Stack Exchange
log in

David says Reinstate Monica

 Discussion on question by fluidj: ISP…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Grinberg
Jun 13, 2019 19:09
Regardless of what the legal side of this is, you should report them to plaintextoffenders.com. Even if it is encryption or what Phoog mentioned, its pretty bad and they should be pressured to switch
 

 Discussion on question by grovkin: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
David Grinberg
Nov 16, 2018 16:52
@AzorAhai Congressional elections happen every year. Special elections also may happen
David Grinberg
Nov 16, 2018 16:52
@AzorAhai national elections in the us is just annual. Other things (primaries, local/state elections) may be more frequent
David Grinberg
Nov 16, 2018 16:52
Minor thing, but national elections are annual, not biannual
 

 Discussion on question by dsollen: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
David Grinberg
Oct 30, 2018 21:14
@dsollen I don't have any subscription, so don't know why you are getting paywalled. Also I think you are wrong about hardcore gamers, I do think there is a relatively even split.
David Grinberg
Oct 30, 2018 21:14
@kbelder Games are a pretty even split of about 50/50 male-female
 

 Discussion on answer by Steve Woods: …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
David Grinberg
May 29, 2018 19:14
@emory it would be incredibly rare (think likely never to happen in an applications life span), but if it ever did happen it wouldn't be a problem. All that matters is that my pass + salt = my hash
David Grinberg
May 29, 2018 19:14
Technically speaking, wouldn't a password + salt hash be a unique identifier and thus subject to GPDR?
 

 Discussion on answer by James K: Why …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
David Grinberg
Mar 9, 2018 21:28
@Sentinel An alleged sexual assault that he was highly suspected of committing, and there is evidence to suggest this wasnt the first time. Also... how does that change anything? He broke a law that has nothing to do with politics. My point still 100% stands
David Grinberg
Mar 9, 2018 21:28
Also the arrest warrant is for rape. Say what you will about politics and leaks and all that, but the rape doesn't leave office
 

 Discussion on answer by Craig W: Is i…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
David Grinberg
Jan 8, 2018 16:13
@goofyui If you really believe you are healthy enough and unlikely to use your health insurance, you should look into 'catastrophic' plans which generally cover much less (but still cover catastrophes, ie serious injury in a car crash) but also cost much less.
 

 Discussion on answer by Gramatik: Wha…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
David Grinberg
Dec 10, 2017 01:24
The US gains nothing from this. This is only true in the most shallow senses of the word. Yes the US doesn't gain anything directly. But if we assume (and obviously this is highly controversial/not clear cut) that Israel is on the 'correct' side of the middle east debate (as the Trump admin believes), then declaring Jerusalem as their capital is a crucial step towards strengthening the 'correct' solution. (Again, obviously the basic premise of that is hotly debated, but if you take it from the point of view of the Trump administration then the gains are very obvious).
 

 Discussion on answer by Flater: Why d…

Imported from a comment discussion on movies.stackexchange.com...
David Grinberg
Dec 7, 2017 12:44
I don't think the death on impact theory is really plausible. His guts literally spilled out. He wasn't going to survive that wound, no matter what.
 

 Discussion on answer by Andrew Jon Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
David Grinberg
Jun 4, 2017 05:07
Since people seem (wrongly)... Wow.... really? I wish I could vote this down more than once. Its unfortunate (though unsurprising) that people vote purely based on partisan viewpoints and not on the fact that this is an objectively poor answer for Stack Exchange.
David Grinberg
Jun 4, 2017 05:07
This answer is purely based on opinion. You cite nothing to back up your claims. You also boils this down to purely partisan political reasons whereas there are also economic and practical reasons for it as well (agree or disagree). -1.
 

 Discussion between dan-klasson and Da…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:40
There was literally a patten. Assad, if it was him, didnt inherently have a reason to expect anything different
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:39
And found ways to cop out of his satements
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:39
But ultimately did nothing
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:39
He said so harsh sounded words
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:39
It was crossed
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:39
He drew a red line
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:39
This was one of the big criticisms of Obama
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:38
Yes. The US had threatened an attack multiple times
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:05
Also, in case you had any misconceptions (though this is not really relevant to the question or answer), I do not believe there is conclusive evidence to show that he did or did not do it. He may have. He may not have. I don't know. Either way, its not relevant to the question.
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:03
But that does not mean they outweigh the reasons to use chemical weapons for Assad.
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:01
The only part I agree with you on are that there are real political reasons not to use chemical weapons
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:01
I dont believe any of my points are unreasonable
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:01
(2) I dont agree
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:01
Obama is on record as stating that Libya was his worst mistake. He clearly didnt want to do it again.
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 19:00
@dan-klasson (1) I dont agree it was likely we would have intervened. I think at the time there were many signs Obama was desperately looking for a way out. He happened to find it with the weapons disarmament plan, but if it wasn't that it would be something else
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 18:29
@dan-klasson Now you are making unreasonable conjecture based on things that didn't end up happening.... We're getting wildly off topic. If you want to continue please open a chat.
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 18:29
@dan-klasson 1. We'll have to agree to disagree there. I get what your saying, I think he clearly states that answers should assume that Assad did it with the rest of his post. If you want to continue this part please open a chat. 2. Gaddafi didn't use chemical weapons. And Assad already has beforehand (with no real consequence). Yes he has been instilling fear for a long time. He wants to do more of that. This could easily be him turning up the pressure. Now I totally agree with you, there are reasons not to use chemical weapons. But the OP asked for reason to use them, so I answered that.
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 18:29
@dan-klasson (1) Once again, this question has already made the presupposition that Assad did it. This question is not asking if he did or didnt. It is clear from the OP's writing. (2) Some people have mentioned they believe my reasoning is unreasonable or unrealistic but no one has yet to actually explain why. Can you pick out a specific claim I make and explain to me why its not "remotely realistic"? IE what is not remotely realistic about chemical weapons instilling fear or chemical weapons being effective?
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 18:29
@dan-klasson I only make the same assumptions that the OP's question did. I agree with you it will never be 100% known who actually did it, but the OP asked for reasons why Assad could have done it, not if he did it: What could Assad realistically hope to gain from launching such an attack? And why is 4 rediculous? Every army in every war always has horror stories of on the field commanders going rouge. You think when American troops in Vietnam raped some random village it was on the orders of the president?
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 18:29
@DrunkCynic Can you point out anything factually wrong with my answer though? I think this question is fine. It is not asking for what the exact reasons are, its asking for what are advantages to his actions. That is something that can be easily analyzed.
David Grinberg
Apr 9, 2017 18:29
Why the downvote?
 

 Discussion on answer by ncd275: Is re…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
David Grinberg
Mar 21, 2017 08:42
Its also a big hassle for background tasks that require internet connections (dropbox, time sync, OS updates, etc).
 

 Discussion on answer by Baard Kopperu…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
David Grinberg
Mar 11, 2017 09:53
(...ctd) more about actual arguments for voter id (which is not to say its inherently the right choice) that don't involve obvious manipulation I encourage you to open a chat as this is the last comment I will post on this thread (and this time I really really mean it :) ).
David Grinberg
Mar 11, 2017 09:53
@BaardKopperud (1) No state allows electronic voting (only registration). (2) Your comment is a great example of how Oliver explicitly selects facts that further his point and explicitly omits facts that don't (hey, its not funny). IE does he bring up any intelectual argument for the pro case (I'm sure he doesn't). Does he bring up how the EU has much stricter voter ID laws but somehow isn't some giant racist land (I bet he doesn't)? The point is not do tick for tack. The point is to paint the whole picture. That is why Oliver is 100% unreliable for this. I'm you're interested to learn (ctd..)
David Grinberg
Mar 11, 2017 09:53
@blip If you tell me that Oliver doesn't use the same tactic to represent the other side as idiots as he always does, then I'll watch it. Otherwise Oliver's prose is just a waste of time if you try to treat it seriously.
David Grinberg
Mar 11, 2017 09:53
@phoog This is my last comment here. If you want to continue please open a chat. Oliver's use of small clips purposefully designed to make the other side looks dumb is one example of how late night comedians are explicitly biased in their reporting. Its funny, but a clear misrepresentation of facts. Now I haven't seen this particular clip, so I don't know if there are any falsehoods in it, but if its anything like any of his other work it will have multiple clear signs that Oliver's "reporting" is significantly flawed.
David Grinberg
Mar 11, 2017 09:53
@phoog Please reread my comment. I do not say it is always false, but I do say that they frequently use misrepresentation of facts and missing details to push their agenda. IE you notice how they only find stupid sounding people for the otherside? Makes for a great laugh, but a terrible political argument.
David Grinberg
Mar 11, 2017 09:53
@blip If you want to continue this discussion I recommend moving it to chat. Ill just say that I would be extremely skeptical (to put it nicely) of any study that claims to assert truth and correctness from political news reporting.
David Grinberg
Mar 11, 2017 09:53
@blip I used to watch Colbert/Stewart/Oliver. It was funny, but it was always plainly obvious when they used tactics that could at best be described as misrepresentation of facts and explicit removal of critical details, and at worst be called blatant lying. These shows are for comedy, not for real news.
David Grinberg
Mar 11, 2017 09:53
@blip sorry, no. He is not an investigative journalist. He goes no significant investigatory work. His comedy does not live up to journalistic standards. It's funny, but no one serious, not even him, pretends it's real journalism
David Grinberg
Mar 11, 2017 09:53
@BaardKopperud Because Oliver is highly left leaning and is primarily trying to make comedy, not convey policy. It is not always in his interest to present facts in the most accurate way. That is not to say he is lying or wrong, but it is to say that he is not a reputable source for a serious answer.
 

 Discussion on answer by Panda: Why ar…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
David Grinberg
Mar 3, 2017 18:02
To expand on your first point: it is actually possible/common to take away rights of people convicted of crimes. Prisoners often times cant get guns, or have restricted speech and may not even be able to vote. However being on a terrorist watchlist does not require committing a crime. So the argument is that if we start taking away constitutional rights of people who haven't committed crimes then we start down a very slippery slope. This time its guns, which you might agree with, but next time it might be habeas corpus and then it will be too late.
 

 Discussion between DepressedDaniel an…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
David Grinberg
Feb 28, 2017 00:17
I would also add that your answer is pretty close to good. You can find citations for most everything you claim. Now I would still disagree with your answer, but then you would at least have a leg to stand on.
David Grinberg
Feb 28, 2017 00:16
Yes. You are totally right. I am a citation nut. I think answer that have no citations are crap. This is standard policy of Stack Exchange. If you can't back up your claims then you did a poor job. On top of that I do think several parts of your answer are flat out wrong, but honestly thats a lot less important than the fact that you failed to make basic citations.
David Grinberg
Feb 28, 2017 00:00
That's why you need to cite everything