• 5 Posts
  • 957 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle



  • Steve Neavling is the author of the original article in the Detroit Metro Times which included Tlaib’s quote. He wrote

    “We’ve had the right to dissent, the right to protest,” Tlaib says. “We’ve done it for climate, the immigrant rights movement, for Black lives, and even around issues of injustice among water shutoffs. But it seems that the attorney general decided if the issue was Palestine, she was going to treat it differently, and that alone speaks volumes about possible biases within the agency she runs.”

    Nessel is the first Jewish person to be elected Attorney General of Michigan.

    There’s a clear implication (by Neavling) that Tlaib’s statement about bias refers to Nessel’s Jewish identity. Ten days later, Neavling wrote a follow-up article titled “Fact-check: Tlaib did not say Nessel charged pro-Palestinian protesters because she’s Jewish” which says

    Tlaib never once mentioned Nessel’s religion or Judaism. But Metro Times pointed out in the story that Nessel is Jewish, and that appears to be the spark that led to the false claims.

    The funny thing is that there’s no mention in the follow-up article that he’s the same guy who wrote the original article. Neavling doesn’t come out of this looking like a good journalist.


    Edit: Here’s what Tapper actually said. I’m transcribing the video available here.

    First he correctly quotes Tlaib’s accusation of bias. The he correctly quotes Nessel’s claim that what Taib said is antisemitic. Then he asks the governor

    Do you think Tlaib’s suggestion that Nessel’s office is biased was anti-semetic?

    This is a valid question to ask the governor, but after she refuses to answer it Tapper says

    Do you think attorney general Nessel is not doing her job because congresswoman Tlaib is suggesting that she shouldn’t be prosecuting these individuals that Nessel says broke the law and that she’s only doing it because she’s Jewish and protesters are not. That’s quite- quite an accusation. Do you think it’s true?

    Note that he said “Tlaib is suggesting…” He didn’t say that Tlaib explicitly said this (and he presented the correct quote from Tlaib seconds earlier) so he didn’t technically lie but he should have known better than to mix together facts and his own (or Nessel’s) subjective interpretation of those facts. What he ended up saying is quite misleading.

    The governor’s response was

    Like I said, Jake, I’m not going to get in the middle of- of this argument that they’re having.

    Then she changed the topic. I get why she didn’t want to get involved but I’m still not very impressed by her (lack of) leadership.




  • My issue with this is that it works well with sample code but not as well with real-world situations where maintaining a state is important. What if rider.preferences was expensive to calculate?

    Note that this code will ignore a rider’s preferences if it finds a lower-rated driver before a higher-rated driver.

    With that said, I often work on applications where even small improvements in performance are valuable, and that is far from universal in software development. (Generally developer time is much more expensive than CPU time.) I use C++ so I can read this like pseudocode but I’m not familiar with language features that might address my concerns.









  • I’m not saying that this was no big deal, but I stand by my assertion that this was not “manufacturing fake terrorists”. First, Antifa (the idea of it, not the dubious reality) does not match the common definition of “terrorists”. Second, the word “manufacture” in this context implies a deliberate intent to deceive the public which may have been present in the mind of the person ordering this investigation (or maybe he was simply deluding himself) but clearly wasn’t present throughout Homeland Security, where the analysts investigated as they were ordered to but truthfully reported their (lack of) findings.





  • Maybe some graduate-level classes need to be taught by a researcher in the field and so students will simply have to deal with any deficiencies that researcher may have as a teacher, but IMO undergrads will probably learn more at a community college because the professors are actually there to teach.

    I still wouldn’t recommend the community college because the diploma from there won’t get the graduate as much respect, but I do know a community college graduate with a bachelor’s who makes way more than I do. She had trouble getting her first job but once she had some work experience, employers cared a lot less about where she studied. I also know another graduate who got her associate’s at a community college and then transferred to somewhere more prestigious; she saved money without compromising her education.


  • Your argument is reasonable, although I don’t think the fact that Google is aligned with the USA and Western Europe is a coincidence. This anti-trust action is itself a demonstration of the power that the US government does have over Google, and Google knows better than to provoke the use of that power. Anti-trust law is largely a matter of the government’s opinion rather than objective rules, so Google has no effective legal defense other than keeping the government’s opinion of it favorable.

    I don’t think Google could get away with deliberately manipulating elections in the way that you propose. Even if it were to tilt the outcome from one established party to another, that party would not be beholden to it. (If the party that it helped knew that it helped, then unless that party controlled Google, it would rightly consider Google a threat rather than an ally.) Furthermore, manipulating elections would have a huge risk of being revealed and facing devastating blowback. Engineers rather than the board of directors are the ones who actually make Google function and those engineers would be neither oblivious to nor loyal to some plan for domination by the board of directors.

    With that said, I disagree with you primarily because I’m very risk-averse when it comes to matters like this. Right now, the “juggernaut like Google that is The Internet” is working in our favor and if we break it up then we won’t have a juggernaut working in our favor anymore. We would be better off if we were able to accomplish what you propose while retaining dominance of the internet, but IMO the reward is not worth the risk of forfeiting that dominance. Those who are losing need to take risks but those who are winning should not, and right now the USA is winning.