This is long overdue. Chelsea will probably be doing interviews soon, and since [she's already been pretty outspoken about internet freedoms][1], she may even bring some much needed attention to issues like net neutrality, government surveillance and the never ending erosion of our online rights.
No one is going to ask her anything about net neutrality. They'll ask her how she was treated, what she's going to do next and how she feels about the previous and current administration. She'll say something mildly negative about Trump. Trump will tweet about it, and everyone will start talking about Trump's tweet.
Unfortunately, many of the people that need convincing with regards to net neutrality and online rights also view her as a traitor with mental problems and thus "normal, patriotic Americans" should not worry about these things, except to prevent "liberals" from creating more "regulations" for companies and putting up barriers to keep our law enforcement from finding the "terrorists'" plans.
So there, that's what about one third of the country are led to believe about net neutrality. Just like with all the fake news recently, facts and rebuttals don't help one bit, and make the believers believe even more in their own "facts".
Good luck getting Breitbart and conservative radio on board with NN, they are fundamentally opposed to anything Obama did, plus are skeptical of govt regulations and there is a lot of money to be made from the cable industry fight on NN.
This is so bass akwards, but of course as a non tech based septuagenarian it's not like I expected him to have an actually informed decision on this important issue.
But if anything net neutrality protects the voices of smaller media which, other than fox, many conservative media e.g. breitbart fall into that category. CNN wouldn't like it but they could pay for a network fast lane, Alex Jones or TheBlaze wouldn't nearly be able to compete!
Also unfortunately, those pro net neutrality are never willing to accept they may be wrong or may not see the complete picture and therefor assumptions they are correct follow with no chance of changing it. I suggest you and those like you get your ego in check and quit trying to convince people that what you believe to be correct is in fact the only truth because it's pure opinion, on both sides of the argument and the "I'm smarter than you" liberal/left-leaning attitude is way beyond old already.
It's really not. Some people do feel this way and pointing it out isn't vitriol.
The worst thing that can happen to a cause is some crazy jackass being held up by the media as the spokesperson.
I was on board for the tea party until the media grabbed a few nut bags and made them the de facto spokespeople for the cause. It was purely about limited government until it got co-opted.
I feel as though I am gathered at the feet of a dispirited grandparent, being told tales of the purity they would have espoused if they hadn't been so rudely interrupted by the persistent existence of the world undermining their certainty.
I think you're falling prey to the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. All political groups have multiple goals (as they have multiple people in them, it is inevitable). Politics is the coordination of these goals.
Perhaps. But I would argue that the media plays a large part in undermining any movement they don't like.
They get to pick the person who they hand the microphone to and they will pick the craziest bat-shit insane person for that role if they don't like what your selling.
And in my case, quite false as a conservative with many conservative friends that disagree with your anecdote. This is always the problem, personal anecdotes rarely equal data.
The problem here (and the reason you are getting downvoted, I believe) is you think your anecdote of your friends' opinions trumps falcolas' anecdote about his/her family as untrue, instead of imagining the colorful world it is with various shades of conservatism living side by side.
For what its worth, I have family that believe like grandparent's family. Your anecdotes cannot convince them or me what their beliefs really are. This line of opinion does exist.
The original comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC didn't characterize conservative views or conservative ideology on this issue; they characterized what many people believed.
Empirically, this is true.
If those many people are wrong on net neutrality because they do not understand the issues, why is it that HN commenters are the biased and unthinking ones?
You can not change what you do not try to understand, you cant deconstruct something you keep from trespassing in your mind.
If you put the fingers in your ears and sing lalala i cant hear you- you end what might have been a discussion. I found most conservatives i met not to reactionary dictator supporters. They are just people with reasonable concerns, finding and in constant fear of some radical social discussion dominance bombers showing up shutting any chance on discussion with a warcrime down.
Well unfortunately, you and your conservative friends differ in opinion from the conservatives elected into power, which is who we're talking about. People's anecdotes don't matter; it's the prevailing opinion fed to the masses through conservative politicians and media that needs to change.
Effecting change still takes time and effort. That requires people putting the time in, regardless if they themselves aren't a persuasive spokesperson with a mainstream audience. There's much work to be done to push the ideas out to a wider audience.
For one thing she is certainly more credible not being in prison.
I'm hoping she takes some time (at least a few months) to visit friends and family and unwind from her time in prison before the media ensnares her, even a little.
(warning - not intellectually gratifying)
For selfish reasons I hope she sort of fades from public attention, just so I don't keep having Elvis Costello stuck in my head every time she's in the news.
The parent comment is cherrypicking tweets from WikiLeaks. Take a look at [their actual feed][1]. They have since [discounted several conspiracy theories against Macron][2] and [brought into question the legitimacy of some of the files][3].
[WikiLeaks has stated repeatedly that they publish everything they receive.][1] Blaming them for failing to release information from the other side assumes that they have that information to release.
And, if some bad actor, say the Russians, are giving them all their info, and they are publishing "everything they receive", does that make them neutral? Or a willing pawn?
At this point, I'm not sure that's indicative of anything. With all of this The Russians are coming! noise that's been spewed out over the past year, it strikes me as the first thing you'd do to deflect casual attention would be to plant some Cyrillic text in a place that looks suspicious.
There seem to be a lot of people theorizing that it could be something about the paper itself that they're looking for, i.e. flash paper, paper circuits or physical one-time encryption pads, but what if it's not about the paper at all? Maybe, the TSA is simply trying to discourage passengers from traveling with or using paper, thereby encouraging people to store their information digitally on phones and laptops where that data can be more easily copied and analyzed?
Or it's simpler than that: security theatre. We're adding a new level of annoyance so people have this false impression their jobs aren't totally beyond worthless.
Fuck the TSA and the airlines. These days I'll pay more to take am AmTrak or just drive. Next time I fly, it will be after taking a train to Canada first. If I have to fly internationally, I'd rather not fly out of a US airport. I've flown through over a dozen countries, and yes, it is getting ridiculous everywhere, but America is still the worst. Especially when it comes to pat downs. No other country I've been through did pat downs except Moldova; and even theirs weren't anywhere near as bad (typically police arms/leg pat downs. No reaching under your belt or any other TSA bullshit for the false-positive/random-number-generator they try to tell you are body scanners).
> These days I'll pay more to take am AmTrak or just drive.
I take it you've never been searched by Amtrak police. Once on a cross-country trip all my belongings were searched twice - in Chicago where I departed, and again mid-trip.
It's not nearly so complex and conspiracy based...
They simply have found issue with dense objects (like books, stacks of paper) hinder the xray imaging they use in the scanners... thats all. Nothing special here...
Im sure over some bad-guy communication network it was mentioned to attempt to get contraband on a plane by masking its location in luggage under some seriously thick books or something...
I'm seeing a lot of comments about how terrible different people's standup meetings are at their particular companies, and I can't help but think the problem isn't with standup itself, it's with these companies.
At my job, we meet for standup via video chat as early as we can. That's about 9am for some of us and 10am or 11am for others depending on timezones. We each say what we worked on yesterday and what we're working on now, which only takes about 5 to 10 minutes, then we enter what we call "parking lot." We call it "parking lot" because if this were an in-person meeting, this is bit where we would be talking in the parking lot on our way out to lunch. No one is expected to stick around unless there's something urgent related to what your working on that needs to be discussed. Anyone is free to hop off the call at this point.
During parking lot, we discuss impediments, anything that's going to keep someone from getting work done that day. If the problem is something complicated that's difficult to describe via text, we chat about it face to face and work out a solution together. If the problem is simple, we just agree to talk it out in either a public or private channel on Slack depending the kind of problem.
The purpose of the meeting isn't to build a big report of who's working on what or to guilt us into working harder. It's just to guarantee that we're all online at a given time each day to help each other out. Working across several timezones, we all have wildly different hours, and without standup, we would probably be waiting for days to hear back from each other about any issues we run into.
Maybe standup is a problem for other people or other companies, but for my team at least, we couldn't work without it.
Couldn't agree more with what you are saying here. Daily stand ups, if done right are very helpful especially for remote teams. I did daily stand ups at my previous company and they took on average an hour and were unfocused, meandering and generally pointless. I dreaded them and the whole team felt the same. By contrast, my current team is much larger but keeps the daily stand up to 15 minutes. It's focused and everyone is on page about tabling longer discussions for post stand up with the relevant stakeholders. While I won't ever say I'm looking forward to it, I see the tangible benefits. We are a remote team across multiple time zones and are able to effectively work together with ease. The daily stand up is a big part of that.
> I can't help but think the problem isn't with standup itself, it's with these companies.
I agree too.
Daily standup meetings help me to focus on my goals for the day. Communicating the same status in consecutive meetings makes me realize that I need to put more effort into progressing with a task so that I can report something new for the next standup. Standup meetings that go for more than 5 minutes per person are not ideal and the organizer needs to buckle up
Just to be clear, I don't agree with N-O-D-E's political leanings, and I think the examples he used in this video were very poorly chosen, but I still think he has a strong point regarding censorship in general and the slippery slope our society has been sliding down lately, so despite the heavy-handed partisan overtones, I still wanted to share this video with you all. I'm curious what HN's take on it all will be.
I didn't necessarily mean the US exclusively. I was thinking more of the internet in general, but I'll provide some specific examples anyway: in the US, I believe [the efforts of our government to undermine net neutrality][1] pose a serious threat to free speech online; in the EU, [well-meaning but misguided laws regarding blocking hate speech and potential taxing internet access][2] pose a similar threat; and in Australia, the government has already [blocked some websites under the guise of copyright enforcement][3].
Outside the western world, the situation is even worse. In the past few months, [the Turkish government has blocked thousands of websites and several DNS servers including 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4][4]. While China has always maintained strict censorship on the internet within their borders, lately they've been stepping up their efforts by [replacing major websites with state-run alternatives][5]. Further, [Russia has started following China's model with aggressive, nationwide IP blocking][6].
I know censorship has been a big challenge to free speech on the internet for a long time now, but lately, it feels as if the problems are escalating much faster. Nations are locking down their citizens access to communication, discussion is becoming ever more politicized, and partisans on all sides are cheering along the erosion of our most fundamental rights.
I know I sound like a conspiracy nut and doomsayer waving around the classic "End is Nigh" sign and wearing a tinfoil hat, but I can't help but feel like the internet is inching ever closer to dystopia. I feel like we're on the verge of something terrible, and I'm afraid that despite our best efforts, it may already be too late to stop it.
This video was published in 2016-10, and contains this exquisite quote (around 6'):
> In 2015, scientists use CRISPR to cut the HIV virus out of living cells from patients in the lab, proving it was possible. Only a year later they carried out a larger scale project with rats that had the HIV virus <sic> in basically all of their body cells. By simply injecting CRISPR into the rats tails they were able to remove more than 50% of the virus from cells all over the body. In a few decades, a CRISPR therapy might cure HIV and other retroviruses ...
I'll add a nod to the Kurzgesagt CRISPR video recommendation. It is really nice introduction to the discovery of CAS9, CRISPR as a DNA editing technique, and the fast evolving possibilities of CRISPR.
Let's hope the media doesn't tear her apart.
[1]: https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/847264510247190532