Seriously, this is the best I could find.
2 Likes
7 Likes
A pompous windbag who screwed over his own investors and got caught, renounced his Canadian citizenship so he could buy a British lordship? Of course he did. Black is Trumpâs kind of guy!
5 Likes
A den of thieves indeed.
10 Likes
This techie has been hearing for years from security folks about how they are provided stolen tech from US companies.
They get it from the government, which trains and employs the hackers.
So I can see why this is a thing for them and not other companies.
1 Like
Thatâs the bit I donât understand. Why assume thatâs happening at Huawei and not at other places?
Leaving aside the point that the US getting hot under the collar about stealing technology is extremely funny from a British historical perspective.
âWe think theyâre benefiting from stolen technologyâ is also a completely different issue to âWeâre worried theyâve got backdoors into the equipment and can pwn our entire communications hubâ.
Thatâs the alleged US concern about the UK allowing Huawei any involvement in our 5G system.
If one assumes (probably rightly in my view) that the Chinese state could require Huawei to include such backdoors and make them available for chinese state purposes, why would that not apply to the factories that make the widgets that make up the equipment built by companies that are not Huawei?
I can understand a national security requirement that all components of critical infrastructure have to be manufactured in-country, or at least in countries considered âfriendlyâ but saying this one particular company which is subject to the same constraints and requirements as any other company in China is bad, but carry on getting your components made by others, mâkay is just silly.
Looking at the executive order, it does actually go a lot wider than Huawei, itâs essentially anything made by anything connected to anyone connected to a âforeign adversaryâ (which is vaguely defined) and which is considered to bear a significant risk.
Although by whom it is to be considered to be a risk and how US Company A is supposed to be able to tell in advance whether any transaction is ok or not is not at all clear.
Apparently, the Secretary of Commerce is supposed to come up with some guidelines.
2 Likes
You get asked a question, you donât know what that question is asking you, and you are faced with three options: Yes, No or I donât know. Itâs âdifficultâ to answer that question in a way. In another way itâs dead easy.
3 Likes
For whatever reason, that seems to be the most egregious offender. Iâve heard some things about Lenovo as well, though.
I feel like the Big Bang theory question is perhaps a little more nuanced or (mis-)leading than the one about Arabic numbers. âCreation theoryâ scans very close to âcreationismâ in my mind, which has long been a nightmare for those who support reality-based scientific education in the US, and even if you do know about the Big Bang theory, youâre very likely not going to know who first proposed it (I did not, or if I did, I had forgotten).
Even if it does inform us of biases on the left and the right, itâs still sort of a different measurement. On the one hand, the right is terrified of a non-existent boogeyman to the extent that theyâre willing to demonize the very word âArabicâ as something terrible. On the other hand, the Church has long been an opponent of science at the institutional level on a variety of topics, and in the US has been particularly invested in pushing creationism into the public school system. So, Republicans are biased against an imaginary threat, while Democrats are biased against a very real, very powerful, and very active one, I guess?
4 Likes
Well, you would say that 
Which is essentially the same argument put forward by those trying to assert that voting against teaching Arabic numerals can be explained.
I mean you can fairly easily rewrite your statement as:
âCreation theoryâ âArabicâ scans very close to âcreationismâ âIslamicâ in my mind, which has long been a nightmare for those who support reality-based scientific education safety and freedom from terrorism in the US, and even if you do know did once learn about the Big Bang theory the origin of our numeral system, youâre very likely not going to know who first proposed it (I did not, or if I did, I had forgotten) to have forgotten it.
Iâd say their point is well made.
We all have our biases and we all fight hard to justify them.
1 Like
Solomon was known for his wisdom, but his mathematical skills are questionable
1 Kings 7:23
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
7 Likes
Iâm not saying the bias doesnât exist, but I am suggesting that perhaps Democrats have more reasonable, well-founded biases than Republicans. You can be afraid of someone because theyâre brown-skinned, or you can be afraid of them because theyâve made a point of repeatedly punching you in the throat during recess. One of these things is not necessarily like the other.
5 Likes
And Iâm saying that a knee-jerk reaction of âIâm afraid of this guy because I think he looks a bit like the guy who used to punch me back in schoolâ is just as prejudiced and unfounded, no matter how much we might like to dress it up as more reasonable than âThis guy looks a bit Arab-y. Iâm scared of him.â
ETA:
Let me put this way - in both cases, 2 seconds googling would change the answer.
2 seconds of googling would reveal what the question was about but not necessarily change the answer. Whether the person then said, âOh, what a fool Iâve beenâ or whether they said, âWell, I was right, we really shouldnât teach that,â would be another interesting thing to study.
Also, only a few very extremely political or egotistical people wouldnât accept that Arabic numerals were fine for schools. On the big bang question, however, a couple of seconds of googling from some of the people who say âYesâ would change their answer to âNoâ.
(Plus in each question we should probably assume 1%-ish of the âwrongâ answer were people who knew full well what they were saying and were just having fun)
1 Like
True.
I am assuming that someone voting ânoâ to the catholic priest question because it sounds like âcreationismâ would vote yes once they find out itâs the Big Bang theory instead and likewise that someone voting ânoâ on the arabic numerals one would vote âyesâ when they know itâs our normal numerals.
Although I suppose in both cases, you could have rabid homeschoolers whoâd vote ânoâ on both questions because they think schools shouldnât teach anything.
Thatâs certainly true but doesnât exactly invalidate my point. Knowledge still changes the answer.
If they voted yes just because it sounded like creationism (itâs so easy to misspell that as cretinism, isnât it), then that is equally as prejudiced as voting against it on that reason.
1 Like
Yeah, I didnât mean to invalidate your point. Just waxing about how weird people are and how hard it is to interpret surveys in general.
2 Likes
Fucking hell.
7 Likes
Hell is too good for these shits
7 Likes
Damn, every time I think this asshat cannot get any lower, he pulls out a frigginâ shovel.
8 Likes
Now, if it had been for a wallâŚ
6 Likes
