jazzdude

Twitter isn't an ISP... Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T blocking or prioritizing packets of data based on where they come from or are going to would violate the net neutrality concept. Net neutrality prevents the ISP from cutting deals to favor certain businesses or ideals/opinions. And this is necessary because they are common carriers for information: ISPs are *infrastructure*. Apple and Google both are well within their rights to remove any app they believe violates their terms of service (or for any reason): it's their walled garden, and the blocking of an app on an app store has no bearing on the transmission of data. This is just the free market. People can still get unapproved or blocked apps, but have to do it via a third party (side loading). This is not a violation of net neutrality principles. Sure, it's harder to get a blocked app because you don't have the benefit of using the default app store, but the app developer can still publish and distribute their app through other means, and net neutrality allows the same priority of the data packets regardless of the source, whether it's Apple's app store server or a private, third party server. Twitter, Facebook, app stores, websites, etc aren't common carriers or infrastructure. Being blocked on Twitter does not limit your free speech. You can switch to another service, or build/host your own website/discussion forum to get your message out in the internet. And with net neutrality, packets of data moving to/from your website have the same priority as packets of data from Twitter, and prevents the ISP from blocking out your small service in favor of business interests (like faster connections to business partners). Net neutrality has zero to do with content or opinions, or ensuring "balanced" viewpoints are represented online, and everything to do with ensuring infrastructure is shared equally and no one gets priority access to the infrastructure. Separately, section 230 protects online *platforms* (such as twitter or Facebook) from being considered a *publisher*. This distinction prevents twitter/Facebook/discussion boards/etc from having to moderate all content before it is published on their platform. Essentially, without section 230, it breaks how we conduct discussions on the internet. Imagine if the mods on BaseOps had to approve ("publish") every post, because the forum owner was legally liable for any content that appeared on the forum instead of the individual poster. Removing section 230 would completely stifle any discussion, slows down the internet, and would break the fundamental model of social media. But that's not to say that moderation or enforcement of rules can't happen, just that someone can't sue the platform based on a opinion posted by an individual on that platform. It's just like phone companies (infrastructure) not being liable for the text messages you send, but for internet communication. Section 230 is good, it protects internet businesses from frivolous lawsuits because they have deeper pockets than an individual. For example, it prevents Democrats from suing Twitter for allowing Trump to tweet anything they disagree with. Got an issue with what is said on the platform by an individual? Take it up with the individual.

I think a lot of people who like to talk the talk about be a "patriot" or revolutionary are about to find out the hard way that there is a significant price to pay for walking the walk.

If this is the case, then where should we go as a nation?

Curious about the baseops opinion on this one: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-air-force-combat-veteran-breached-the-senate Synopsis is a retired AF Lt Col participated in storming the Capitol building (flexi-cuff guy in the photos from 6 Jan). What should happen to him now that he's been identified as participating? Seems to be precedent to court martial him should the DoD decide to pursue it, but would that be the right answer? https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/02/25/military-retirees-can-still-be-court-martialed-supreme-court-affirms/

Not a double blind experiment, but no reason to be-I had direct access to the end user's (me) opinions for subjective measures, and wasn't concerned about a placebo effect :) So combined DT/OT event for the win. Since I had to design, execute, and evaluate a rigorous experiment for my design of experiments/statistics class, I figured I'd do something to make my life better and answer some questions I already was curious about. Plus the supplies were cheap, and the experiment could be executed in one day.

Twitter can censor anyone using their platform for pretty much any reason they want (outside protected classes defined by law). They are a private business, not a government service, and as such, they have zero duty to uphold free speech. They also have the right to moderate content if they choose (though no duty to do so either), and to set the rules for people, including politicians, who want to use their service. That being said, as a US company, they have tried to hold up American ideals for free speech to a "reasonable" degree, because it generally is good business to do so in the US, to provide them access to a wider market ($$$), and because moderating every tweet is not really practical. For the latter point, it's why their enforcement of their rules is retroactive and based on others flashing/reporting tweets. Calls for them to suspend President Trump's twitter account have been going on for years, and until this week, twitter tolerated Trump on their platform despite believing he was breaking their rules/standards, purely because he was the President.

I agree with you on 100% here (so please don't take my reply as chucking spears in disagreement, more meant in the spirit of debate). Even if it's not perfect or fully realizable, it's still worth striving towards. But it's a very challenging problem, especially since humans aren't always rational, even if they want to be. There's one big assumption though to make it work: all of this is built on mutual respect for each other, and that's something that we unfortunately seem to have lost in our society in favor of defending whatever tribe we have decided to affiliate with. And unfortunately, it's hard to make laws that define mutual respect without some jerk finding a loophole and requiring more laws.

I agree with your intent, but actually putting it in practice is what's difficult, if not impossible. One challenge is you can have two critical thinkers arrive to vastly different conclusions based on the same information, both with sound logical arguments that bring them to their conclusion. So who is right, or who has arrived at the "truth"? Another challenge is how much of our lives and decisions are actually reasoned, conscious, deliberate decisions? For example, if I see a stranger that looks different than me, talks different, behaves different than what I'm used to or have been exposed to in a positive manner, I may get uncomfortable, fearful, aggressive (flight or fight response), or just curious. That can lead to knee-jerk actions or judgements. Maybe it's right and justified, maybe it's not. But that initial response happens without conscious thought. Sometimes you can override the initial instinct with a conscious decision. And sure, you could train/condition out that response, but at the risk of turning into an easily clubbed baby seal due to a lack of a fear or flight/fight response to a real threat you don't recognize as dangerous. Or you can argue that my realist views on the world are incorrect. Or you could take time to understand the stranger and their differences, but that takes time and energy to do, and we only have so much time and energy in a day. There's also a motion that a lot of what we consider a conscious actions really aren't: it's our body making an reflexive reaction to the world, and our brain rationalizing the action afterwards to explain the reflex. But there are people who know how to exploit people's fears to motivate them to take action. The most successful ones also know how to take that fear and build a convincing or appealing story to explain the fear and actions that should be taken to address the fear. That story doesn't even need to be true or reasonable, just convincing and/or appealing. That story builds a narrative for the action, and can become ingrained so that it's not critically analyzed by it's believers. For example, Flat Earthers. Generally, it seems they are just distrustful of "the man," and have latched onto the narrative that the earth is flat based on what they can observe, and there's a conspiracy behind the shape of the earth. This is despite the scientific and observable facts that show the Earth is not flat. I'm sure everyone in this board (except the herk guys, sorry) have seen at least some curvature of the Earth up at cruise. But if you've ever had the displeasure of interacting with a flat Earther trying to convince you the world is flat, they think you're in on the conspiracy. They double down on their belief despite the vast information out there contrary to their belief, that had existed in some form since ancient Greece. But arguably, they are thinking critically based on what they can observe themselves, since they don't trust the observations of others. Though I find it funny when they derive an experiment to prove the Earth is flat, only to find that the earth has curvature. So why do they stay? A sense of belonging, or not wanting to admit they were duped (pride) might be a few reasons.

That has to be taught, it's not an innate ability. So who does the teaching? Who develops and approves the curriculum? We are surrounded by our biases, whether we acknowledge them or not, and they influence our decisions/opinions/emotions. So in practice its hard to sniff out BS all the time without running into personal blindspots. And delegating that authority means censorship has to happen. Censorship isn't necessarily a bad thing- it filters out the BS. The problem is it can also be used to filter out other stuff as well

As easy as it to blame the media, I'm not sure they should take the full brunt of the hate. (News) Media in the US is largely made up of businesses; we don't have a massive, state run media machine, though you can argue public affairs offices in various government agencies publishing things online or social media is a media outlet. But I'd argue the latter doesn't generally spread information to the general public directly, but it's usually picked up by another news outlet and repeated on that platform. So since the news companies aren't fully supported by public funds, they need to make money. And the primarily model to make money on news is selling advertisements. The more viewers they can get, the more they can charge for ads, and the more money they make. However, this creates an incentive for them to pursue certain segments of the population. Fox doubled down on the right, while MSNBC doubled down on the left. So it's hard to blame them for doing what businesses do, it's their fiduciary duty to make money for their shareholders/owners. All the media did was can the flames on existing discontent out in the public faster, in return for making money. Sure, they probably had guidance from their senior executives on the direction based on the politics of those senior executives, who likely also have strong political connections. But our form of government requires an informed population, requiring some sort of mass news delivery. But we don't trust government sources of news, which leaves us to news companies who are pursuing their own interests, which may not align with the public's interests. At the same time, we've eroded the trust in our government, and transparency is a double edge sword. It allows the public to see what is going on. But it also makes it harder for politicians to compromise, since if they do, they'll be scorned as not a true believer in the political cause of the day and potentially be replaced by someone else in the next election. So it creates a perverse incentive to never compromise and double down on your position to retain power. Then you gerrymander districts to get the votes you need to increase your party's power. This leads to legislative gridlock, and the only way to make progress is to take a majority so you don't have to compromise. We did this to ourselves. But it's easier to place the blame on someone else- the media, the "other" political party, extremists within the party, foreigners, etc. We're seeing now just how fragile our system is, and how much it relies on our leaders to be honorable and act in the public's interests, and to in general "not be a a-hole" when governing. So now we're going to have more laws/rules defining what it means to be an a-hole, and then someone's going to find a loophole. And we're all going to suffer because of it.

Do you think the people that stormed the Capitol are going to disappear, or discard their views after the administration change? They will still be a problem because violence against government is now on the table. It's not a R vs D problem, it's attacking our institutions outlined in our constitution. And does anyone think Trump will go away quietly, when continuing what he does now gets him so much attention? One can only hope. If they had showed up and protested out on the lawn in front of Congress, I'd say it's concerning, but they are exercising their rights as citizens, but would agree with your premise. Forcibly entering the Capitol? That's no longer a protest. Does anyone doubt that if Congress wasn't evacuated that political figures (primarily on the left) would've been physically attacked? The Republican party needs to condemn these rioters, and purge them from the party. Probably not going to happen, which will probably cause many moderate Republicans to abandon the party (you know, the ones that will vote because they don't believe the system is fixed or rigged against them) The Democrats need to make good faith effort in working with the Republicans on policy and law, and not use control of the Senate and presidency to unilaterally ram through their agenda. But again, probably not going to happen given how polarizing politics has become and the inability of the two parties to work together.

Here's my process (based on a movie theater style popper that can cook 1/2 cup of kernels per batch): - Heat about 3 tbsp oil for one minute in the popper. If you're eyeballing it, err on the side of slightly too much - Dry 6-9 sliced, pickled jalapenos on a paper towel, then add to the popper (reduces oil splatter, gets them crisper, and makes the popcorn less soggy) - Cook the jalapenos for about 1 minute in the oil. This helps ensure the jalapenos are crisp, and let's the oil temperature come back up before you add the corn so it isn't soggy at the end. It also removes the weak and unworthy from the room. - Add 1/2 cup popcorn kernels to the popper, allow to pop - After the corn has popped and you've dumped it out, add Lawry's seasoning salt to taste - Enjoy!

Yes, that's my typical oil I use. https://www.orville.com/kernel-popcorn-and-oil/popping-topping-oil It's butter flavored, not too expensive (for home use, or if you're squadron only makes corn occasionally), and easily found at the commissary or grocery store. But if you've got peanut oil or another high smoke point oil, it'll work similarly enough. Just gotta melt butter and add it afterwards. Vegetable/canola oil kinda works, but leaves a lot of gunk behind that's hard to clean and can smoke up pretty quick if you're frying up thicker jalapeno slices. On a different note, if you don't want to invest in a movie theater style popper for home use, this works well (I had an older version of this machine when many years ago in pilot training out at navy-land). https://westbend.com/collections/stir-crazy/products/stir-crazy-deluxe-1 Relatively cheap and effective if you're looking to make jalapeno corn for 1-3 people, and the popper lid is the bowl, so it makes cleaning easy. But I really like my popcorn (Saturday popcorn was a family tradition growing up), and as a single C-17 pilot back in the day, I had money to burn so I upgraded ($200-300 gets you a decent machine for home use, and about an extra $100 gets you either the cart/stand or a mini fridge for drinks to put the machine on). ETA: looks like I've come full circle from 14 years ago when I started this thread-gotta pay the knowledge learned forward!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2020/09/15/exclusive-the-billionaire-who-wanted-to-die-brokeis-now-officially-broke/?sh=53da02d53a2a Chuck Feeney.

I wasn't a fan of peanut oil, though it works well enough that I'd use it if I ran out of my usual popping oil (especially over canola oil). I suppose avocado oil would work based on smoke point, but not sure how it'd affect the flavor, and is more expensive anyways. But you are 100% correct on the seasonings (Lawry's seasoning salt is my go-to seasoning, but I also have Tony Chachere's Creole Seasoning available with my popcorn supplies for when I'm in the mood for something different) I guess I'll fly my nerd flag: did a project during an experimental design class to determine the "best" jalapeno corn, as defined by popped volume, crispiness, and heat. Conducted a screening experiment looking at several variables: compared peanut oil vs the orville redenbacher popcorn oil, small amount of oil vs more oil, small amount of jalapenos (1-3) vs a more generous amount (6-9), and cheap popcorn (generic cheap kernels from the commissary) vs expensive (orville redenbacher) popcorn. Long story short, after a ridiculous number of batches of popcorn (70ish), the expensive kernels, more oil (3-4 tbsp oil to 1/2 cup kernels), and 6-9 jalapeno slices (literally, and cooked off for about a min before adding the corn, mt olive brand for reference) had the best success. The orville oil was a slightly more consistent with producing the results and flavor I wanted, though wasn't statistically different from peanut oil in producing the volume, crispiness, and heat I was looking for. Wish I could find the paper, but it's lost to blackboard online and I can't find my copy on my laptop. Outside the experiment, too many jalapenos adds too much moisture and makes for soggy popcorn, and is brand dependent, so I'd recommend sticking with one brand of jalapenos for consistency. I like mt olive jalapenos since they are sliced thin and crisp up consistently without being too hot (which means more crispy jalapenos per batch of corn). The Whole Foods bulk mixed popcorn kernels also works very well, and holds onto the jalapeno heat and flavor very well, maybe too well, and is great when I want a very spicy corn. Coconut oil makes for very crispy popcorn, but you've got to add melted butter after the fact, or use flavacol, otherwise it's a bit bland. If I want spicy corn but I'm out of jalapenos, about a tablespoon of sriracha sauce right after adding the corn works, though you lose out on the delicious crispy bites of jalapeno. And the infidel corn earlier in the thread is great, though the extra cleanup due to bacon grease makes it a once in a blue moon treat because I'm lazy. ETA: this is based on my experience in my home popcorn machine

What if the CSAR platform was unmanned? https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/cormorant-uav-aces-medical-evacuation-trial/128285.article Have a similar drone to the one in the link navigate to the CSEL position, and have the isolated person crawl into the back and hit the "go home" button. Added bonus for not putting additional personnel into harm's way, though that ride home could get exciting for someone who's already had a bad day.

While the obvious concern that our Capitol building has been overrun is bad, I think the concern goes much further. Today we lost physical security of the Capitol building while Congress was conducting one of their most fundamental duties-certifying the election for president. Were explosives or traps left behind to target political opponents? I'm sure this is also a counterintelligence nightmare as well. Were recording devices left behind? Were computers and networks compromised (pictures were in the news of unlocked computer screens)? Access to classified? Was everyone rioting disgruntled Trump supporters, or is it possible foreign actors participated and took advantage of the situation? So maybe it wasn't a coup attempt, but that doesn't mean severe damage wasn't done to our government, much less to our image to the rest of the world. And that image (which I posit truly began in WW2) has been important in our foreign policy, as it's given us the moral ground (as a champion of democracy) in the past to push our agenda and advance our interests. And this loss to our world image comes at a time when China and Russia are trying to expand their influence in the world. No matter how well our military fights, if we lose our legitimacy for conducting our operations, we've lost the war.

I think things haven't been good in a country for a while, but it's all just been simmering on the back burner until recently, and now it's all boiling over. There seems to be underlying problems in our society that we have not been addressing (or willing to acknowledge), and we as a society/country are starting to pay that price and see these issues boil over into dramatic events. We've had a significant recession, fairly stagnate wages despite increased productivity, race tensions, and increasing (personal) debts and costs to name a few. I'm not looking to point fingers, but we as a country need to figure out how to address these issues moving forward. People aren't happy, they're stressed, and they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that they are being persecuted. That's on both sides. And this is leading to protests, riots, and violence. And this feeling isn't just limited to the left or right, Republicans or Democrats. The two biggest examples being the BLM protests, and now the far-right riots/storming the Capitol. Fundamentally, those two very different events have the same underlying issue-people aren't happy with their situation. Happy/content people likely won't turn to violence to effect change, especially if they feel they have a good situation. But if they feel like they are in a bad situation, or a coming change might change their situation for the worse, they may put up with it for a while, but if they can't improve their situation, they may turn to more extreme measures. Then again, there are also people who just want to see the world burn. Unfortunately, it seems Trump has taken advantage of the far-right (though maybe they aren't as far right as people say) and their fears, and have encouraged actions that seems to just fed his ego and personal aims (inflict pain on those who disagree with him). Maybe that's acceptable/tolerated in the business world, but it's not in government. And disappointingly, he also send to be someone who doesn't mind sitting back and watching the world burn.

I think he's way past that point... Though maybe he'll just rage quit as a final crazy statement. It sure is going to be an interesting couple of weeks, that's for sure.

I'm less concerned about trying to put a particular gender/race for a "first", and more concerned with political parties trying to stack the court by applying political pressure to get a judge to retire early to do so. And, yes, both parties do it. I get that politics will always play a role in filling the supreme court since they are nominated and confirmed by political figures, but you'd hope that they could set aside political maneuvering to pick the best candidate instead of one that would push the party's agenda.

For what it's worth, I agree with your analysis. Our sense of individualism is both a great strength, but can also be a great weakness. Unfortunately, there are many people that refuse to acknowledge our system and way of life has disadvantages, and isn't all sunshine and rainbows. But there's still no other country I would want to live in/be a citizen of.

Coconut oil works great if you're not worried about being healthy. I use the orville redenbacher popcorn oil for my machine at home. https://www.orville.com/kernel-popcorn-and-oil/popping-topping-oil Gets the job done, and doesn't leave as much cooked on oil as using canola/vegetable oil (which I wouldn't recommend at all because of how hard it is to clean off)

This. Though I wonder how much of it is Congress abdicating their power because the legislative process is slower, versus the the political parties realizing Congress is pretty evenly split so the only way to push the party's agenda is through executive orders and/or selective non-enforcement of laws.

Good articles, thanks. And it's good to see our checks and balances within government are still healthy. What makes all of this uncomfortable is several values we hold are in conflict with each other. There's always the danger that an executive gains too much power, but we've been increasing their power over the last couple decades.

I think the strategy is "admit nothing, deny everything, counter accuse, demand an apology." Don't think it's going to work out very well, and the Republicans risk disillusioning many who have supported their candidates/platform in the past. I'm in the same boat as you here. It's disappointing to see the Republicans implode on themselves