|
So good at The Cyber, you guys. EDIT: Cybersecurity Cat Tax 
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
So, the NYT Reddit account is Michael at the moment, and answering softball questions. That's literally all the response so far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:He also did an AMA and also got absolutely savaged in it. To the point that other reporters were asking "why did you ever think this was a good idea?" But were people demanding he defend the network's decisions on what to cover and how much? e: or their decision to hire Lewandowski(sp?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I wasn't asking about the law or precedent, I was asking why you feel that the police shouldn't be held financially responsible for damage that they cause to third parties. Even if their actions are reasonable, why shouldn't they be held responsible? They can always attempt to recover the money from the person who committed the crime themselves, after all. It's unclear to me why you feel that this burden should fall on innocent third parties. You know what, I hadn't thought of it that way. I've tried to come up with a reasonable response that doesn't sound like I'm encouraging cops to come up with more violent tactics and I can't do it. I mean I'm OK with cops destroying personal property in furtherance of stopping a dangerous situation when there's an existential threat (like a person with a gun holed-up in a house with a gun), and if it doesn't actually get anyone killed. However I concede that the burden should fall on the cops or the city/state that employs them to make innocent folks whole immediately, and sort-out insurance and subrogation later. This would likely tamp-down these sorts of extreme shows of force, but I wonder if it would lead to unintended consequences, like a cop refusing to smash a car window to save a kid on a hot day due to property liability. I think overall I got a bit caught up in defending myself that I made dumb arguments ITT, so for that I also apologize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:He also did an AMA and also got absolutely savaged in it. To the point that other reporters were asking "why did you ever think this was a good idea?" I don't care to argue the exact % distribution of "gently caress offs" Haberman has earned vs. other trash journalists who also soft-pedal fascism for access, but it's... a vast quantity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Somewhere a writer for The Onion had to just throw out the draft of an article they were writing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:35
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Somewhere a writer for The Onion had to just throw out the draft of an article they were writing. I worked on this satire article for 5 years and he literally goes and does it. Then tweets it out
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
ewiley posted:I think overall I got a bit caught up in defending myself that I made dumb arguments ITT, so for that I also apologize. Yeah, sort of like this one you typed out right above your line here: ewiley posted:This would likely tamp-down these sorts of extreme shows of force, but I wonder if it would lead to unintended consequences, like a cop refusing to smash a car window to save a kid on a hot day due to property liability. Seriously, dude? This would literally never happen ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Maggie Haberman doesn't deserve defense, she chose to work that soul-sucking job, nobody forced her. And I doubt that she has ever revealed anything authentically "damaging" about Trump that we couldn't have surmised about him without her rear end-kissing disguised as reporting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Seriously, dude? This would literally never happen ever. Really, there would be zero consequences to this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
ewiley posted:Really, there would be zero consequences to this? To the degree that a cop would just let a kid die in a car rather than suffer them? No. A window is a like a few hundred bucks. Maybe before you post on this topic you should remove your head from up your rear end because your hypotheticals just do not seem to be based in any sort of reality so far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
ewiley posted:This would likely tamp-down these sorts of extreme shows of force, but I wonder if it would lead to unintended consequences, like a cop refusing to smash a car window to save a kid on a hot day due to property liability. Well that's pretty unlikely since police officers are basically never allowed to be sued for damages personally. There are examples where the officer was violating departmental policy and orders from their supervisor, but you still can't sue them personally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
I'm not a huge fan of free market solutions, but forcing police departments to carry insurance and removing exemptions to them getting sued like this would probably help solve a ton of police brutality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Zore posted:I mean so far its been up for an hour and they've answered no questions so not much of an AMA I couldn’t find the AMA but aren’t most AMA’s by famous people usually done at a set time and they open the thread early so people can ask questions and upvote the best ones? Usually they don’t make the post and immediately start answering questions. edit: ok i did find it and they’re answering questions now
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
ewiley posted:Really, there would be zero consequences to this? Probably not, no. I mean for one thing, leaving a kid in a hot car is negligent, the court isn't going to find that you're owed money for damages that result as a consequence of your own negligence especially since the cop in that situation is plainly reducing the harm that resulted. E: Let's just think this through real quick. In general I'm responsible for damages if I break other people's car windows. Does that mean I'm responsible if I do it to save their kid, has any kid ever died of heat stroke because someone feared they'd have to pay for a broken window if they saved him. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Oct 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
ewiley posted:Really, there would be zero consequences to this? http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0768/Sections/0768.139.html Since I'm in Florida and looked this up before, and you used it as a specific example, this is literally written into Florida law, and I know other states have similar laws. This applies to everyone, not just law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Probably not, no. Right, wouldn't that be like the "Hey, gently caress your windows, you parked in front of a fire hydrant" side of the law?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:
I suspect they probably break the window and leave the owner on the hook for it because they saved their kid from dying due to their ngeligence
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Zore posted:I mean so far its been up for an hour and they've answered no questions so not much of an AMA No one knows who Michael Schmidt is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/benfergusonshow/status/1189944948344393732
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Aaron Sorkin would like to apologize for making Zuckerberg look cool (no word on apologizing about making centrism seem smart) https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1189946642847297536
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/208277697279963137
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
You almost got me, I'll admit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
I thought Trump tweeted this out today at first and was prepared for a complete collapse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Aaron Sorkin would like to apologize for making Zuckerberg look cool (no word on apologizing about making centrism seem smart) Uh, "Zuck is cool, actually" is very much not the message that film sends
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Uh, "Zuck is cool, actually" is very much not the message that film sends no, but it does humanize him more than he deserves
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:who is the defector, gabbard? I know she's been talking pretty openly about her plans to sabotage the party, but has she given any indication she's attacking the impeachment? (Not asking rhetorically).
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:I know she's been talking pretty openly about her plans to sabotage the party, but has she given any indication she's attacking the impeachment? (Not asking rhetorically). No, she hasn't...she issued one statement right after the inquiry was announced, but abruptly changed course and supported it like a week later. Gabbard sucks, but she wasn't either of the defectors this time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:no, but it does humanize him more than he deserves I swear to god that Zuckerberg has the most soulless loving eyes. There's no humanity in there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:no, but it does humanize him more than he deserves Only because Eisenberg did an excellent job infusing personality into the role. I do wonder how emotionally similar Zuckerberg is to the character on-screen, and I don't think we have enough information about his private (lol) behavior to know that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:A window is a like a few hundred bucks. Also, other issues with the hypothetical aside...cops know how to pop the lock on most car doors without breaking the window, because this is a common problem. And the party analogous to the criminal here would be whatever moron let their kid get locked in their car, so the restitution issue seems moot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Defectors were Collin Peterson and Jeff Van Drew
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:no, but it does humanize him more than he deserves I’m not sure we watched the same movie
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Only because Eisenberg did an excellent job infusing personality into the role. I do wonder how emotionally similar Zuckerberg is to the character on-screen, and I don't think we have enough information about his private (lol) behavior to know that. listen to the Behind the Bastards episodes on Zuck. He actually isn't a robot but a rather complete psychopath LOL
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
What are our strategies moving forward, boys? Well, have you considered...a tax cut?! https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...with-democrats/ quote:White House officials and congressional Republicans have begun early talks on a new package of tax reductions and economic growth measures, under pressure from President Trump who is agitating to announce a new tax cut proposal heading into the 2020 election. The US economy is a dead man walking, the President is about to be impeached, the last round of tax cuts were a disaster, and they're likely going to lose senate seats. So Trump is just resorting to bribery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
How are u posted:I swear to god that Zuckerberg has the most soulless loving eyes. There's no humanity in there. There was a picture of his Madame Toussad (sp?) wax figure posted a while back and it looked more alive then I have ever seen him look.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
PIZZA.BAT posted:I’m not sure we watched the same movie I watched it prior to knowing about the stuff that went on behind the scenes, much like most viewers of the film. I came away neutral fwiw
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:no, but it does humanize him more than he deserves Jesse Eisenberg just isn't up to the task of playing a robot 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
skylined! posted:This line of thought lays the blame at citizens rather than the brutal authoritarian figures that enact violence against civilians. Police are not brutal because of the threat of The Gun, but certainly use that threat as an excuse to enact violence. I'm not blaming the citizens at all, I'm not sure where you're getting that. You're essentially agreeing with me -- the threat of The Gun is an excuse to enact violence, so if that goes away then there's less excuse for cops to constantly be in "fear" for their lives. The prevalence of guns is just one part of the system that allows cops to act like they're in a warzone every time they step out of the station. e: lol there have been 7 pages since 9am, sorry if this is from a ways back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:What are our strategies moving forward, boys? Any money given to Corey Gardner is no better than lighting it on fire. His odds of winning in 2020 have got to be approaching zero, especially if Hickenlooper runs
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 18:03
|
|