficult task of critical examination of the situation. You don't think it is at all strange that one man from so far away was able to kill and injure so many people in such a short period of time? Why is it nearly every other mass shooting there are endless details about the situation and the shooter along with their motives plastered all over, yet this incident just suddenly vanished from public consciousness without any of that examination? Stop being so willfully ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
The OP seems to be aware of these work arounds. The issue seems to be that the time it takes to do this over and over adds up. There doesn't seem to be any real good reason why quoting should be disabled. Perhaps any quote on a locked topic can automatically pull up a PM field with a blank recipient?
|
|
|
|
Is there any other witness that is able to corroborate this story by one witness? There's no way that we're going to base an entire conspiracy theory claim off of one person -- who is not going to be as close to credible as multiple people who are saying the same thing.
Any footage of this happening or anything along those lines? Etc?
I do know that there is barely any information out there about this shooting, though I do think it is vital to show proper evidence before we make crazy claims.
Maybe actually revue the information I presented before making assumptions. |
|
|
|
More Marxism This study is kind of like the inverse of the premise of the OP. The op examines the idea that people are all for these programs, but only if you totally disregard the negative effects of the cost, once that is part of the discussion, not so much. Your source is basically saying money can be saved, if you totally ignore the cost in the form of shit treatment, shortages, and the fact the government gets to dictate to you how you get your healthcare at every stage. I mean it's not even about that. It's about the fact that the assumptions made in the paper couldn't and won't be able to come true even if this legislation was put into law. Bernie only has savings in is Medicare for all bill because of the fact that HE made assumptions in there about healthcare costs going down about 40 percent while increasing the number of people accessing healthcare by 10 percent. It's an insane assumption, and it won't work. We are kind of saying the same thing, except I am more focusing on the rhetoric used to sell it and you are focusing more on the logistical aspects of it. |
|
|
|
Capitalism is better for everyone, it is not even a debate if you are looking at factual information and not making arguments based on your emotions.
Hmm... Then explain why socialist health care treats better everyone and costs less? That's kind of the whole point of the study... To show that capitalist health care is costly and inneffective... Its not a fact "socialist healthcare" "treats better and costs less". Socialism leads to shortages, doctors with less expertise, long wait lists, and government dictating what healthcare you can receive. Furthermore the costs are simply passed on via taxes, so it "costing less" is totally an illusion anyway, especially after bureaucratic bloat takes effect. Just because the study was attempting to make that point doesn't make the conclusion valid. |
|
|
|
|
The next step should be getting extorted using the trust system, getting tired of the double standards and stop trying.
|
|
|
|
Your argument is completely fallacious. Just because people are objecting to one extreme does not mean the other extreme is the only alternative. You are being willfully ignorant and simply repeating your programmed response like a robot. We get it. Sexual harassment and discrimination is bad. That doesn't make over reaction to these issues any more acceptable. Furthermore if you took the time to think about this for more than a half of a second you would see that this trend is DIRECTLY negatively effecting women by the virtue of the fact that this culture of guilty until proven innocent demonization of men is DIRECTLY causing women to be excluded, and very reasonably so. People aren't going to put their careers, livelihoods, and businesses on the line on the chance that they won't make a false accusation, nor should they.
You are talking about a caricature of the USA, not the reality. You are a mindless parrot vomiting up your programed replies to these topics without a moment of critical examination. No one is justifying sexual assault or harassment, and the implication of such is totally a figment of your own imagination that you project upon anyone who has a contrary opinion to your own. BTW you didn't answer my questions.
So the real issue is that false complaints are not punished. But just because there is not enough proof doesn't mean something didn't happen. Predators are good at covering up their tracks. Judicial appointments are also very politicized. There is something fundamentally wrong when a political process is used to appoint judges. I've worked in a number of companies. I have seen the attitudes of some men towards women. They should be afraid - it is inappropriate and unprofessional. The fact that Donald Trump was caught on a recording and it as dismissed as "locker room talk" is indicative of where the issue is. I find it quite entertaining you demand proof for even acknowledging that this issue is even a problem, yet you think not having any proof to ruin a man's life is not a problem at all. Hypocritical much? There is a reason the standard of innocent until proven guilty was put into use, because without it the "justice system" quickly becomes a tool of injustice. The issue is not only that false accusations are not punished, the issue is also that this atmosphere of burning the accused without evidence is the main problem. It is a FACT that there are direct monetary incentives for women to make false accusations, among other direct incentives such as hiding adultery, manipulating political outcomes, or preserving one's perceived social status. Are men and women equal? Then why is it women are not equally capable of malfeasance in your eyes? That sounds like quite a sexist contradiction to me implying women are some how better or more innocent than men. Regarding Donald Trump, his private discussion was regarding CONSENSUAL ACTIVITY, the key words being "they LET you", furthermore this is completely off topic and just more deranged projections of your preprogrammed caricature of the USA. Have you ever even been here, or do you just let the TV form all of your opinions for you? BTW you still haven't answered my first questions. EDIT: Related: Keanu Reeves Exposes The Sad State Of Me Too Feminism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WFkvXxbZTI |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
