Sounds like it wasn’t really illegal (just a mapping / drone thing), as well as the behavior they were looking into wasn’t something that was for-certain illegal (just trading cash for crypto, which is I guess “illegal adjacent” but not in itself illegal). IDK. The story as it was told was a little confusing / didn’t completely make sense to me on the face of it as the complete story.

Well… the part they quoted is a little misleading.

The two situations they talked about at least on the face of it were:

1. An undercover agent was in contact with someone, and sent them a link to something in the expectation they’d click it and then that undercover agent could track down what was the IP/identity of the person who clicked the link. Pretty standard stuff. The only weird part is that it was a stock Youtube link and they asked Google to be involved to give them identifying information after (and that for whatever reason there were 30,000 people who watched the video and they asked for the info about all 30,000).
2. Law enforcement got a bomb threat, then they learned that there had been a livestream of them while they were looking for the bomb. That doesn’t automatically mean anything about the person who was livestreaming (maybe they just saw something exciting happening?), but wanting to talk with that person makes 100% sense to me.

So, to me both of those seem pretty reasonable. But of course the on-the-face-of-it explanation for #1 doesn’t completely make sense for a couple of different reasons. But I wouldn’t automatically class either of these as abuse by law enforcement without knowing more.

The article actually goes into some pretty extensive statistics showing that wages for poor people are growing faster than inflation.

It may not be obvious to a lot of Lemmy users, because wages for top earners (esp in the tech sector) are actually dropping slightly. But there’s significant growth at the low end and that’s super unusual (especially during post-Covid supply chain and business-greed inflation like we’re experiencing now). It doesn’t say a word about the stock market that I remember.

The title is definitely clickbaity but the science is real as far as I can tell.

This reminds me though: I knew a woman with mental health issues who was convinced that people around her were constantly making faces at her. The article says this specific thing is very very rare, and more neurological than psychological when it happens, but still I wonder a little bit. 😕

It seems like bad precedent for a judge to sue a participant in the trial for what they’re saying about the trial.

He could hold Trump in contempt, but I think he doesn’t see the reason to bother with it, since he’s already engaged in fucking Trump’s world up pretty significantly.

Plus, if he did sue for libel, how would he ever get paid? It’s like a never ending cycle.

I want to try an experiment

Can you summarize my argument back to me? Like what I was saying and what sources I drew on to support it and how? There was one central thesis, and I supported that thesis from one of my sources and from both of yours. I’m gonna give you from 1-5 stars depending on how accurately you describe it. You don’t have to agree with it or how I justified it, just show that you understood what I was saying.

No you tried some bullshit article with bad data. I showed you the charts they should have used.

Not sure who you’re trying to fool here; I think it’s pretty much just you and me at this point. You know (or you should) that the numbers I sent you were from your own sources (OECD and the St. Louis Fed respectively). You can accept or not the explanation I gave for why I chose different charts in those sources… but just moving the goalposts around instead of addressing it head-on when that happens doesn’t leave me with a real good impression of your goal in the overall conversation.

All the data we’ve seen actually paints a pretty consistent picture of a single coherent world; there aren’t, like, big contradictions between different sources. It’s just how any given person chooses to interpret the information.

The deal here is I do not have the time, mental power, or inclination, to teach you statistics in economics on a forum.

🙂

Buddy

Only other thing I’ll add is:

Wake me up when Biden comes out and says we need (checks inflation calculator) a $12.37 minimum wage.

January 2022 along with an executive order putting it into practice for all federal workers.

You said that wages had gone down because of inflation from previous years

Then when we looked at that, and determined it wasn’t true, you said average doesn’t count and we need to look at the median

Then when we broke it down into percentiles and showed that the median income was steady and income compared with inflation was going up at the bottom end of the pay scale, you started saying it needed to be by household instead of by individual

The average low-income person is now making more than they used to. They can buy more at the grocery store than they could even pre-Covid. To me, that is economic progress.

I think when you’re 0 for 3, you don’t get to keep the goalposts that you’ve now moved to the 4th location based on whatever logic you’re using to justify income going up only matters if it’s per household. You can think what you like about it though.

What the FUCK

There’s a lot of useful nuance in that Guardian article; it’s not exactly that simple

But also:

The Israeli prime minister said … “I told him that I hope we would do [Rafah] with US support but if necessary – we will do it alone.”

Promise? Because that sounds like a good step.

The US upholding its nominal commitment to international justice and hauling the appropriate leaders to The Hague sounds better, but Israel doing it alone if atrocity is this big a core value for them sounds like, at least, a step in the right direction.

I ran across this yesterday in a book I was reading. From spring 1940:

“Sentiment for going to war with Germany has increased since the Nazi invasion,” Dr. George Gallup, the nation’s best-known pollster, wrote while British warships were still ferrying retreating Allied troops off the Continent, “but the increase has been less than four percent. A nation-wide survey just completed finds the country still more than 13 to 1 against American entrance into the conflict.”

You’re getting hate but you’re absolutely right

I love the left and I don’t want Trump to put us all in concentration camps more than anyone else does. But even that being the case, I’ve been yelled at much more by people on the left for having an “incorrect” opinion than I have from the right.

• The right will disingenuously repeat talking points and groupthink
• The left will very sincerely repeat talking points and groupthink, and then call you a racist asshole and get insanely mad at you for daring to question.

actually not on either corporate party’s side

Did you know that Biden’s corporate tax reforms at the beginning of 2023, meant that Amazon went from getting a $1.2 billion tax credit to again paying a billion dollars per quarter? And that it’s now up to $3 billion per quarter, comfortably more than they’ve ever had to pay before? And that he’s using those corporate tax increases to fund his big-ticket priorities like student loan forgiveness?

Me neither. I didn’t know that shit at all, until a few days ago, when I was arguing with someone like you who was saying how much Biden loves the corporations.

Lmao

I have no reason whatsoever to disagree with this, but somehow I just can’t believe it will actually happen this way. I just don’t believe it.

I guess my thinking is that, reduced to fundamentals, DWAC is a vehicle for funneling money to Trump either from rubes or from money laundering. And I feel like both of those wells have been sucked on so thoroughly at this point that there can’t possibly be 3.5 BILLION dollars sitting untapped in either of them.

But time will tell. Like I say I have no factual disagreement with any of the individual elements.

a father and son aged 74 and 40

wtf

Fuck’s sake not this again

I’ll just post a link to some factual debunking from yesterday of this little Goebbels-presentation. As happens every time, you weren’t able to say any of it wasn’t accurate, and abandoned the conversation when it got too much into boring “this is what happened and what didn’t happen” land.

You are welcome to join the conversation here then. We looked at quite a bit of data and I think I did a pretty good job at defending the idea that the poor are, in fact, getting substantially better-off over time under Biden even under pretty challenging economic conditions. My interlocutor, for whatever reason, refused at every turn to just say “oh okay the data seem to agree with you,” and kept throwing stuff at the wall until he eventually claimed that it didn’t actually matter if a typical person was better off or not, at which point I decided we didn’t need to talk anymore. But if you want to pick that up and have a data-based disagreement with any of it, we can rap.

And yeah I was a little bit of a dick about it. I apologize (for real). I’ve been speaking with people who haven’t been real reasonable, and it’s made me rude when talking about it, but if you wanna have a polite factually-based discussion I’m up for that. If you plan to ignore all of that detailed sourcing and analysis and just make again the absolutely unjustified claim that I or the OP article are looking for some reason at the fucking stock market, then I’m going to be rude to you. Up to you though; I’m happy being reasonable if we’re being reasonable.

Trump definitely knows the word. He used it in reference to NATO recently.

Why he know the word so familiarly when it is indeed a little above his usual reading level is left as an exercise for the reader. That’s why I think it would get under his skin so, so thoroughly; he’s heard it before and it speaks to the little part of his brain that likes to whisper things to him about himself that he cannot bear to hear said.

“Delinquent Don” was right there though

Or “Deadbeat Don”

Biden’s mean-nickname game is bullshit

It doesn’t matter if one person’s income goes up

…

I’m comfortable ending the conversation here