Why won't Bezos give his phone to the trustworthy FBI? Is he trying to perpetuate fake news. Our country and tech news is filled with Fake News and Russian Assets peddling it. Yesterday Fake News Lord and Russian Asset Glenn Greenwald was on the front page here. Another King of Fake News and Russian Asset Julian Assange frequently on the front page here. Russian Asset Snowden possibly most-discussed person on HN. We have Russian Assets literally as president, running for president, and in the legislator like Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Justin Amash. Why won't Bezos give his phone to the FBI. Is Bezos now also really peddling Fake News? What if everyone is a Russian Asset?
From now on I get my news directly from trustworthy Real News sources, only. Like the FBI and State Department.
Anyways, if it is, Greenwald has been one of the most outspoken critics of many aspects of the Russiagate accusations against Trump(1); and in consideration of your aforementioned "liberal agenda" of his, it hardly makes any sense at all to label him on this hand a Trump defender--as he has been accused of--and on the other a 'liberal commie.'
From a distance, to me it's interesting to read about fears of the FBI snooping in our phones and email, and see how quickly the discussion jolts to how immoral (or amoral) corporations are because one of them is not completely defying government.
Sadly, it reminds me of all the stories of authorities using databases for stalking women they're interested in, or people they have a personal grudge against, or whatever.
If you're familiar with the market and the dogma at the time, the idea was that securitization used mathematical techniques to actually reduce risk, and these were being sold as such. What's wrong was after this bubble popped, the taxpayer was on the hook for the socialized bailout, while the temporary profits were privatized. As such, while people like Fink may not have seen this through from start to finish, their ignorance or unwillingness to blow the whistle on something as destructive as this calls into question--in my opinion--their competence or earnestness in indicting others to effectively do what he should have done.
These argumentative tactics are of poor conduct, and seem to be clearly made in bad faith.
Someone who disagrees with you is just someone who has a different opinion, and that does not make it appropriate for you to attack them.
In other words, what you are doing is wrapping your argument in argumentative tactics. Instead of acknowledging another user has a different conclusion than you, you assert that they "don't get your position." In this context, all you did was reiterate your disagreement, and so the personal attack comes across as either a put down or an statement of arrogance.
At the end of your statement about physics being a meritocracy, you again use argumentative tactics, suggesting that any disagreement is a conspiracy.
First of all, the poor results of physics as a field is not a conspiracy. And you do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to criticize the field of physics. That is just ridiculous. Did you even take a moment to look at the Paul Graham post I referenced? Something tells me you are more interested in broadcasting and arguing about your world view than you are in engaging in though-provoking discussion.
But finally, social justice in academia is blatantly obvious. For example, affirmative action awards up to a few standaDs deviations of promotion in rank alone in just undergraduate admissions. Also, the author of the OP has written about social justice in the field herself. It is just both dishonorable and disingenuous for you to ignore the truth and be so argumentative.
Yea, well I'm sorry, but I'm too busy being outraged by gay abortions or toxic masculinity to pay attention to this. And when it comes time to vote, I'm voting either on one inflammatory issue, or doing what's best for me and voting for whoever offers me more economic incentives.
>I don’t think physics operates on anything resembling a social-justice system
Physicists are chosen within the Academic-Governmental Complex, and as such physicists are chosen according to its preferences. Maybe this is a big problem? It's not just with respect to selection based on gender, race or socioeconomics. Have you read Paul Graham's Lesson to Unlearn, about the adverse incentives and maligned merits which academia chooses for: http://www.paulgraham.com/lesson.html
Personally, I just hate it when people praise Academia (I see it often with Wall Steeet, too) as being a shining example of social justice like its some gift-wrapped paper around a rotten core.
>an attitude that bars commentary might stagnate us for a long time.
I agree. Now watch comments such as these incite downvotes and inflammatory responses because they question assumptions and make people feel uncomfortable.
Physics has made a lot of progress in social justice and representation and these kinds of comments putting down "her point of view" is the type of toxic masculinity that will send us back 100 years.
I feel like my whole life is a series of addictions designed to prevent me from drudging through the extreme anger and sadness I have in my life. At least, luckily, I don't like to drink so excessively.
>“To comply with government regulations, PayPal is required to review certain transactions.”
For mentioning the word Iran. Terrifying.
I guess the best to hope for is that the Institute for Justice or the ACLU pick this up and sue for their free speech rights. But even then, the only consequence would be taxpayers burdened to pay up.
US healthcare is corrupt and inefficient. It's not only a debate about who should pay for it. Your comment suggests changing the latter would fix the problem with cost, which surely has a lot to do with the former.
From now on I get my news directly from trustworthy Real News sources, only. Like the FBI and State Department.