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
@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"
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.
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.
> 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?"
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?
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
> 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
@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."
@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.
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
@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
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
> 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 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.
