War Room Lounge v72: Nope

What are the chances we've been visited by intelligent space aliens?


  • Total voters
    43
Status
Not open for further replies.
Parks and Rec is a weird show to me in that I can't watch like whole episodes of it, but watch like "X-character best moments" I could watch all day

Yeah, I'm similar. I liked it for a while, but it has zero replay value for me. Less than any remotely good sitcom.

There's some really funny writing and great one-liners, but I can't stand any of the characters continually and there is not much in the way of long-play/referential humor or callback jokes. All of the jokes are explicit and stated loudly. There isn't the nuance, subtlety, or layers that you get in The Office, which had some of the same creators but which has endured much better than Parks.
 
Hmm, I don't know man. I'm not sure who to agree with on this.

Zuckerberg is more in the right than Warren is from what I can tell. Warren has been really reckless and un-exacting when talking about these antitrust issues, and she clearly singled out Facebook for the political waves it would cause, not because it was uniquely in need of breaking up. In reality, I haven't seen a compelling argument, let alone one by Warren, that Facebook needs to broken up and along what lines it might be so divided since almost all of its assets are adjacent to its central social media product.

Meanwhile, for other non-social media media conglomerates, division seems more readily practicable. Amazon and Google have both sprawled well outside their initial wheelhouse: Amazon has horizontally integrated in many areas and Google is pretty much everywhere in tech.

Cory Booker got a lot of flack for his "non-answer" on whether he would seek to break up Facebook, but his answer was correct: that all of these cases need to be handled pursuant to a consistent formula. If Warren (or Trump) wants to go after one on the basis of its notoriety, then Zuckerberg absolutely should sue.

@Jack V Savage @Gandhi What are your thoughts? I'm sure you two are somewhat knowledgeable on antitrust policy, but IDK who here knows shit about tech. Maybe @Madmick
 
Zuckerberg is more in the right than Warren is from what I can tell. Warren has been really reckless and un-exacting when talking about these antitrust issues, and she clearly singled out Facebook for the political waves it would cause, not because it was uniquely in need of breaking up. In reality, I haven't seen a compelling argument, let alone one by Warren, that Facebook needs to broken up and along what lines it might be so divided since almost all of its assets are adjacent to its central social media product.

Meanwhile, for other non-social media media conglomerates, division seems more readily practicable. Amazon and Google have both sprawled well outside their initial wheelhouse: Amazon has horizontally integrated in many areas and Google is pretty much everywhere in tech.

Cory Booker got a lot of flack for his "non-answer" on whether he would seek to break up Facebook, but his answer was correct: that all of these cases need to be handled pursuant to a consistent formula. If Warren (or Trump) wants to go after one on the basis of its notoriety, then Zuckerberg absolutely should sue.

@Jack V Savage @Gandhi What are your thoughts? I'm sure you two are somewhat knowledgeable on antitrust policy, but IDK who here knows shit about tech. Maybe @Madmick
I have a ton of friends in the Seattle area that work for Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Nintendo or Microsoft either directly for the company or as sub contractors.

To a person, they have all said Facebook is the most cult like to work for.
 
Zuckerberg is more in the right than Warren is from what I can tell. Warren has been really reckless and un-exacting when talking about these antitrust issues, and she clearly singled out Facebook for the political waves it would cause, not because it was uniquely in need of breaking up. In reality, I haven't seen a compelling argument, let alone one by Warren, that Facebook needs to broken up and along what lines it might be so divided since almost all of its assets are adjacent to its central social media product.

Meanwhile, for other non-social media media conglomerates, division seems more readily practicable. Amazon and Google have both sprawled well outside their initial wheelhouse: Amazon has horizontally integrated in many areas and Google is pretty much everywhere in tech.

Cory Booker got a lot of flack for his "non-answer" on whether he would seek to break up Facebook, but his answer was correct: that all of these cases need to be handled pursuant to a consistent formula. If Warren (or Trump) wants to go after one on the basis of its notoriety, then Zuckerberg absolutely should sue.

@Jack V Savage @Gandhi What are your thoughts? I'm sure you two are somewhat knowledgeable on antitrust policy, but IDK who here knows shit about tech. Maybe @Madmick

Interesting. I'd definitely like to read up more about these positions. I understand it too vaguely to where I feel I can't really take a side on it. I see the pros and cons for both, but I guess I'd lean towards Zucks position a bit.
 
I have a ton of friends in the Seattle area that work for Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Nintendo or Microsoft either directly for the company or as sub contractors.

To a person, they have all said Facebook is the most cult like to work for.

Well, I don't know anything about that, and I don't know anyone in tech, but cult-iness isn't really relevant to whether they should be busted up. If it was, then CrossFit and Jimmy John's would be on the chopping block.
 
I have a ton of friends in the Seattle area that work for Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Nintendo or Microsoft either directly for the company or as sub contractors.

To a person, they have all said Facebook is the most cult like to work for.

I've heard they suck to work for because they use Facebook as their collaboration tool ("Workplace").
Can you imagine workflow determined by status updates and likes?
 
It's one of those things where it was either catastrophically shitty or just shitty. Absolutely no cheering "fuck yeah" feelings like would have been the case if the Kelly Thomas cops, Tamir Rice cops, or that cop that killed the Arizona dude in the hotel had been found guilty. Those guys were predatorily breaking police protocol to murder innocent people in the line of duty.

So it feels hollow, I guess.

Yeah, I had been afraid she would get off on it just being a tragic accident, and then the city would have justifiably rioted. So I'm glad and thankful that was avoided.
 
I don't think I will.

Btw, how big of a deal is Schitt's Creek in Canada? I fucking love it. Eugene Levy is always good, but his son and the actress that plays his daughter are great.



Not big but it should be
 
@Jack V Savage @kpt018 This is a Trump tweet from this morning and its top comment (by another one of these professional conservative social media influences, i.e. straight up liars)


 
Not big but it should be

It's kinda big though, isn't it? I think it actually might have a bigger following in the US though.

That said, I really only see ratings for shows that are reported on for the most popular, or 2nd most popular in Canada. TPB and CG, are the only ones I know of that had a big following in Canada. I think that "Kim's Convenience" might have a decent following too.
 
@Jack V Savage @kpt018 This is a Trump tweet from this morning and its top comment (by another one of these professional conservative social media influences, i.e. straight up liars)



That is disgusting. To no one's surprise Trump will sabotage long-term fiscal policy for short term boosts to help his election chances which are tied to the economy.

To my eye the fed is doing prudent work and is not folding to Trump's pressure which is why he's lashing out.
 
Federal Judge Rules In Favor Of Harvard In Admissions Case

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/01/7303...EV1697CQOBOwP2Nfofvp64pfrTSrA5N47QKWry2WXYqz8

A judge has ruled in favor of Harvard University in a high–profile court case centered on Harvard's consideration of race in admissions.

Federal District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued her decision Tuesday, saying, "Harvard's admission program passes constitutional muster," and that "ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race conscious admissions."

The plaintiff, advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), accused Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants. It argued the school considers race too much, forcing Asian-Americans to meet a higher bar to get in.

In a statement, SFFA President Edward Blum said, "Students for Fair Admissions is disappointed that the court has upheld Harvard's discriminatory admissions policies." He also said, "SFFA will appeal this decision to the First Court of Appeals and, if necessary, to the U.S Supreme Court."

Supporters of affirmative action fear that if this case makes it to the nation's highest court, race-conscious admissions could be eliminated.


"This has been kind of a beacon of civil rights policies in higher education that helped to transform student demographics, especially at elite institutions," said Mitchell Chang, an education professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Education law professor Liliana Garces co–authored an amicus brief supporting Harvard's admissions practices leading up to the trial.

"I think what this case represents is a very concerted effort to bring the question of race-conscious admissions back to the Supreme Court," said Garces, who teaches at the University of Texas at Austin.


SFFA, led by conservative strategist Edward Blum, sued Harvard back in 2014, alleging that the school discriminates against Asian–American applicants in the admissions process. The organization says Harvard uses "racial balancing" — which is illegal — to curate its student body and holds Asian–American students to a higher standard than others in the admissions process. (Blum was also behind a lawsuit against the University of Texas at Austin, challenging its affirmative action program. The Supreme Court sided with the University of Texas in 2016.)


Harvard denied the group's claims of discrimination, presenting its own evidence to the contrary during a three-week trial in fall 2018. Harvard said uses what it calls a "whole person review" in its admissions process, considering many qualities about each candidate. Testimony from Harvard representatives, including the admissions dean, provided a window into the school's normally mysterious admissions system.


Harvard only accepts a small percentage of its applicants, but most American colleges and universities accept a majority of those who apply. And while Harvard is among a large group of selective schools that consider race as one factor in admissions, most schools don't take race into account.
 
@Jack V Savage @kpt018 This is a Trump tweet from this morning and its top comment (by another one of these professional conservative social media influences, i.e. straight up liars)




If you hit a pure 180 reverse on that tweet, it would be incredibly accurate.
 
I'm not a progressive you dumb loaf of shit.

Heheh I once made a pro-conservative thread and one of the first replies was some jabroni accusing me of taking the liberal stance - even though I pretty clearly took the conservative side. Luckily some other jabronis came along and corrected that first jabroni.

I've been accused of being both as though the names themselves are suppose to be some kind of insult. Then again, someone once told me "go make some shoes" and they thought that was a pretty good insult, so we aren't exactly knocking on wits door around here.
 
@Jack V Savage @kpt018 This is a Trump tweet from this morning and its top comment (by another one of these professional conservative social media influences, i.e. straight up liars)




lmao @ her Twitter bio: "Christian, Conservative, Wife, mum. Retweeted & Followed By President Trump for 24 hours"

3a6befa7bc31a3188789236272b62c1f.gif
 
If you hit a pure 180 reverse on that tweet, it would be incredibly accurate.

"As I didn't think would happen, Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve have allowed the Dollar to get so weak, but not relative to any other currencies, that our manufacturers are being positively affected. Fed Rate too low. They are their own best friends, they have many clues. Splendid!"

That?

Heheh I once made a pro-conservative thread and one of the first replies was some jabroni accusing me of taking the liberal stance - even though I pretty clearly took the conservative side. Luckily some other jabronis came along and corrected that first jabroni.

I've been accused of being both as though the names themselves are suppose to be some kind of insult. Then again, someone once told me "go make some shoes" and they thought that was a pretty good insult, so we aren't exactly knocking on wits door around here.

tenor.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top