Author Topic: Zucker admits... Something?  (Read 19826 times)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2016, 01:42:40 PM »
Of those 3, only Putin doesn't claim U.S. Citizenship and is ineligible to vote.
So is citizenship a license for duplicity?

Of the three, only Putin manifests no intent to take over our whole country, only to prevent the election of those who have a history of supporting aggression against his country and allies. See the Kosovo war.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2016, 04:25:52 PM »
It think that turnabout is fair play when it comes to election influence. Its not like the US hasn't done our fair share of that. You think we didn't impact the Iraqi elections?

If fake news is propaganda, it is largely unsubtle. It is our own fault for not encouraging critical thinking that so many people fall for it. Our government won't do anything about that, or people might start disbelieving our native propaganda.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #52 on: November 27, 2016, 04:40:47 PM »
What were some of the Russian lies that influenced the election?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #53 on: November 27, 2016, 04:51:43 PM »
In other words, you think the alleged Russian intrusion into the election process had no effect?

Quote
Ha. Next [you'll] be telling us that Bernie Sanders was a Russian agent.
Not even sure what this is supposed to mean or why you think an insult is deserved.

Look at what I was responding to:

" preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers."

The only place I heard that allegation was from Sanders speaking directly to Clinton in debate, referencing her refusal to share her speech to a banker's group.  Since you attribute a Sanders statement as a Russian lie, I asked you, tongue in cheek, if you thought Sanders was a Russian agent. I don't think you actually believe that. I assume you are repeating what you read somewhere else, like Kos, or like HuffPo since it went psycho post election.  Note I have done the same here, repeated something I had heard here, just to be corrected.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #54 on: November 27, 2016, 04:56:29 PM »
It think that turnabout is fair play when it comes to election influence. Its not like the US hasn't done our fair share of that. You think we didn't impact the Iraqi elections?

If fake news is propaganda, it is largely unsubtle. It is our own fault for not encouraging critical thinking that so many people fall for it. Our government won't do anything about that, or people might start disbelieving our native propaganda.

(Doing my best impression of Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady)
"Why can't the 'Merikins teach their children how to think?"

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #55 on: November 28, 2016, 02:29:35 AM »
My understanding was that the Russian influence was less due to lies and more to do with posting actual truthful information that was obtained illegally through hacking, and that's even worse in many ways because sometimes in cases like this nothing hurts worse than the truth.

As far as lies goes, one big one the media put out there was by a lady who pushed the accusation that Trump raped her when she was only thirteen.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

"Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016."

If you want to talk about lies that were pushed to influence an election that's got to be one of the biggest.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #56 on: November 28, 2016, 06:29:09 AM »
Quote
My understanding was that the Russian influence was less due to lies and more to do with posting actual truthful information that was obtained illegally through hacking, and that's even worse in many ways because sometimes in cases like this nothing hurts worse than the truth.
What about the stories about her failing health? Not to mention the emails that were edited and snipped out of context.

Quote
If you want to talk about lies that were pushed to influence an election that's got to be one of the biggest.
How do you know? She cancelled her press conference because she said she received death threats.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #57 on: November 28, 2016, 06:40:38 AM »
How do you know? She cancelled her press conference because she said she received death threats.

From whom, and how? IIRC, she's remained anonymous throughout all of this, as per victim protection laws, in particular where minors are concerned. For someone to threaten her, they'd first have to know who she is.

Edit: And at least with her filing in California, evidently the courts couldn't even figure out who/where she is, as they dismissed the case when the address on file for her turned out to be a foreclosed home that had been vacant for years. Obviously, that flaw was "fixed" in the New York filing.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 06:49:42 AM by TheDeamon »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #58 on: November 28, 2016, 06:46:30 AM »
Nobody knows (publicly,  anyway).  Does that mean it's not true?  We live in interesting times when we're told all sorts of intimate things about people. We often don't really care, but we want to see the details anyway. Maybe we'd be more willing to believe her if she posted a naked selfie.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #59 on: November 28, 2016, 08:04:23 AM »
It doesn't prove conclusively that the allegation and story of death threats is a lie, but it is sufficient evidence that any reasonable person should believe so, absent other information. this accusation was clearly politically managed.

The timing of the filing, reviling, and withdrawal, the bad address, etc, suggests that this was managed in consultation with at least one attorney and one PR specialist.

I am more than a little disgusted with Funean who vehemently insisted this was a credible charge obligated me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

This is way less credible than, say, Paula Jones or Juanita Broderick.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 08:08:00 AM by Pete at Home »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #60 on: November 28, 2016, 08:18:24 AM »
Funean?  The name conjures memories, but I haven't seen posts under that name in a very long time.

I agree that it's a thin claim, but lacking hard(er) evidence doesn't make it less credible, only less verifiable.  I don't know if it's true or not, but the way the story sputtered out didn't enhance the likelihood that it was true.  However, this story had more coverage in the past, and we know the name of the victim, Katie Johnson.  Trump's vehement denials don't count for anything, given his history of lying about provable facts and threatening his accusers of reprisals.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #61 on: November 28, 2016, 08:25:29 AM »
Quote
What about the stories about her failing health?

She's got you there, Cherry. Although she offers you a vacuous rebuttal to that point by her next "how do you know."

Kasandra, if Cherry asked you how you "know" that the failing health allegation isn't true, would you recognize that it's a vicious gossip-enabling response?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #62 on: November 28, 2016, 08:32:06 AM »
Funean?  The name conjures memories, but I haven't seen posts under that name in a very long time.

I agree that it's a thin claim, but lacking hard(er) evidence doesn't make it less credible, only less verifiable.  I don't know if it's true or not, but the way the story sputtered out didn't enhance the likelihood that it was true.  However, this story had more coverage in the past, and we know the name of the victim, Katie Johnson.  .

OK, you're probablyy not Kmb. No, we don't "know" that there is a "victim", or if there is, that it's female or that his/her name is "Katie Johnson." Today that we "know",such things is non prose cut able treason against the bill of rights.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #63 on: November 28, 2016, 08:32:35 AM »
My first thought would be that it came from Cherry, and I wouldn't worry about it too much after that.  He has shown a remarkable appetite for believing anything and everything that falls in line with his views.  Being critical is not the same as being a critical thinker.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #64 on: November 28, 2016, 08:35:15 AM »
My first thought would be that it came from Cherry, and I wouldn't worry about it too much after that.  He has shown a remarkable appetite for believing anything and everything that falls in line with his views.  Being critical is not the same as being a critical thinker.

Ha. Now you sound like g5. Obviously the style detecting part of my brain was damaged in my last alcohol relapse 3 years ago.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #65 on: November 28, 2016, 08:43:44 AM »
"g5", another almost forgotten handle.  At one time I wondered if Cherry and G might be the same person, but that was more because distant objects are hard to discern rather than because they sounded the same.  There's no need to guess who I might have been once upon a time.  I am who I am, Kasandra, and I predict things will get worse before they get better.

"Katie Johnson" turns out to be a nom de lex, so I was mistaken to claim it was her real identity.  There are other reasons to doubt her story, which has changed over time, but to dismiss it outright seems a little too facile.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 08:47:47 AM by Kasandra »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #66 on: November 28, 2016, 08:54:43 AM »
Quote
I agree that it's a thin claim, but lacking hard(er) evidence doesn't make it less credible, only less verifiable.

Non responsive. Move to strike.

True that the thinness of evidence by itself does not make it less credible, but the thinness of evidence in conjunction with a pattern of misfiling and misfiling that matches an expert-managed abuse of the judicial process loopholes to manipulate an election with impunity -- THAT definitely makes the complaint less credible.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #67 on: November 28, 2016, 08:58:25 AM »
"I predict things will get worse before they get better."

I predict that the planet will continue to rotate, causing the appearance of sunrise and sunset.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #68 on: November 28, 2016, 09:04:26 AM »
"I predict things will get worse before they get better."

I predict that the planet will continue to rotate, causing the appearance of sunrise and sunset.

I predict that the average surface temperature will continue to rise, and fall, with a mean trend of increasing over the next couple billion years, until the planet is ultimately burned to a cinder by the sun. :)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #69 on: November 28, 2016, 09:08:28 AM »
Quote
There's no need to guess who I might have been

Question not the need of the man who fell to earth to imagine he sees a faint flicker of X ray

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #70 on: November 28, 2016, 09:26:24 AM »
"I predict things will get worse before they get better."

I predict that the planet will continue to rotate, causing the appearance of sunrise and sunset.
It's good that you qualified that statement, since it's the earth's rotation that makes it seem so.  I've wondered why we don't assume the moon is flat, since it always appears to show the same side.  I would have to believe in science to doubt my hypothesis, which I no longer have to do in this post-truth age.  Betsy DeVos will make sure more of our children follow that instinct.  In fact, I've seen pictures of the moon hanging on walls that look the same as the object that is nailed to the sky.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #71 on: November 28, 2016, 09:32:37 AM »
"Katie Johnson" turns out to be a nom de lex, so I was mistaken to claim it was her real identity.  There are other reasons to doubt her story, which has changed over time, but to dismiss it outright seems a little too facile.

Her claims about American Catholicism were also a little suspicious, although perhaps those were meant in earnest.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #72 on: November 28, 2016, 09:44:24 AM »
"I predict things will get worse before they get better."

I predict that the planet will continue to rotate, causing the appearance of sunrise and sunset.
It's good that you qualified that statement, since it's the earth's rotation that makes it seem so.  I've wondered why we don't assume the moon is flat, since it always appears to show the same side.
[/quote]

Good thing indeed that I so qualified, otherwise my idle statement on an dispopulated discussion board could have resulted in Copernicus-knows what sort of interplanetary collision.
Quote
[quote,] I would have to believe in science to doubt my hypothesis, which I no longer have to do in this post-truth age.  Betsy DeVos will make sure more of our children follow that instinct.  In fact, I've seen pictures of the moon hanging on walls that look the same as the object that is nailed to the sky.

What never ceases to amaze me are the number of otherwise intelligent people who are startled to "discover," in adulthood, presumably after years on Plant Earth, that the moon does not only appear when the sun is down.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 09:51:19 AM by Pete at Home »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #73 on: November 28, 2016, 11:32:27 AM »
When I was a wee sprout full of pistil and stamen I learned that language is imprecise and often used to weave rather than explain.  Numbers lack the charm of words, but can be rounded or truncated by everyone the same way and still do not lie.  Science is reliable because it can prove things and yet still be challenged.  The crux of the problem in today's world where the distrust of numbers, facts and science is the new reality is that although we know that the moon is not flat, how do I know? 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #74 on: November 28, 2016, 11:40:55 AM »
Numbers can be communicates without language as a conveyor? That's news to me. What you should really ask is: what is the origin of predicate calculus?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #75 on: November 28, 2016, 12:17:10 PM »
Science is hardly reliable because it is well over-wrought when applied to so many fields like psychology, economics, and other disciplines that lack repeatable and empirical study.

Even hard science distrusts itself, when done properly. Otherwise we'd still be mucking about with Einstein's cosmological constant or discussing how everything is made from four elements.

One of the biggest "reject science" issues suffers from softy-science. You can't build a second earth and pump it full of extra hydrocarbons. You can't have a control earth with no people on it. Predictive models used in cosmology fail because climate is a highly chaotic system, detailed long time scale data is not readily available, and computer modeling has to be done by making certain subjective judgements.

This "kinda sorta" science weakens trust in other science. The distrust of facts stems from the number of people who pull things out of context, especially statistically about policy issues. Politicians regularly talk about "cuts" to programs that are really just smaller increases than planned.

Then the Cubs win the World Series, and how can you depend on anything you know to be true? Bizarro!


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #76 on: November 28, 2016, 12:25:13 PM »
Even hard science distrusts itself, when done properly. Otherwise we'd still be mucking about with Einstein's cosmological constant or discussing how everything is made from four elements.

Just a nitpick, but Einstein's constant was by no means an unreasonable suggestion given the data available at the time. It has since been replaced with another constant that fits with the new data. Not much difference there.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #77 on: November 28, 2016, 12:40:22 PM »
Just a nitpick, but Einstein's constant was by no means an unreasonable suggestion given the data available at the time. It has since been replaced with another constant that fits with the new data. Not much difference there.

Well, he fudged it based on his "belief" that the universe was not expanding, despite lots of colleagues suggesting differently. The finger on the scale effect, is precisely why double-blind studies are often used in repeatable hard science to prevent inadvertent fudging. When sifting theoretical or historical data, this type of objectivity is not possible.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #78 on: November 28, 2016, 12:42:48 PM »
Numbers can be communicates without language as a conveyor? That's news to me. What you should really ask is: what is the origin of predicate calculus?
Huh?  'splain me the answers.  2+2=5 is not language, it's notation.  In what language is that a true statement?  AFAIK, the origin of predicate calculus is the FSM or equivalent, else if there isn't one, it just is.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #79 on: November 28, 2016, 12:46:17 PM »
Well, he fudged it based on his "belief" that the universe was not expanding, despite lots of colleagues suggesting differently. The finger on the scale effect, is precisely why double-blind studies are often used in repeatable hard science to prevent inadvertent fudging. When sifting theoretical or historical data, this type of objectivity is not possible.

They may have suggested it, but it wasn't yet known as hard fact as far as I've read. That being said, his cosmological constant has been replaced by another one necessitated by an expanding universe, which means the fudging isn't something unique to him but rather endemic in even the hard sciences when the popular model of the universe doesn't match observation. In other words, even in this field 'language', i.e. the human brain's interpretation of things, plays a prominent role in the work of all the sciences. Kasandra's implication that we can somehow surpass language to find truer expression in science and numbers sounds like a whitewashing fantasy to me. Just as in physics we cannot exceed the limits of our instruments, so it is too with the limits of the human instrument itself.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #80 on: November 28, 2016, 12:52:50 PM »
Numbers can be communicates without language as a conveyor? That's news to me. What you should really ask is: what is the origin of predicate calculus?
Huh?  'splain me the answers.  2+2=5 is not language, it's notation.  In what language is that a true statement?  AFAIK, the origin of predicate calculus is the FSM or equivalent, else if there isn't one, it just is.

From whence comes the predicate calculus that serves as the basis for the axioms in number theory? How are the symbols in that calculus defined? If you haven't studied this I'll hint at the answer: in language and common sense understanding, and no more. Any science we employ is no better or worse than the effectiveness of our brains and what we think of as common sense. The potential limits of that system can be explored through epistemology, and it would at any rate be a very strong claim that we can create trees of knowledge that exceed the limitations of our linguistic understanding of basic concepts.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #81 on: November 28, 2016, 03:18:16 PM »
Pure mathematics is all fine and good. Once you start to express physical things, it starts to go strange.

Mathematically describe a lemon, and it will still be tart. But you will be hard pressed to convey the experience of tartness in math. Even choosing which objective properties to quantify starts to become problematic. Which lemon is greater than the other, the one with more surface area? The one with a greater weight? The one with more moisture? The one that is darker in color?

Which economy is better, the one that grows faster over a long time? The one that is less volatile? The one with the least variation in citizen income?

2+2 can equal 4, but what are you going to do about it? And if it did get written as 5 by mistake does it matter? Not if you are taking inventory on ballpoint pens.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #82 on: November 28, 2016, 03:31:44 PM »
When I was a wee sprout full of pistil and stamen I learned that

Bahaha.  OK, I had assumed you were from the old board signing up here for the first time. Never mind. Carry on.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #83 on: November 28, 2016, 04:25:11 PM »
Quote
2+2 can equal 4,
"can"?  I would argue that you don't do math with common language (and common sense, else you'd be counting fairies on toadstools and have no time for anything else). Human language can describe mathematical issues (connotative), but isn't the formal notation used to express it (denotative).  I've already said that 2+2=5, and I'm working on an explanation for why (-1)^.5 is imaginary.  Perhaps it's a fairy.  Prove me wrong.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #84 on: November 28, 2016, 04:33:54 PM »
Human language can describe mathematical issues (connotative), but isn't the formal notation used to express it (denotative).

You don't seem to understand that formal notation is just shorthand for standard human thoughts, expressed through language and formulated through axioms. Axioms don't come from anywhere other than normal common sense language.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #85 on: November 28, 2016, 04:37:49 PM »
i (or j, if you're an electrical engineer) is not really a number at all. Why they chose to call it such is dull. It might have been called a fairy, except for the fact that "f" was already fairly busy, equation wise. Euler can go suck on a fig. It is merely a shorthand that makes some equations easier to manipulate, especially describing the frequency of cyclical "real" numbers and the delight of trigonometry for its own sake.

One might well ask whether pi exists, and if it does, what flavor is it? You go down that round and you ultimately slide into Descartes who ultimately had to take all of reality on faith.


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #86 on: November 28, 2016, 05:19:44 PM »
Quote
2+2 can equal 4,
"can"?  I would argue that you don't do math with common language (and common sense, else you'd be counting fairies on toadstools and have no time for anything else). Human language can describe mathematical issues (connotative), but isn't the formal notation used to express it (denotative).  I've already said that 2+2=5, and I'm working on an explanation for why (-1)^.5 is imaginary.  Perhaps it's a fairy.  Prove me wrong.

2+2 can equal 10 in base 4, or 11 in base 3.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #87 on: November 28, 2016, 05:41:38 PM »
2+2 can equal 10 in base 4, or 11 in base 3.

Base 3?!?!! *shudder*

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #88 on: November 28, 2016, 05:55:20 PM »
Quote
One might well ask whether pi exists, and if it does, what flavor is it? You go down that round and you ultimately slide into Descartes who ultimately had to take all of reality on faith.
Cherry. Cogito, ergo rectum. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #89 on: November 28, 2016, 10:12:00 PM »
2+2 can equal 10 in base 4, or 11 in base 3.

Base 3?!?!! *shudder*

No <3 for trinary around here I guess.  8)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #90 on: November 29, 2016, 08:30:59 AM »
01001100 01101111 00101100 00100000 01100011 01100001 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100001 01100011 01100011 01100101 01110000 01110100 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01010100 01110111 01101111 00101110 00100000 01001111 01101110 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01001111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110000 01110101 01110010 01100101 00101110

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Zucker admits... Something?
« Reply #91 on: November 29, 2016, 09:28:29 AM »
I'll ask ye to be more clear and not so precise, if it please ye.