I see a lot of these types of photos shared around as a gotcha, but it makes me genuinely wonder: is there any reason to believe that everyone who visited the island was involved with sex trafficking minors, or even “just” skeevy barely-18s in bikinis type stuff? Obviously people like Prince Andrew (and likely Trump) were implicated in some heinous shit, and plenty of others willingly associated with Epstein even after his original conviction, which is disgusting even if they didn’t do anything criminal themselves. But it seems like he and Maxwell would logically keep the worst aspects of their operation under wraps and only “initiate” people that they wanted to blackmail. At least, as long as it’s plausible that they used the island for regular rich-people-hobnobbing in addition to the criminal stuff, it feels bad to use a photo of them with someone as evidence that person is guilty (absent corroborating evidence of at least the fact that the photo was dated after Epstein’s first conviction).

That’s assuming the photo is real/accurate of course. I tried searching this one to see if it was before or after the conviction, and the only provenance I found linked it to some alt-right/4chan sites years ago.

https://banishbigbrother.com/flock-camera-map/

Hey, thanks for saying so – I appreciate it.

Where did I say that was a good thing?

Ah yes, the other can’t-miss trick, “everyone who isn’t 100% on board with or mildly questions the hate train is a shill.”

Asking for less delusional anti-AI arguments isn’t AI boosting.

My point was that saying that “everyone hates this” and “nobody wants this” (what the shirt in the post says) is flatly untrue. Whether ChatGPT has a billion daily active users or 500 million weekly active users or whatever is just trivia that doesn’t really change the gist of what I’m saying. Lots and lots and lots of people really like AI tools and use them every single day. Ignoring that fact and pretending like everyone agrees with you is dumb.

Can you share specific credible reports? The stuff I’ve seen has been anonymous tips to the FBI tipline that were included in the files. Salacious and maybe even true, but little more than “trust me bro.” Heck, even witnesses that come forward can have questionable credibility – remember Biden accuser Tara Reade, who has since defected to Russia? I want to see persuasive evidence (though again, I kind of dread it).

Regardless, it also means hundreds of millions of people use it and other AI tools on a daily basis. They’re not all being forced to at gunpoint. Trying to pretend that the opinions of one’s own social circle are “everyone” and that people who disagree do not exist is not a persuasive argument for anything.

Part of me thinks that the files are weakened by including baseless allegations from anonymous tips and that it would be better to have some hard evidence for this. But another part of me doesn’t want to have that hard evidence emerge because I dread seeing how many people will flatly deny or even try to justify or excuse it.

and then everyone clapped

ChatGPT alone has nearly a billion daily active users. Even accounting for corporate types who are pressured to use it, saying that nobody likes it or wants it is delusional.

Even if there was a Proton-like way to reliably emulate Android software, you’ve still got the device attestation problem that means most major banking and security apps won’t work. And hardly anyone is going to either want to give up those apps or have to carry around a separate dedicated phone just for them.

How is interviewing EU officials to game out a plausible strategy by which Trump might annex Greenland right-wing propaganda? It’s not arguing that it’s a good thing, or justified. They published many more stories talking about how the Greenland thing was a disaster for American soft power.

As somebody who’s served in a grand jury, it really is humiliating for them.

Not sure to what extent the process differs there, but in my experience the process is managed by a district attorney or assistant DA, and testimony for cases is a parade of mostly cops and prosecutors with a sprinkling of state’s witnesses for especially dramatic cases. You literally don’t hear from the defense at all (by design). And it’s constantly drilled into you that this is just a preliminary stage – you’re not voting whether they’re guilty, just whether the matter deserves further scrutiny in court.

To have that level of bias – before whatever unprofessional/extralegal bullshit the incompetent administration team pulled – and still get not just a failed indictment, but one with ZERO votes from the grand jury (which are typically larger than the traditional twelve) is hilarious.

Google EeveeSpotify, SpotX, and SpotC++ (depending on your platform of choice). Basically patches the stock app to remove ads and playback restrictions, plus other nice quality of life features.

I’ve seen this criticism a lot, but as somebody who has Politico in their daily news rotation I just don’t see it myself. It definitely has a voice and perspective – insider-y, pro-Western, well connected to internal party drama – but I’ve never really noticed a right-wing editorial bias or agenda. It frequently features stories critical of Trump and Republicans, and doesn’t seem to engage in unreasonable hit pieces on left-wing figures. Worst you can say is they sometimes have sections sponsored by corporations, but these are clearly labeled and not especially shill-y.

Are there particular headlines or stories that people think are examples of the kind of bias that should make people avoid reading them? Axios, for example, feels like a much bigger offender.

This was not true in 2024, according to Pew. The trend may reverse without Trump and/or after touching the hot stove, but recent elections have shown that Republicans made big gains among low-propensity/low-information voters while Democrats have gained among highly engaged voters.

There are a lot of people who grew up loving the books but strongly oppose funding the author now that she’s made transphobia a central part of her identity. Assuming one is OK with piracy, I don’t see the conflict in wanting to play the game for free.

Marge, Phoebe, Nelly, and Maude say hi!

I’m still baffled by the time she swiftly cracked DRM on Hogwarts Legacy, making it easy for critics of JK Rowling’s transphobia to play without giving her a dime… but then filled the release notes with a transphobic/anti-woke rant. Girl, what?

deleted by creator