Episode 8 had one scene that was really cool to look at

But it comes with opening a lot of plot holes and asking questions we were better off ignoring.

Episode 9 is just garbage writing start to finish though. And garbage marketing when you remember they announced

through fortnite.

public keys

I’m not too sure how cryptography works, but I’m pretty sure it’s fine if other people have your public key. I’m reasonably sure it’s actually required in a system with public and private keys.

It’s just like Rush Limbaugh said: if there is consent on [all sides], it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is.

There’s no real need for me to bring up the dead conservative talking head here, but I still laugh to myself sometimes when I remember how mockingly he got it exactly right, and maybe someone else could use a laugh too.

“The possible possibility” -> “The possibility” As someone else said, it’s just redundant here.

The first meaning of possibility relates to chance/probability whereas the second relates to ability/capability/feasibility

This is simply untrue, possibility doesn’t relate to probability except in a very binary yes/no, something is possible.

“It’s not necessarily necessary for you to wear a tie to the meeting, they might not care.” -> It’s not always necessary…

“The maybe necessity” -> The necessity of blank is still being debated

“It’s maybe not necessary” -> it may not be necessary

The second one would depend on the context, you could change things around or describe the uncertainty in other ways. The third one I think you’re just getting too stuck on a particular order for these words you want to use.

That’s the worst part: they do talk about Palestine. Just in the context of whoever they’re covering. It’s a little comforting to know you don’t really bother engaging with anything people actually say to you, though.

Starting around 38:30 in the podcast

Dan Friesen: So the argument is that the CIA was trying to recruit these hijackers and make them into informants. And that is a theory. It is not established. It is not proven. But they start to just treat it as if they have proven it.

Mark Rossini: You have the CIA then following one man and then two men all over the planet and then eventually even to America, right? Landing in Los Angeles, California, and you don’t tell the FBI.

Tucker Carlson: But why would the CIA want to hide the highly relevant and potentially dangerous fact that two known al-Qaeda terrorists had just landed in California? According to a recently released court filing, former White House counterterrorism star Richard Clark told government investigators that the quote: “CIA was running a false flag operation to recruit the hijackers.”

Richard Clark: When Cofer Black became the head of the counterterrorism center at CIA, he was aghast that they had no sources in Al-Qaeda. So he told me, I’m going to try to get sources in Al-Qaeda. I can understand them possibly saying we need to develop sources inside Al-Qaeda. When we do that, we can’t tell anybody about it.

Dan Friesen: So it’s important to pay attention to the way that information is used by people like Tucker and notice the little tweaks that they make in order to push their narratives. In this case, Tucker is setting up his clip of Richard Clark, and he says that Clark revealed that the CIA was engaged in a false flag to recruit these hijackers.

Then he plays the clip of Clark that does not say that. But instead is Clark saying that he could understand the intelligence folks trying to secretly turn the future hijackers into informants. He wasn’t saying that the CIA was doing this, but he understood how it was possible.

Yeah, one of the conspiracy theorists’ main tricks is equating proving that something is possible with proving that it’s true. Richard Clark saying that it’s possible that the CIA was trying to recruit the hijackers as informants is not the same thing as him saying that is what happened. But Tucker knows that to his audience, it is the same.

I don’t know man, maybe you need to work on your media literacy a little more. Or maybe just as a rule, you shouldn’t be taking anything Tucker Carlson says seriously.

Alright, cool. So what did Tucker Carlson say that you thought was so interesting?

And I guess follow up question: was it all just government propaganda? Because I doubt he ever debunked any propaganda about Palestine.

What are you talking about? Why would something be government propaganda just because you can’t find mentions of Gaza or Palestine? It’s a podcast mostly about Alex Jones, not a news agency. Are you always like this?

1092: Tucker, The Man And His 9/11 Documentary

The guys at Knowledge Fight went over the first part of the documentary, and my takeaway was there’s nothing new, the primary person being interviewed is a well known liar, and there’s a lot dishonest claims being made and not a lot of evidence being given.

So what exactly do you think is so interesting about Tucker Carlson’s series? What new things did you learn about 9/11?

How does it work with someone like Taylor Swift, who According to Forbes, Swift is the first musician to reach 10-figure status solely based on songwriting and performances rather than brand deals, makeup lines, or business ventures?

You can argue they should be more charitable, but that really can’t be required. You could also say taxes should be higher past a certain point, but they currently aren’t and that’s not any individual’s fault.

Also, I’m using Taylor swift as an example, but I mean more generally a person that captures worldwide attention for their art.

I’m pretty sure the message behind All in all, it’s just another brick in the wall isn’t that every individual brick is incredibly special and important to the entire structure and that even one missing brick would jeopardize the whole thing.

Is one brick not only as strong as the one next to it?

Obviously not, you can break one brick in a wall without taking the whole wall down.

The second quote is from 13:20 in the video linked above me. https://youtu.be/WNWEwyPTh_M?t=800 if you’re lazy.

The first quote is from the same guy a day or two earlier, I found it transcribed in a fox news article and won’t go looking for it again.

The investigation is ongoing, but I want to make it crystal clear right now to whoever did this. We will find you. We will try you and we will hold you accountable to the furthest extent of the law. And I just want to remind people that we still have the death penalty here in the state of Utah.

We can return violence with violence, we can return hate with hate. And that’s the problem with political violence, is it metastasizes. Because we can always point the finger at the other side. And at some point, we have to find an off ramp, or it’s going to get much much worse.

Incredible the difference a day can make.

I haven’t gone out of my way. While I haven’t used the word “fun”, I did say I enjoyed most runbacks in Dark Souls as a sort of puzzle. Being downvoted for a subjective opinion is absurd, especially when the person I’m responding to also has a subjective opinion.

I think we all know that the up/down votes are people agreeing or disagreeing with you. So having more downvotes than upvotes means that more people disagree with you than agree with you.

Also, if you complain about downvotes, that usually deserves a downvote from me.

https://areweanticheatyet.com/

Go look for whatever game you’re stuck on, it might just work.

Zubat, Meowth, and Voltorb are all first evolutions though, and only Zubat even has a third evolution.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a nonprofit focused on combating antisemitism, defended tech billionaire Elon Musk’s “awkward” gesture during a Monday celebratory event which some critics panned as a fascist salute.

“This is a delicate moment. It’s a new day and yet so many are on edge. Our politics are inflamed, and social media only adds to the anxiety,” the ADL wrote in a Monday post on Musk’s social platform X. “It seems that @elonmusk made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute, but again, we appreciate that people are on edge.”

From the Hill if anyone else wanted to know more.

Usually you would want to provide a good example.

They’re taking advantage of everyone with their shitty “dev exchange rates”

Also, it’s a bit light to say that they’re stricly saying taking advantage of people because only because of their fees.

I’m honestly not sure what you’re trying to say. I didn’t say the transfer fees were the only way they were taking advantage of people, I just wanted to use the thing you already admitted was predatory and use it to give an example of how roblox is taking advantage of children.