Some of them may have been transporting drugs, but they were mules... the US government has not provided evidence about any of its 194 murder victims
So, if I were to accuse you of being a drug dealer, you're fine with the US government declaring open season on you? No need for a trial, the verdict is already in and it's the death penalty?
Dear French Government
France has laws outlawing slavery and theft. In this spirit we enclose a quote for setting up a French residents-only DNS service, including of course the money required to staff this service for the first year of operation. Further years of service can be purchased at the beginning of each (French) financial year.
Once payment has been made we will endeavor to block DNS resolution as requested once you have provided us with a full list of all IP address ranges used by your citizens. When we receive this list from you we will spin off a team who will start setting up rules redirecting French traffic to your own private DNS service.
You will note that the above plan only covers DNS requests originating from France (and of course its colonies around the globe). It will not prevent citizens of other nations viewing your apparently riveting French football games or whatever else you are worried about users seeing. Should you wish us to censor the entire globe you just need to provide us with letters from all the other nations around the world consenting to France deciding what their citizens are permitted to access on the internet.
Signed
[DNS provider]
I've long believed that where a government agency redacts information that should be publicly available, it's up to us to provide that information ourselves:
ODO reviewed 99 detainee files and found in 99 out of 99 files the initial classification process and initial housing assignments were not completed...
There you go. You can now report that "it has been estimated that the law was broken and basic rights ignored in 99 out of 99 cases". Following that "it has been reported that..."
If they want to look... less bad?... they're welcome to release the actual numbers and prove my statistic inaccurate.
As someone who voted for Biden... he’s a fundamentally decent man
You have my sympathy. Unfortunately you have jumped from your native timeline to a much more dystopic one. The Joe Biden in this timeline was a mediocre opportunist who was rarely on the right side of history and was known for being willing and happy to compromise any principles he may possibly have once held in order to proactively compromise with Republican extremists.
As a single-term president his record was good - but then, being sandwiched between Trump terms does put your record in a better light than it otherwise would be. On the other hand, given his cognitive decline and the post-election revelations that he spent much of his presidency being puppeted by advisors, he can't really be given full credit for his presidency either.
Mullin deserves censure for his ridiculously over the top support of his cult leader's senile rantings. He didn't get to choose his name.
I'm from Australia. We recently had a would-be leader who had changed her name (decades ago) from Susan to Sussan for no good reason. That is someone who deserves to be ridiculed for her name. Not Mullin. As I said, he has provided numerous real reasons for us to ridicule him.
Of course, as with all these fanatics, once he gets his new office door updated and starts issuing murderous orders, ridicule will no longer be the correct response.
I would be a lot less skeptical about "AI" if it weren't for the fact that, every time I hear one of these CEOs touting its "benefits" (said benefits going mostly to CEOs) I get distracted totaling up the odds of seeing them on trial for fraud within a decade...
If one defines a “decent” amount of cash as “enough money to pay the rent and keep the lights on”, then yes, they would definitionally be making an indecent amount.
Actually, if they were making enough money to pay rent and electricity that would still be an indecent amount. Instead they make just enough to survive until the next cash injection, which will pay the rent and power bills until... repeat cycle.
I was all set to go with a knee-jerk "but what about leaving a source of income for your children?" reply but - you know what? - no.
If I work in an office all my life, earning a pay-check, when I die my children don't keep getting paid by the office for decades after my death.
I'm with you. "Not one second later."
To which my response is:
Why leave to God what human beings are capable of fixing? If you need to build a house, do you dump a stack of lumber on the site and wait for God to do the job for you?
Let medically-trained humans work on what can be fixed by humans. When they throw up their hands and declare "It'll take a miracle!" that's when you leave it to God to fix.
(Note: Doctors tend to have a much higher success rate than gods have. And you rarely hear the phrase "It was the doctor's will" when a child dies of something preventable.)
Actually, isolating kids was never the goal. It was the intention - no doubt about that - but the goals were:
1. Australia is having a problem with online gambling advertising to children. The advertising in question is inserted into televised games, old media, and of course social media. A lot of rich people and organizations don't want this to change, hence a sock-puppet front for a gambling advertiser running the anti-social media campaign.
2. Australia's major political parties are conservative and of course don't want to upset old media. That made the whole under-16 social media ban an attractive "win" for them. They're seen to be doing something about a "major problem" (as per a long-running campaign emblazoned across the front pages and websites of said old media) without impacting anyone they care about (i.e. elderly voters or donors).
I'd also like to point out that The Guardian spent months prior to the ban writing articles supporting it.
The "bright-eyed kids" are, as you say, a constantly churned resource - recruit 'em, burn 'em out, replace 'em. But those newbies, once hired, arrive at work to find an office culture waiting for them.
It doesn't take long for them to realize that their enthusiasm has been misplaced. Just a few water-cooler discussions of "today's idiotic circular from upper management" and a couple of examples of senior-level incompetence being rewarded with bonuses or promotions will soon drive home to them how highly their efforts are really valued. The realization that the reason they got a "Well done" in today's pointless meeting is that a few seconds praise is cheap compensation for a week of late nights spent at work.
The thing about the (pretend) "Because we care about our employees" is that it fosters a shared sense of mission in those employees - the feeling that they're there to do something important and necessary. That was actually an efficient way to induce employees to make extra effort. Gratis.
The problem now is that in the new US political climate for an employer to even appear to be tolerant and inclusive is grounds for suspicion and punishment from the federal (and many states) government.
Where else but America?
This was an American murder.
Where else? All sorts of other totalitarian regimes. Iran. North Korea. Afghanistan. Many African dictatorships...
Wherever some tinpot despot and his cronies get the opportunity to set up shop, this almost always happens. Government enforcers murder critics. State propagandists spin it as executing a dangerous criminal. Rinse. Repeat.
The next old favorite is bound to be "We can't hold elections due to a State of Emergency" which will last until they complete the task of rigging the electoral system.
The USA isn't as special as you seem to think it is.
Nadella's problem is:
Gates had vast markets (first end-users and then businesses) to conquer, delivering huge profits and bonuses via the sales of Windows and Office licenses.
Ballmer had a shiny new Cloud to seed with Azure, with money to be made renting out Windows servers and services to businesses who didn't want to run their own.
Nadella has... a mature market with no vast new lands to colonize, just annual renewals of the same old 365 services to keep the corporation in business. Nadella is desperate for something - anything!!! - to report explosive growth in and justify his salary.
Nadella reminds me of Donald Sutherland's character in Animal House, explaining that "Milton is boring. Mrs Milton probably found him boring" but take the assignment on Paradise Lost seriously because "Hey guys, this is my job!" That's Satya and "AI". "Stop talking it down. This is my bonus!"
Do you really, truly, believe that the MAGA crowd are not going to disenfranchise as many non-MAGA voters as they can manage once the midterms come close?
The only reason that they aren't doing it so far is that if they do it now it gives more time to have those laws and regulations struck down. Closer to the election they can play the old "legislate, lose in court, appeal and get a stay with the appeal heard after it's all been rendered moot anyway" game.
Schumer is too busy fighting to spare time on mere constitutional illegalities and foreign wars.
Fighting to limit the influence of "young firebrands" in his own party who might rock the boat and destroy his imaginary bipartisan consensus. And of course even worse might support candidates who could beat his geriatric buddies in primaries...
Honestly, if the Democrats are ever going to stand a chance of winning government it can only be after they've removed this deluded old man.
How did the French Revolution end? Actually quite well for the French eventually. As did (eventually) the Russian Revolution for the Russians.
What tends to get missed when concentrating on the reigns of terror and the "upset of the natural order" is the conditions before the revolution. Yes, the "people who matter" suffer a lot, but those histories don't tend to be written by the former serfs who would have had even more generations of being basically slaves to look forward to.
The point isn't to add a new right-wing voice to the din. The point is to remove a "left-wing" voice.
Nobody listening to a "not-quite as right wing" (because describing CBS as "left wing" could in less dire circumstances be laughable) voice is almost as effective as viewers listening to one channel more of the same MAGA propaganda.
Or Aristophanes. One of his favorite characters (as in, fellow Athenians he lampooned) was gay and in that play cross-dressed to spy on the conspiring women.
It's getting to the point where to predict what will be permitted in the US, just ask the Taliban...
It’s getting close to the point where the government can capitulate completely
They won't. It's a matter of "principle". (Not what most of us would consider a principle, but still something fundamental to the administration.) They're authoritarian. The crime is now less trafficking and more "saying no to us".
Resistance is unforgivable - much worse than merely committing a crime or two.
DNS providers should respond
Dear French Government France has laws outlawing slavery and theft. In this spirit we enclose a quote for setting up a French residents-only DNS service, including of course the money required to staff this service for the first year of operation. Further years of service can be purchased at the beginning of each (French) financial year. Once payment has been made we will endeavor to block DNS resolution as requested once you have provided us with a full list of all IP address ranges used by your citizens. When we receive this list from you we will spin off a team who will start setting up rules redirecting French traffic to your own private DNS service. You will note that the above plan only covers DNS requests originating from France (and of course its colonies around the globe). It will not prevent citizens of other nations viewing your apparently riveting French football games or whatever else you are worried about users seeing. Should you wish us to censor the entire globe you just need to provide us with letters from all the other nations around the world consenting to France deciding what their citizens are permitted to access on the internet. Signed [DNS provider]
Fill in the blanks
I've long believed that where a government agency redacts information that should be publicly available, it's up to us to provide that information ourselves:
There you go. You can now report that "it has been estimated that the law was broken and basic rights ignored in 99 out of 99 cases". Following that "it has been reported that..." If they want to look... less bad?... they're welcome to release the actual numbers and prove my statistic inaccurate.Mullin deserves censure for his ridiculously over the top support of his cult leader's senile rantings. He didn't get to choose his name. I'm from Australia. We recently had a would-be leader who had changed her name (decades ago) from Susan to Sussan for no good reason. That is someone who deserves to be ridiculed for her name. Not Mullin. As I said, he has provided numerous real reasons for us to ridicule him. Of course, as with all these fanatics, once he gets his new office door updated and starts issuing murderous orders, ridicule will no longer be the correct response.
Wanna bet?
I would be a lot less skeptical about "AI" if it weren't for the fact that, every time I hear one of these CEOs touting its "benefits" (said benefits going mostly to CEOs) I get distracted totaling up the odds of seeing them on trial for fraud within a decade...
I was all set to go with a knee-jerk "but what about leaving a source of income for your children?" reply but - you know what? - no. If I work in an office all my life, earning a pay-check, when I die my children don't keep getting paid by the office for decades after my death. I'm with you. "Not one second later."
To which my response is: Why leave to God what human beings are capable of fixing? If you need to build a house, do you dump a stack of lumber on the site and wait for God to do the job for you? Let medically-trained humans work on what can be fixed by humans. When they throw up their hands and declare "It'll take a miracle!" that's when you leave it to God to fix. (Note: Doctors tend to have a much higher success rate than gods have. And you rarely hear the phrase "It was the doctor's will" when a child dies of something preventable.)
Actually, isolating kids was never the goal. It was the intention - no doubt about that - but the goals were: 1. Australia is having a problem with online gambling advertising to children. The advertising in question is inserted into televised games, old media, and of course social media. A lot of rich people and organizations don't want this to change, hence a sock-puppet front for a gambling advertiser running the anti-social media campaign. 2. Australia's major political parties are conservative and of course don't want to upset old media. That made the whole under-16 social media ban an attractive "win" for them. They're seen to be doing something about a "major problem" (as per a long-running campaign emblazoned across the front pages and websites of said old media) without impacting anyone they care about (i.e. elderly voters or donors). I'd also like to point out that The Guardian spent months prior to the ban writing articles supporting it.
The "bright-eyed kids" are, as you say, a constantly churned resource - recruit 'em, burn 'em out, replace 'em. But those newbies, once hired, arrive at work to find an office culture waiting for them. It doesn't take long for them to realize that their enthusiasm has been misplaced. Just a few water-cooler discussions of "today's idiotic circular from upper management" and a couple of examples of senior-level incompetence being rewarded with bonuses or promotions will soon drive home to them how highly their efforts are really valued. The realization that the reason they got a "Well done" in today's pointless meeting is that a few seconds praise is cheap compensation for a week of late nights spent at work. The thing about the (pretend) "Because we care about our employees" is that it fosters a shared sense of mission in those employees - the feeling that they're there to do something important and necessary. That was actually an efficient way to induce employees to make extra effort. Gratis. The problem now is that in the new US political climate for an employer to even appear to be tolerant and inclusive is grounds for suspicion and punishment from the federal (and many states) government.
American Murder?
I'm at the point now where I'm wondering why media orgs aren't saying "We didn't bother asking for comment from the Administration - they'd just lie."
Nadella's problem is: Gates had vast markets (first end-users and then businesses) to conquer, delivering huge profits and bonuses via the sales of Windows and Office licenses. Ballmer had a shiny new Cloud to seed with Azure, with money to be made renting out Windows servers and services to businesses who didn't want to run their own. Nadella has... a mature market with no vast new lands to colonize, just annual renewals of the same old 365 services to keep the corporation in business. Nadella is desperate for something - anything!!! - to report explosive growth in and justify his salary. Nadella reminds me of Donald Sutherland's character in Animal House, explaining that "Milton is boring. Mrs Milton probably found him boring" but take the assignment on Paradise Lost seriously because "Hey guys, this is my job!" That's Satya and "AI". "Stop talking it down. This is my bonus!"
Brright side
Do you really, truly, believe that the MAGA crowd are not going to disenfranchise as many non-MAGA voters as they can manage once the midterms come close? The only reason that they aren't doing it so far is that if they do it now it gives more time to have those laws and regulations struck down. Closer to the election they can play the old "legislate, lose in court, appeal and get a stay with the appeal heard after it's all been rendered moot anyway" game.
Fighting the good fight
Schumer is too busy fighting to spare time on mere constitutional illegalities and foreign wars. Fighting to limit the influence of "young firebrands" in his own party who might rock the boat and destroy his imaginary bipartisan consensus. And of course even worse might support candidates who could beat his geriatric buddies in primaries... Honestly, if the Democrats are ever going to stand a chance of winning government it can only be after they've removed this deluded old man.
Re "Another "French Revolution"
How did the French Revolution end? Actually quite well for the French eventually. As did (eventually) the Russian Revolution for the Russians. What tends to get missed when concentrating on the reigns of terror and the "upset of the natural order" is the conditions before the revolution. Yes, the "people who matter" suffer a lot, but those histories don't tend to be written by the former serfs who would have had even more generations of being basically slaves to look forward to.
The point isn't to add a new right-wing voice to the din. The point is to remove a "left-wing" voice. Nobody listening to a "not-quite as right wing" (because describing CBS as "left wing" could in less dire circumstances be laughable) voice is almost as effective as viewers listening to one channel more of the same MAGA propaganda.
Or Aristophanes. One of his favorite characters (as in, fellow Athenians he lampooned) was gay and in that play cross-dressed to spy on the conspiring women. It's getting to the point where to predict what will be permitted in the US, just ask the Taliban...