"If the press does cover claims made by these co-opted civil rights groups, they’re usually covered much like this piece at Bloomberg; just as good faith alliances for the betterment of humanity"
Any PR firm worth their salt pushes their own "news" pieces too these days, so I usually assume the friendlier news coverage is paid for as well. The PR firm writes the news articles.
sorry missed adding the actual content:
"The treasure contains the Holy Grail, and the professor wants to protect it from an evil scientist named “Darwin” who “plans to test Jesus’s DNA, prove he was an ordinary man, and undermine Christianity,” defense attorneys said."
Citadel just loaned a lot of money to those shorting Gamestop. Robinhood puts the majority of its trades through Citadel. Robinhood stopped allowign trading on the stocks Citadel's new investments were losing money to. Seems a lot more nefarious than anything a bunch of individual traders are doing.
Even better than "getting over it" is to instead of being lazy/sloppy, we take on the hard work of trying to improve. Some of that involves talking it over with others. Hope this helps, random internet person who thinks a government is graceful and/or kind.
Would you call yourself a fan of "big government"?
Judging from past history is it safe to assume that Harder's real role is to help money change hands? In this case, Greenwood perhaps seeing some extra funding in his next re-election or to his family's benefit?
Yeah seconding this, Valve didn't weaponize their fan base, they were practically placating them. People were angry that Metro had been marketing and pre-selling through Steam, then pulled it. Valve didn't rally an army, they were using corporate bland-talk to reply to requests for comment like corporations always do.
Whenever I see something so stupid that there's no way a trained professional could screw it up, I assume there's money passing hands and the "dumb" ones are just reaching for whatever excuse they can pull out. I however am cynical enough to assume that all California courts are completely sewn up in Big IP's favour
They probably haven't finished the feature, and have a competitor about to roll out their own, and wanted to head them off PR wise. As someone earlier noted it's not going to be "on the camera" because facial recognition still requires heavy duty hardware. It'll be part of their cloud services, I'm sure for extra money, and you'll hear about how "unethical" they find it right up until the release, where they talk about how they finally figured out how to do it "ethically" by holding back some random little feature that could have made it theoretically worse (or that their competitors have and they don't).
My wife told me that our neighbours were using Nextdoor to coordinate a block party and so I joined up. Well over half the posts were "suspicious guy carrying a backpack" and "suspicious kids" and yes all were black every time. This was in Seattle, although not the most liberal suburb.
It's Masnick bringing out the hurt lovers :) I always like to make a game of wondering which angry former TD topic is authoring the comments in question.
I was originally a big fan of Assange, but later it became pretty clear that he was more interested in creating a cult of personality for himself than disseminating data. Too bad too as he's sitting on a very useful domain name.