spupe

Boeing is the ultimate "too big to fail" company, judging by this and other scandals.

I would be very surprised if their military operated with a just-in-time inventory instead of a stockpile system for crucial components. But several surprising things have happened recently.

The article is incredibly biased, and incorrect. Temperatures were high in several detection points, not just in models. Here is an excerpt [1]:

"The Concordia research base at Dome C of the Antarctic, which is at an altitude of 3,000 metres (9,800 feet), on Friday registered a record -11.5 degrees Celsius (11.3 Fahrenheit), Etienne Kapikian, a meteorologist from France-Meteo tweeted.

Normally, temperatures fall with the end of the southern summer, but the Dumont d'Urville station on Antarctica registered record temperatures for March with 4.9C (40.82F), at a time of year when normally temperatures are already sub-zero."

"Above normal" is of course inflammatory because it's comparing to the mean, not the previous record. But as you can see, primary temperature monitoring sites have recorded extremely high temperatures, sometimes record-breaking, and there is no modeling involved in these results.

[1] https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/exceptionally-high-temperatu...

> Nothing he references in the MSM reporting was actually incorrect.

You clearly have not read my linked article, as most of your points are covered there. Here is a short collection of paragraphs that might interest other readers of this thread who are more inclined to a honest intellectual debate:

"Even the mistakes caught were astounding. On December 1, 2017, ABC reporter Brian Ross claimed Trump “as a candidate” instructed Michael Flynn to contact Russia. The news caused the Dow to plummet 350 points. The story was retracted almost immediately and Ross was suspended.

Bloomberg reported Mueller subpoenaed Trump’s Deutsche Bank accounts; the subpoenas turned out to be of other individuals’ records. Fortune said C-SPAN was hacked after Russia Today programming briefly interrupted coverage of a Maxine Waters floor address. The New York Times also ran the story, and it’s still up, despite C-SPAN insisting its own “internal routing error” likely caused the feed to appear in place of its own broadcast.

CNN has its own separate sub-list of wrecks. Three of the network’s journalists resigned after a story purporting to tie Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund was retracted. Four more CNN reporters (Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus) were bylined in a story that claimed Comey was expected to refute Trump’s claims he was told he wasn’t the target of an investigation. Comey blew that one up, too.

In another CNN scoop gone awry, “Email pointed Trump campaign to WikiLeaks documents,” the network’s reporters were off by ten days in a “bombshell” that supposedly proved the Trump campaign had foreknowledge of Wikileaks dumps. “It’s, uh, perhaps not as significant as what we know now,” offered CNN’s Manu Raju in a painful on-air retraction."

You seem to be under the impression that Taibbi is some sort of agent working for Trump, because that's what the current zeitgeist is: if someone disagrees with your opinion, they are evil, and likely working for the enemy too. You already relied on your hit piece to try to prove Taibbi was evil, now you are trying to suggest he is a right-wing agent. This is delusional.

Too bad, because he has a great account of how the Russiagate scandal was overblown by the media: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill...

You could choose to look at it critically and decide for yourself what you believe in. It is a factual, point-by-point destruction of your claim above. Zero percent of it hinges on how perfect Taibbi as a person is, or was 20 years ago. Your ideological purity, or whatever it is you think you are standing for here, serves only to close your mind.

Let's go with the false equivalence first. The MSM has not only been wrong about many things in the past, they have actively supported egregious crimes from the US administration. It's not only Judith Miller, they were all completely and utterly wrong about Iraq's WMDs, with disastrous consequences. Since you brought up Russia, the NYT and friends have consistently lied about the "Russiagate" events, including key elements of this narrative. Taibbi was one of the very few journalists with the courage to expose this for what it is. In the present war, yes, he was wrong that Russia would not go to war - an opinion shared by a majority of people at that time, by the way - and admitted so less than a week after the war started. These "mistakes" are not even remotely comparable.

As for your first statement, you will find that yes, every public figure has some dirt on them, if only because the definition of dirt keeps changing. For example, the comments made by Taibbi when he lived in Russia ~23 years ago~ are reflective of what the culture at the time found acceptable to say. Cancel culture is so obnoxious because it is used for hit jobs exactly like the one you are presenting here: find one or two events from someone's past and use that to close your ears to whatever they have to say at present, no matter how valid. Throw in some demands for them to be fired as well, because why not. Oh, and you have no way to atone for your supposed sins; even if you apologize you are tainted forever. It's time we fight back against this idiocy.

A hit piece by the Huffington Post on a thread about cancel culture. Focused on Matt Taibbi's words from 23 years ago, for which he apologized several times. This is part of the problem, and I hope you can realize that. Every single person that has been in the public light for over 20 years will have some ugly events in their past, get over it.

I'm very sorry to hear that.

You need to consult with a lawyer to decide the way to go from here. He/she can tell you what your odds of winning are, and what the best strategy is. As someone not emotionally involved with the case, and having access to all the details, an impartial person is the best one to trust. I don't think you should see this case as revenge or closure for the death of your son, because you will be disappointed one way or another. You also don't have the personal responsibility to fix the failings of such a huge company.

Personally, the only advice I can give you is that the way you are living is unhealthy. It is an unimaginable tragedy what happened to you, but you have to somehow gather the strength to rebuild your life again. Your reaction is understandable. However, try to think of the way forward as much as possible. You are likely relatively young, and you have the possibility to start over. There is no way to change the past, only the future.

The article is biased and very light on evidence. The biggest accusation I could find is that "The @ChalecosAmarill account often “posted disturbing videos that strengthen its digital influence and activism. (...) Although several of the videos and images are likely true, the context in which many are presented does not appear to be accurate.” If you go into the actual report, the evidence is also thin, and very naive. One caption mentions "@ChalecosAmarill’s post claiming the United States financed coups in several countries, including Colombia, without providing additional information to support the claim." US intervention actually caused the appeaarance of the first guerilla groups that became the FARC [1], suggesting the people doing the report know nothing about Colombia's history.

I have no doubt there is disinformation being pushed by many state actors and this account may very well be one of them. However, I fail to see the difference between that and what those think-tanks like the ones who produce this type of report are doing.

Spooky. Is there any existing tool that can do anything close to this at the moment?

Would have liked for the author to discuss a bit more the time spent optimizing the input, and his success rate.

That's a good way to look at it, I think. It is fair to the article's intent. But there are two counterpoints to this line of thought:

1. Even if everything now is mostly engineering rather than science, the difficulty in such feats has to be taken into consideration. Anything from a nuclear bomb to the Moon landing was much more interesting from an engineering rather than a scientific perspective. So, perhaps we have directed our geniuses to implementing change in the world, rather than writing essays or doing other abstract work.

2. To go from 1985 desktop computers to modern phones, a lot of scientific work had to be done. To pick one example, the AI research we are developing in order to perform face recognition, semantic search, translation, and so on is simply revolutionary. Just because we cannot pinpoint a single genius behind any of these achievements, we should not underestimate how significant they were.

No one has to apply for a license to use machine learning models. They are merely communicating the fact that it's so trivially easy to do something like this, that pretty much anyone with an interest will be able to do so. The question is whether it was already trivially easy to design such compounds before or not, which I think it was, but I would be glad to hear a counterpoint.

Honestly, it sounded too over-dramatic and did not offer meaningful actionable consequences. The actual data is thin and not surprising at all, and it's also unclear how difficult it would be to design such harmful compounds without AI. I thought any capable chemist could easily come up with hundreds of harmful substances, old and new. I guess the AI is removing the chemist from the equation?

Interesting. Pretty bad quality as far as deepfakes go, as you say. But I can imagine this fooling some people nevertheless.

Great write-up about some of the practical problems of Bitcoin adoption in such a scale. This government-controlled wallet is looking for trouble. And so far the bet has not paid off at all, as 6 months ago the price of Bitcoin was at its peak.

Agree, I hope at least it gives the sport a big shake-up which it definitely needs.

When big aerodynamic changes like this occur, sometimes one team figures out an advantage that the others didn't, setting everyone else hopelessly behind for at least half a season [1]. Let's hope it can be as exciting as this guy predicts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brawn_BGP_001

As usual, they give us a press release and two or three examples, but no real data or systematic analysis about its consistency, which is the real problem with any of these models.

I'm excited about the potential of things like this, I just don't like this wish-wash way of presenting a technical tool.

Hey this is cool guys, congrats. Lots of potential for new tools to produce better VR content.

Out of your shortlist, I would recommend Lisbon. It's not as big but punches above its weight in most of your other criteria.

The Brazilian cities you described do not have good public transport or bikes, and almost no foreigners. The advantage is that cost of living is very low, but Lisbon is also not that expensive as well.

Russia also assassinated a person in Berlin a few years ago [1]. I remember being baffled at the time at the absolute lack of consequences emerging from that episode.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelimkhan_Khangoshvili

Ironically, this person is making a lot of weird assumptions and predictions based on very little data, like tweets.

All the articles predicting the end of the chip shortages may have been too optimistic.

This is absolutely bonkers. We urgently have to regulate these companies. They cannot act as curators just when they decide to.

If we are about to enter a period of sustained inflation, contracts may start including automatic monthly/quarterly raises to offset it.

This is excellent, really beautiful.

Thanks for your comment, I think it's insightful. Serious question: why do you write years with five digits?

Yeah, I like Greenwald, but this is just bullshit. Of course Ukraine had some labs containing cholera, anthrax and other pathogens, every country with biology research labs would have them. To jump from that to say it's military research, and US military research to boot, is a huge stretch.

That said, this statement from the US State Dept also proves nothing.

Not all his citizens are. And his soldiers are following orders. Are you in favor of giving US citizens punishment for the crimes of some of its citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Is it Russians, or their government? This distinction matters, most of us who live in the US or Europe would also personal responsibility for war crimes by this standard.