« first day (839 days earlier)      last day (42 days later) » 

 
2 hours later…
3:08 AM
@Wipqozn :(
 
4:00 AM
reminder: don't fucking donate to Wikipedia
they waste thousands of dollars per employee on furniture
they have millions and millions
it's a good cause, but even as a very active editor there, I totally think their fundraising banner is a scam
end rant protocol
 
4:36 AM
oh and very little of it is actually for hosting, the most important part by far
See that hosting has barely increased
(relatively)
they spent almost 5M last year for...donation processing
I mean paying people is good
And developing the huge amount of software is expensive
but still...
 
5:15 AM
i'd imagine that a site as big as wikipedia would have tech staff on hand so even if the server costs are mostly flat, paying the people that run those servers is going into salaries and its not like you can cut one without needing to ramp up the other
 
 
4 hours later…
Ave
9:07 AM
@Stormblessed did you see how convoluted and useless their hardware setup is?
A proper optimization and rewrite of mediawiki could cut their server count in half
 
 
4 hours later…
1:59 PM
@Ave What kind of things are they doing wrong?
 
 
1 hour later…
3:01 PM
@TimStone Frustrating that some of the tweets/headlines (Including WaPo's) about Warren's release of details on her legal work have been, basically, "Warren earned MILLIONS while pretending to be against corporate greed!!"
When, in fact, they should have been "Woman lawyer shockingly underpaid over 30 years of legal work"
 
Lot of people surprised to find out that over the course of their life they too have made over a million dollars
 
It works out to, like, ~$60k a year, over 30 years? For a professor at Harvard Law
 
And I'm sure she's made other money from other things but ultimately about this, strong meh
Meanwhile ol' Pete over there "Oh no McKinsey won't release me from my NDA!!!"
 
@BradC What firms has she worked at?
I saw someone mention that male lawyers can easily make $1 million within 7 years in NYC.
 
@Yuuki Trying to find the source docs that Warren released, but in the meanwhile, here's the ABC article that describes some of her client work
Describes the clients, the cases, and her compensation
 
3:13 PM
@BradC Yeah, gotta love the titles with "she made $2 million!" minus the "it took 30 years, basically the average lifespan of an entire career".
Well, what should be the average lifespan of an entire career.
(yay, people working past retirement age because wages have been stagnant for decades)
 
Ha. Here's an (old) headline that applies equally to this new info:
That's a properly crafted headline, right there.
 
Yeah, looks like the lion's share of her work was with individuals suing companies that went into bankruptcy to avoid paying up for damages that the companies caused.
 
 
3 hours later…
6:04 PM
A new children's book based on Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos aims to inspire kids to 'dare to dream big without being afraid to fail' businessinsider.com/…
> Shapira told Business Insider that he wrote the book for the "joy of young children's self-discovery." Shapira sees Bezos as someone for children to emulate, and he wrote in an email that his book is aimed at helping kids "become great achievers and also find their true ability, just like the people of our generation admire pioneers such as the richest living man on the planet, Jeff Bezos of Amazon."
@Unionhawk please wake me up from this endless nightmare.
 
@Yuuki AKA the Purdue strategy
 
@BradC Bets on Barr trying to discredit the report?
 
@Frank he's already doing so
 
@BradC ...Is it sad I can predict how Trump's sycophants will react to negative publicity?
 
> As A.G. Barr's statement questioning the legitimacy of the investigation is about to be read on air, @NicolleDWallace breaks out into laughter on @MSNBC and says, "Wait. Stop, stop, stop, stop. Where does that come from? Where?"
> Chris Wallace on Fox News on the DOJ IG report: "The headline is that they didn't find the things that Bill Barr and Donald Trump alleged."
 
7:15 PM
 
@TimStone holy SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT
 
Like come on, we have to be living in a simulation where they're just Late Game Simsing it up right?
gestures broadly What the hell, folks!
 
RIGHT?
fjdksljklsd
 
I seem to be missing something.
 
7:21 PM
Andrew McCabe is claiming (rightly, in my view) that the IG report exonerates him:
 
I know Trump thinks Steele is completely corrupt, and has been trying to cast him as an idiot that's completely biased against him, but...how is it a mindbending revelation that if he was biased, it'd be for Trump?
 
@Frank as usual, the scale of the lie for me
 
I mean the conspiracy is that the Democrats were so in line with Steele that they paid him to fabricate evidence against Trump, but also now Steele was a Trump family friend
 
not just "yeah we worked side by side for years and there are many pictures of us together but i don't know him"
 
hey, isn't there a character you can use to force the chat room to treat a URL as a pic? Even if it can't see a .gif extension or something?
 
7:24 PM
@TimStone Okay, that makes sense.
 
@BradC You prefix it with !, it still has to be an image though
 
I guess he was the first one under the Trump bus when the Russian investigation started.
 
 
Too bad, so sad, you suck, hope the tires don't hurt too much.
 
(That's McCabe's attorney's statement from above. Also a good summary of the IG report overall)
@TimStone Thanks, that's what I was looking for
Oh, look; a totally neutral headline from Politico:
 
7:45 PM
> One FBI supervisory special agent IMed that they were "so elated with the election" and compared the election coverage to "watching a Superbowl comeback.”
“it was just energizing to me to see .... [because] I didn't
want a criminal to be in the White House."
doh, nested brackets. That quote is in the thread linked prior
 
8:43 PM
Can someone explain what the IG was asked to investigate and what they found?
because I can't track it all amidst the dozens of reports and investigations on all sides of the political spectrum
 
9:05 PM
@Nzall So in super, duper short version: the IG was tasked to look into whether the Mueller investigation was properly predicated.
It was, we all knew it was, but Trump and his cronies have long screamed that they were being "spied on" and the "deep state" had it out for them from the beginning
This proves them wrong (again)
There was some (relatively minor) paperwork fudging by a low-level agent in the ream of supporting documents submitted to the FISA court, but its not substantial, and (more or less) consisted of him covering up one of his own mistakes
And if your takeaway is "the FISA process should have better oversight", then frankly most everyone on the left would agree
> President Trump, who has publicly accused his predecessor of trying to sabotage his campaign and the FBI of a politically motivated coup, says the inspector general report finding no evidence to support those claims is "far worse than I ever thought possible."
> "We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions" to open investigations into four Trump campaign aides, the report says.
There will be a second "Deep State Conspiracy" report, however. This one by Durham, who was hand-picked by Barr
Very uncharacteristically for a prosecutor, Durham has already put out a statement on the IG report:
> "Our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department.... Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report's conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened."
 
9:21 PM
@BradC Isn't one of the core concepts of ongoing investigations that law enforcement categorically does not comment on it until they're ready to prosecute?
 
 
@Nzall If they're actually trying to do their job and not shill for Trump.
Anyone who believes that those hired by Trump will actually do the jobs they were hired to do, instead of doing what Trump wants, is in for a sad surprise.
 
 
@BradC The operative phrase here being "I ever thought".
 
This is why I don't think that talk about Trump's "attempted authoritarianism" are hyperbolic, or exaggerating, or overreacting. I mean, I'm still reasonably confident he won't still be in office 18 months from now, but look how much he's succeeded in putting literal cronies all over the government, and how much the rest of the GOP continues to support those anti-democratic efforts
I mean, it's openly understood by everyone that Trump doesn't make appointments based on their qualifications for the job, but based on their loyalty to him
He fucking admits that's what he's doing; and every day, people are just driving to work, coming home and having dinner, tucking their kids into bed, living their normal lives as the US literally falls into autocracy
 
9:36 PM
@BradC the true Trump legacy is not his current policies, but the hundreds of conservative judges that he packed the courts with and will set back various civil rights for decades to come
 
@BradC And, honestly, what other choice do they have? That's who was democratically elected.
The scary part is going to be if he refuses to peacefully hand over power, and enough of the levers of power are willing to go along with it.
 
And sure, a reasonable proportion of the population have made their concern known, through marches, though support of Democratic candidates, etc.
But I still think the vast majority of the population has no idea how much danger our country is in, right now
@Nzall Yep. And the GOP is approving insanely unqualified judges, as long as they are right-wing sycophants
(The only good news I've heard about that is that the lesser-qualified ones may not actually last long, once they see what the work entails. But yes, plenty of bad ones will be left, with almost zero recourse.)
@Frank Yep. What if he tries to cancel the election? What if he appears to have reasonable cause to do so? Like if we're in the middle of a war with Iran? So many bad ways this could go
 
@BradC And you know he'll manufacture a war if that's what it takes.
 
9:53 PM
That sounds awful close to eugenics.
 
Ash
It...is.
 
@BradC Great, love too think child-rearing is the end goal of all romantic relationships.
 
Ash
Also that.
 
@Yuuki If it's not your goal you can just use something else, right?
 
Ash
The whole thing is gross and creepy and also we get into a whole bunch of weird about what counts as a genetic disease
 
9:57 PM
@Ash Yeah, it feels kinda awful.
 
@Frank yep, this is literally eugenics
> the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.
 
I'd say, "at least it's voluntary", but...ew.
 
I think it's worth looking at the other side that there are real genetic diseases that are causing major problems for people and there is value in trying to not subject future people to that suffering.
 
I mean... I have heard of lots of cases where someone might choose not to have biological kids, in part or in whole, because they don't want to pass along a mental illness, or something like that.
And there are clearly cases where a couple has to wrestle with a doctor telling them, "you are both carriers for X, if you have another child, they have a Z% chance of having it"
 
I know when my wife and I went for the first...sonagram? I think? We were given the option of testing for some genetic diseases, so we could decide if we wanted to be prepared for that sort of outcome.
 
10:03 PM
@murgatroid99 There are tests for those sort of things, right?
In fact, the existence of those tests is probably why this app exists.
 
Admittedly, the option being available for us to decide feels...I dunno. Wrong?
That's a personal thing, though; I don't blame others for deciding they aren't able to care for children that require a higher level of care.
 
Such a tricky minefield. Hence, my recommendation they take some history and ethics classes
 
'tis, indeed.
 
No amount of history and ethics classes will save you from people who see any attempt at genetic improvement and start yelling "Eugenics! Nazis!"
 

« first day (839 days earlier)      last day (42 days later) »