Do you remember when, for hours and days, CNN and other news sources refused to acknowledge the assassination attempt, saying that he was hit by something not directed at him?
No, I don't remember that. Maybe you should cite your source. I seem to remember every major news outlet labeling the event as an assassination attempt, some noted that the shooter mentioned Epstein on social media.
Maybe you weren't paying attention and didn't see the "Trump led away after loud noises at rally" crap. The headlines and Google searches eventually aligned with obvious reality but it took a couple of days. This information is not terribly easy to find for most people so I'll help you out: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/07/13/media-rea...
Yes, in fact I think it took a week. I was being generous. I assume the site is citing their own tweet to generate views and to make people aware of their Twitter presence. So what? The info is there as requested. You're welcome.
Yeah yeah they edit these headlines and articles in real time. Even Archive.org cannot keep up with news, and they do nothing for search results which is what I was talking about. By the way, the Internet Archive was mysteriously down for several weeks during election season after Trump's multiple assassination attempts, and I don't buy their story either.
>The info is not there. Misinformation, sure.
You only provided one CNN link, which was likely modified in real time. The memory hole is real.
The mainsteam denial went on for quite a while. They first questioned whether he was shot, then they questioned the obvious motive of the assassin with stupid crap like "It is unclear what the shooter's motive was, or if it was political." To be fair a high-ranking FBI official was muddying the water and the media is practically obligated to take that seriously ( https://nypost.com/2024/07/25/us-news/fbi-director-christoph... for example). But take your lame apologetics elsewhere. I saw this unfold in real time by the hour, as a case study in propaganda and gaslighting.
Edit: Your trolling is testing the rate limit. Here's your reply, jerk:
>Nope, the article headline was not modified in real time. But you don't care because you are only interested in information that confirms your delusion.
You are arguing with me about stuff I watched very carefully with my own eyes only a few months ago. Take your snotty attitude and gaslighting elsewhere. Do not reply to me again on anything political, ever.
Nope, the article headline was not modified in real time. But you don't care because you are only interested in information that confirms your delusion.
> refused to acknowledge the assassination attempt, saying that he was hit by something not directed at him?
That’s usually what happens when news orgs only report confirmed information, e.g. “Trump hit by projectile”. It feels misleading but it’s accurate at the time.
If you’re literally saying they were specifically stating he was hit by something “not directed at him” (as opposed to “not confirmed whether it was directed at him”) I’d be fascinated to see some examples.
Yeah, it's such a disgrace that people report on updates for software that's still being used and maintained. Linux is even worse about it. They should be writing articles about Multics and ITS instead.
> 2/3/4 will ultimately require large amounts of capital. If we can secure the funding, we have a real chance at setting the initial conditions under which AGI is born.
But isn't that part of the problem? Some of the brightest minds in the field's public statements are filtered by their need to lie in order to con the rich into funding their work. This leaves actual honest discussions of what's possible on what timelines to mostly be from people who aren't working directly in the field, which inclines towards people skeptical of it.
Most the people who could make an engineering prediction with any level of confidence or insight are locked up in businesses where doing so publicly would be disastrous to their funding, so we get fed hype that ends up falling flat again and again.
The opposite of this is also really interesting. Seemingly the people with money are happy to be fed these crazy predictions regardless of their accuracy. A charitable reading is they temper them and say “ok it’s worth X if it has a 5% chance of being correct” but the past 4 years have made that harder for me to believe.
To be honest, I think some of it is what you suggest - a gamble on long odds, but I think the bigger issue is just a carelessness that comes with having more money than you can ever effectively spend in your life if you tried. If you're so rich you could hand everyone you meet $100 and not notice, you have nothing in your life forcing you to care if you're making good decisions and not being conned.
It certainly doesn't help that so many of the people who are that rich got that rich by conning other people this exact way. It's an incestuous cycle of con-artists who think they're geniuses, and the media only slavishly supports that by treating them like they're such.
It's tied to interest rates. My main concern, frankly, is that those very low interest rates will not return soon and in the meantime the IT job market will be flooded with tons of candidates which will not be absorbed by the market. So at least at the lower end of the job pyramid things will be a bloodbath, which will probably also start pressuring towards the mid-levels. So overall the IT job market will start sucking and the glory days of the 2000s (except for 2000, 2001, 2008, 2009), 2010s and early 2020s will remain behind us.
That's the right title.
Do you remember when, for hours and days, CNN and other news sources refused to acknowledge the assassination attempt, saying that he was hit by something not directed at him?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-bullet-shrapnel-ronny-jacks...
reply