fortuna86

Trump voting states don't offer services for homeless, so they leave for places that do. Is that so surprising?

Not to mention the morality of cutting soup kitchens and shelters just so your state's homeless become someone else's problem.

One of my favorite travel tips is duck in anywhere, order a cocktail, tip well, then ask the bartender "If you were off today, where would you go?"

Found the best bars i've ever been to this way.

I've heard this, I haven't seen this.

Maybe a smart phone was a status symbol 10 years ago, they are just commodities today.

US isn't even on the top 10 list of worst / most aggressive drivers. They at least respect lanes as drawn on the road.

GPT-4 +

1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.

2. Hunter Biden is not a politician, unlike the Trump kids (who are all hopeless cocaine addicts but no one seems to care) he never worked in the White House. And there's 0 proof Biden was a part of any of Hunter's bullshit. So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.

That's why.

>I have been in several situations where I have been asked to prioritize and categorize essential and non-essential funding. Not for public / public funded / government jobs, so it's not necessarily made public. But it obviously happens.

What you were asked to do sounds more like an audit, which isn't what i'm talking about. Government organizations (or non-profits, NGOs, etc.) don't announce to the world they don't need as much money as they are getting. Or if they do, i'm still waiting on an example.

> but lying about their operations and public funding is quite another

Don't know how you got there, clearly not what i'm saying.

> The label that might mislead people into believing the government provides essential funding for their operation?

I have a question. The House GOP tweeted out "Defund @NRP" - Elon tweeted the same thing a hour later, highlighting the "essential funding". How does that work? How does the entire right wing internet get behind the same talking points all at once?

Losing 1% (or 4% depending how you look at funding) will not make any organization go away, use basic logic. They are clearly saying that as to not disrupt future funding.

> Come on, wake up and smell the coffee. The business partner Bobulinski also considered it to be meaning Biden in an interview in mainstream media.

Again, this is not proof. You clearly want this to be true, therefore you don't need evidence. I can't "wake up" as you have, because I don't have the motivation to believe it the way you do. True things are awarded the title of true because they can be proven, with evidence. Not because they confirm the beliefs you already held.

Whoever Bobulinski is, you are quoting his public statements, which aren't under oath, where there is actual penalty for lying. He did sit with the FBI, but then he made a tour of right wing media making unrelated statements (as far as we know), which makes this a politically motivated PR campaign, nothing more. If he had given the FBI something to act on, they would have done so. They have no qualms about influencing elections:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/29/499868601...

> ”In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li.”

Right, he was on the plane. That's what is confirmed. You made specific accusations that appears to have come from Trump himself, which it goes without saying is not a trustworthy source. Who confirmed nature of the "deals" he made? What were they, when did they occur, and how do we know Joe Biden was involved? Actual evidence please.

Whatsapp rolling out e-2-e to its 1b+ users was the most significant move in digital privacy ever, without most users knowing that it even happened.

It's funny how common jailing-breaking iPhones used to be, I did mine immediately when it would come out and everyone else I knew did too. Now I don't know a single person that does.

Got it, you added up 8 and 5. Question remains:

> Also is 4% as opposed to 1% a change that alters any of the underlying fundamentals ?

> Untrue

Right, organizations routinely admit they are getting too much funding and ask for it to be reduced. There are so many examples of this, perhaps you could provide just one?

> They chose to represent themselves as having their essential operations funded by the government

Again, so they don't lose that funding. I don't think any of them could have predicted a right wing billionaire would buy Twitter and give them a misleading label because he doesn't understand the difference between state and public media.

Users don't use protocols they use websites. Or more specifically, apps.

> It doesn't really change anything, either way NPR have stated that federal funding is essential to their operation.

Every organization on earth refers to every penny of its budget as "essential" as to not lose any of it. Obviously they could still exist and find a way to replace 1% of their total budget if necessary.

The story was suspicious for many reasons, is the point.

The burden of proof justifying posting stolen materials from the laptop belonging to the family member of a politician is not on the person asking if this is in bounds, it is on the person defending obvious muckraking.

There's a reason for that:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-bi...

> The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

> "Hold 10 for the big guy".

Unproven innuendo.

> His father flew him on Air Force 2 to China to make private equity deals.

Shouldn't have happened if he was doing business there. Also, again, where is your proof? I Googled it but all I could find was a claim Trump made while campaigning:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-we-know-about-hunter-biden...

"Mr. Trump hasn’t provided evidence to support the $1.5 billion financial claim"

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-claims-about-hunter...

"We have found no evidence to contradict that, and Trump hasn’t provided any. We also found no evidence that Joe Biden used his position as vice president to enrich his son."

But considering Trump's son in law was doing this while in office:

https://thehill.com/homenews/3927750-kushner-firm-received-h...

While working in the White House, the comparison is unequal at best. At worst, it is another example of an accusation being a confession.

Not fair, no news organization including Fox thought this was worth publishing.

It was his, that doesn't mean the origin story is correct. Also he's not an government employee so what is the newsworthiness of any of it?

Yes, every organization when faced with potential budget cuts refers to all of their budget as "essential". This should not be surprising.

> 13% of member station funding comes from government sources

What is the source of this number? Also is 4% as opposed to 1% a change that alters any of the underlying fundamentals ?

Can you be reasonably certain they work?

If you build editorial independent into a legal charter, and have a government that isn't authoritarian and protects the rule of law, why is it a contradiction?

Also a "decentralized" social media network is something an engineer thinks is great, but no user does.

China controls their state media, NPR/BBC etc. have state funding but remain editorially independent.

Bullshit Jobs are an important part of every economy. If the criteria for work was "only jobs absolutely needed", unemployment would be at 30% and society would be unstable.

Once you build a 5G system with Huawei, it's very hard and sometimes impossible to include other equipment. Huawei for this reason builds a "full-stack" 5G product that doesn't allow for anyone else's hardware but theirs.

And again, Ericsson and Nokia don't have nation states threatening countries if they don't use them in all their networks.

How is it even possible to establish a monopoly market with airplanes considering you can operate both at the same time?

https://www.quora.com/Can-an-airline-have-both-Boeing-and-Ai...

Does any western government activity promote monopolies abroad and threaten consequences if such monopolies are fought against, all while accepting state-backed monopoly at home?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-threatens-retaliation-aga...

To recap, the Alibaba break up wasn't about a monopoly, it was about a rival power base to the CCP that couldn't be allowed to exist.