circuscritic @ circuscritic @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

1,105

Joined

2 yr. ago

...why wasn't this handled by the Postal Inspectors?

I assumed someone repeatedly breaking into PO boxes is something they would actually want to investigate...?

Either because it comes across more clearly over comms, or someone flipped a coin.

But, it is called that outside of the military, sometimes...sort of.

I was expecting to read the article and find some seventh level of hell legal trickery bullshit, but it does sound like the organizers fucked up.

John Thurston, the secretary of state, rejected the petition outright, saying that organizers had failed to correctly submit a sworn statement confirming that paid canvassers had been instructed on how to collect signatures.

However, while I may be an expert in bird law, with a focus on dick towel related torts, I don't know shit about Arkansas state law or their regulations for proposing ballot measures.

Maybe someone who is can tell me why this isn't the fault of the organizers, or if some other shenanigans are at play?

Any chance that they submitted the document, but didn't complete some arcane ritual like having it delivered by a female virgin courrier? Or not including a list of the mother's maiden name for every canvasser?

Is the Biden administration lead by conspiracy theorists as well?

Again, inclusive and circumstantial, but pretty far removed from crackpot conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats.

Direct quote from that NYT article I linked:

In addition to the Energy Department, the F.B.I. has also concluded, with moderate confidence, that the virus first emerged accidentally from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a Chinese lab that worked on coronaviruses.

They aren't conspiracy theories, at least, not according to the US Government and Biden's DoE:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html

Circumstantial evidence, not conclusive either way, but clearly the Biden administration feels the evidence is weighted slightly more on the side you just called a conspiracy theory.

Which again, is all they allege for ebola, but unlike the co-author of that first paper I linked, I don't have a PhD in virology, so what do I know.

Those are both pretty through examples of indepth investigative reporting, by credentialed and experienced independent journalists and researchers. There's plenty of threads to pull on once you start reading into it.

It's also been covered by Ryan Grim, former DC Beauru Chief for The Intercept. I believe he has recorded interviews up with either researchers from those articles, or some other journalists specializing in covering scientific and medical fields, I forget which.

I've read the reporting, looked into the journalists and researchers behind it, and find them credible.

If you don't, it doesn't affect me any.

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/did-west-africas-ebola-outbreak-of-2014-have-a-lab-origin/

https://jacobin.com/2016/07/ebola-west-africa-sierra-leone-bah-zoonotic-health-corruption-imperialism/

I have no idea how this lab will operate, but these types of labs are often used by government agencies whose own countries have prohibited certain types of extremely dangerous and risky research.

There's actually a lot of good circumstantial evidence that the really big Ebola outbreak some years ago likely originated from a lab in neighboring country, that was being used by US government funded scientists, doing work that they were not legally allowed to do on US soil.

It's late and I'm tired so I am not going to dig up the reporting on that, but there has been some great coverage on the topic in the few years that it's worth reading up on.

Whether or not any of that has any relevance to this specific laboratory, or how they'll operate, I have no idea. Just pointing out that whatever upside can be gained by this type of research, is also accompanied by serious risks.

You put so much effort into that post, that I almost feel bad pointing out that you probably should have read the comment I was replying to... you know, the one above my comment.

But, if you're having a hard time locating it, I pasted the relevant quote that I was responding to:

"...opportunity for a movie-like secret mission with a bag full of consumer drones..."

But yeah, I guess if you completely ignore the actual text I was responding to, you might of had a fair point.

Sounds like it'll be family friendly game shows and Christian reality TV.

Honestly, that might actually be a profitable model they could make work, if they don't fuck the infrastructure up, or allow cousin Billy to expose himself to female contestants on 3 different reality shows they're producing.

Yes, and that's what Ukraine is doing at the moment. But they're doing it in the cities like Moscow that actually matter to Putin, and the Russian elites.

The comment I was responding to was talking about taking a lot small drones deeper into Russia, which are places that Putin couldn't give a shit about.

So, if they aren't useful for destroying critical infrastructure, and Putin and the Russian elite don't care about any psychological impact on those civilians, what is the point? Which is why I covered using them to target civilians, and why that would be a bad idea.

Saboteurs and Ukrainian assets inside of Russia are not an unlimited resource. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to use their time doing things that actually politically harm Putin, or impact the wider Russian war effort?

I didn't move any goal posts, I've been pretty clear about my views on the general ineffectiveness of using quadcopters to target infrastructure.

But like I said, maybe I'm wrong, and the Ukrainian MoD will have a "Eureka!" moment after reading your comments.

Again, I think you're vastly overestimating the capability of a quadcopter drone to inflict serious damage on hard infrastructure.

But hey, maybe I'm not only wrong, but so are all of the Ukrainian sabotage teams and they'll stumble across your advice here and realize what a great idea it is.

Ignore them. They're just haters who can't handle the fact that despite it's youth, the Osprey is already a legendary platform.

Think of it like the A-10, except instead of repeatedly slaughtering friendly forces, it just regularly kills anyone dumb enough to ride in one, or pilot it.

I think you're vastly overestimating the damage possible from the explosive payload a tiny quadcopter can carry, unless your goal is strictly terrorism i.e. intentionally targeting civilians.

Civilians dying as collateral damage during an attack/assignation of a legitimate military target is one thing, targeting civilians is another.

And before you say Russia does, don't forget that Ukraine is dependent upon continued Western support, which is already fragile. It's doubtful that support would survive them explicitly targeting civilians with suicide drones deep inside Russia.

Are you really using all of human history as a timeframe to say that currency is a relatively recent phenomenon?

Again, I'm not anti-cryptocurrency, but it's not really a currency anymore than any other commodity in a commodity exchange, or a barter market.

And I don't care if it's livestock, or Bitcoin, I'm not accepting either as payment if I sell my home, or car. Not because of principles, but because I don't know how to convert livestock into cash, and I can't risk the Bitcoin payment halving in value before I can convert it to cash.

And who was talking extremes? I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the claims that crypto is the replacement for, or salvation from, our current economic system, or the delusion that currency backed by a nation is somehow just as ephemeral as Bitcoin, or ERC20 rug pulls.

You said Bitcoin was designed to free us from the tyranny of big capital, but it's been entirely co-opted by the same boogeyman. So regardless of the intentionality behind the project, it's now just another speculative asset.

Except, unlike gold or futures contracts, there's no tangible real world asset, but there is a hell of a real cost.

Printing currency isn't destroying the planet....the current economic system is doing that, which is the same economic system that birthed crypto.

Governments issuing currency goes back to a time long before our current consumption at all cost economic system was a thing.

lol

Forever? No, of course not.

But paper currency is backed by a nation state, so I'm betting it'll be around a bit longer then a purely digital asset without the backing of a nation, and driven entirely by speculation.

I'm not even anti-crypto. It was novel idea when it was actually used entirely as a currency, but that hasn't been true for quite some time.

This is straight out of Monsanto playbook going back decades. There's a reason why a lot of countries have either passed laws legally shielding local farmers from accidental cross-pollination, or just banning GM seeds, not for any pseudoscience rational, but because of the way agro business uses natural cross pollination as a vector for lawfare and predatory business practices.