That doesn't seem comparable. The DNC and RNC were hacked by different actors.
My point was that this news is of the hack, and not of bombshell revelations from the emails themselves, which kind of indicates there's nothing there.
If you found the smoking gun, you would say "look I found a smoking gun!".
India's local authorities and government know about, enable and protect this activity.
Local Indian police stations routinely ignore reports on scam call centers, for instance.
I know people who work in retail outlets and banks and when older people come in to withdraw large amounts of cash, wire to suspicious accounts or buy thousands in gift cards even after specifically being told they're being scammed they'll insist on proceeding, even after a bank manager sit-down.
That quote is not at all what they said, it appears to have been invented out of thin air by PBS.
Capital One said the closures were a result of review "in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance". They did not state they were concerned about money laundering.
AML teams at banks are not limited to money laundering investigations, which PBS would've known if they did even the smallest amount of journalism.
In fact, Capital One explicitly stated they have never revealed the reason behind the closure -- mentioned in the same article.
This is significant because according to internal Capital One documents, along with 8 other banks, they explicitly have policies that deny banking access on the basis of lists that target lawful banking for political reasons. [1]
Another reason this report is garbage is that Capital One would've been obligated to file Suspicious Activity Reports if they suspected money laundering, which would've appeared in the FinCEN leaks. The Trump Organization and no Trump-affiliated were found in them. [2] The leaks included DB's SARs, who was a known Trump-affiliated bank.
Perhaps I should have linked to the Reuters version instead; it was covered widely:
"Capital One has never accused the Trump Organization of illegal money laundering. But Friday's filing argues that "documents and Plaintiffs’ own allegations make clear that Capital One closed Plaintiffs’ accounts for anti-money laundering (“AML”) reasons"
AVIF is a lifesaver for animation with separate transparency layers so the transparency can change position frame by frame. The only other alternative is WebM which has Safari limitations.
But the performance is so bad it isn't worth using. You're better off encoding a double height AV1 and mashing it together with WebGL https://jakearchibald.com/2024/video-with-transparency/. That's how bad the situation is.
Is there an advantage to this as a separate layer compared to just having an alpha channel baked into the image data itself? If not premultiplied then it would not affect the other channels either.
There's the commutations of habitual fraudsters and Ponzi scheme operators prison sentences, some of whom bragged about 'spending a lot of money on politics', for instance.
Specifically, Babubhai Patel and Gregory McKnight.
Why are they opposing the mere rhetoric and not the ideas themselves? You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.
> You either support free speech unreservedly, including for your political opposites, or you don't.
You've never heard statements such as "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
That is, you don't draw a real distinction between repeatedly, loudly, and publicly calling someone a cotton-headed slop-spouting pig to whom no one should pay any mind and actively working to ensure that said pig is prohibited from spouting its slop?
Every single country on earth participates in remigration, it is not ethnic cleansing by any stretch, given the amount of white people being deported from the US, Europe and other places all the time.
Europe has this absurdist political compass that calls any anti-immigration party "far-right", even when their official party platform is center-left or far-left in every single other respect (like Örebro's current platform of substantial expansions of social welfare program funding). Same is true in France, where you have a party with far-left socialist economics and anti-immigration sentiment that is bucketed as "far-right".
I'm confused. Can you point me to the specific policy of this party, or other mainstream "far-right" parties who have a remigration policy that specifically excludes the deportation of white people who were not born there?
ICE has deported thousands of white people under the current administration, for instance. Their removal operations are indiscriminate, not racial. Several white people (some from Canada, some from the UK, some from Ireland) have made headline news after getting picked up by ICE ERO.
You're confused that I accurately described the origins and meaning of the term "remigration"? It is not merely closing borders and deporting immigrants without legal permission to be there. Calling for remigration absolutely is calling for ethnic cleansing. They're not shy about it, except when trying to convince non-racists that it's actually completely reasonable, and will only happen to criminals, the "worst of the worst", and those who haven't assimilated.
The rest is a large pile of missing the point, and bringing up things I did not say.
I did not say any one was doing it. I said people were calling for it.
For the leaders of the Örebro Party in particular, Wikipedia suffices:
> In a podcast segment about second generation immigrants involved in organised crime Allard stated "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish. They have not been interested in becoming Swedish."
(I am aware that Sweden is _Jus sanguinis_; it is entirely possible that second generation immigrants don't have citizenship; that merely makes it legal. And he does not explicitly make even that limiting argument.)
Note too that ethnicity is narrower than skin color; the lumping together of all European-extraction is a contingent feature of history, and is weaker than you might think. Kicking out non-Swedes would ethnic-cleansing, and would be even if the people being kicked out were white.
Nor does also deporting people for non-ethnic reasons make the rest of a remigration program not ethnic-cleansing. It's not the goal, but it's no big loss to these nationalists, because they're authoritarian race-collectivists willing to cause harm to get those people out.
> Calling for remigration absolutely is calling for ethnic cleansing
Again, I ask for a specific remigration policy that excludes the remigration of white people in the country illegally. This is the prerequisite that would make it a policy based on ethnicity-based deportation.
If it's indiscriminate, it is indiscriminate and therefore not based on ethnic background. Seems to me their explicit policies, both written and in practice, are indiscriminate.
This comment is playing a rhetorical trick, because remigration movements keep calling for the deportation of ethnic minorities who aren't violating any laws or rules. Many even want to specifically revoke the citizenship of ethnic minorities - at which point they'd become "illegals", so in the context of your request it'd still be indiscriminate.
Yes, it should absolutely disqualify the OP.
Even if the RN wasn't called explicitly as I cannot find any French far-right labelled party with a socialist economics. None.
The main one is RN, François Asselineau is maybe the more "lefty compatible" far-right candidate, and he is clearly "right" labelled, not a lefty.
You either are just lying or are profoundly miss informed.
The budget they present on 6 of October is absolutely not social or even support a welfare state. The only thing "socialist-like" is retirement at 62yo, only for people starting to work at 20yo.
The vote at the national assembly state that they are right or far-right oriented.
Almost no European countries, and almost no countries in general for that matter, allow people visiting a country, or illegally being in that country, to give birth there and have that child automatically become a citizen.
In Sweden, a child born in Sweden to a visitor or illegal immigrant is NOT automatically a citizen.
You know where else that statement is true? Denmark, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Greece. Practically the entire world, actually.
All the aforementioned countries REQUIRE legal status of the parents before the child gets citizenship status, even when born there.
So when the administration 'attacks' birthright citizenship, they are proposing to bring the US in line with the majority of the world and the entirety of Europe.
Incredible - that would make me an illegal immigrant because my parents had me while they were here on student visas and we wouldn't have been able to build the lives we had for the past 40+ years! What a compassionate and humane system, how refreshing.
The level of naked ethnosupremacism embedded in European ideals and their constant barking at how the US is actually the most racist country is so very funny to me. If you rebuild the ship of fools plank by plank will it still dash itself against the reef?
Not taking a stand on either side, but your parent is correct. This isn't a European thing - but true in most countries.
And yes, things like race are a primary reason (for good or bad).
And yes, as my Spanish friend keeps pointing out: While the US has a large homicide rate, they can't beat the Europeans when it comes to pogroms, mass killings, etc every so many decades. Europe will be, well, Europe.
It wasn't "legal status". It was "subject to laws of the country" (i.e, excluding diplomats).
If the very constitution of the country classifies tourists as "not subject to the law of the US", that's some The Purge level popcorn. All visitors and illegal aliens would have had diplomatic immunity.
The US can amend the constitution. It has not. SCOTUS has no legal right to do it unilaterally.
I am a long time JetBrains subscriber to the all products pack. Their response to recent AI events has been extremely lackluster and I've given them this feedback directly, in feedback and otherwise.
I doubt I will remain a subscriber for the entirety of next year.
Let's look at their AI product, it suuuuucks. They released it, and it literally did not function. I purchased it, and it kept giving me licensing errors. Contacted support and they couldn't tell me anything. Okay, cool, cancel it and refund me. This is useless.
That was a while ago. Today, it still sucks. AI Chat is a bolted-on afterthought that looks like a hackathon project and functions like one. Isn't deeply embedded in the editors. Clunky. Slow. Ugly to look at. Doesn't integrate nicely with all the tools. No native AI plugins, you're forced into their garbage.
10yr+ All Products Pack subber as well, cancelled in August.
They really didn't do well with AI integration the past few years. When Cursor was all the rage, JetBrains was pushing their own service whose pricing wasn't transparent and just didn't hold up to SotA. I'd still agree that using Codex or Claude from CLI is a better user experience.
Yet, looks like their revenue is up. Wonder where they're investing.
It's amazing that it even costs extra. Basic functionality shouldn't cost an extra fee, period.
I'm paying hundreds of dollars to use the IDE. The least they could do is integrate well with other harnesses (like every other text editor in the world does).
Zuck spends billions on funding for left aligned causes while spending basically nothing on the reverse. He's a chameleon that merely takes the appearance of a centrist when need be. The money doesn't lie though.
Yes, yes it does. There's astroturfing of every variety: political, brands, image rehab, you name it.
Just look at how often Bill Gates gets glazing articles posted which receive suspicious rankings. None of the comments mention the Epstein-sized elephants in the room.
Politics is even worse, and it's useless as a platform for taking political temperature. Numerous companies openly admit to this activity and Reddit has never commented on this practice.
reddit is an echo chamber when it comes to most topics, and politics are probably the worst of all. Back in the Gamergate days it was all MRA types (throwback!); in 2016 it became 50% Bernie and 50% Trump; these days it's mostly mainstream liberal. I assume the actual political makeup of the user base hasn't changed that much in that time, but people who obsessively refresh and upvote/downvote posts based on their politics have an outsize impact on what comes to the top. I'm sure there's some impact from automated astroturfing, but humans drive it.
No serious person would ever suggest using it to take the "political temperature" of society at large. It's about as useful as Nextdoor for that.
> Back in the Gamergate days it was all MRA types (throwback!)
MRAs were a minority of a minority of users; even when the site was mostly white and Asian men talking about computer science, it was overwhelmingly liberal. There are far more who fit into the MRA category now but those have come about due to the cultural trend towards sexual doomerism among Gen Z men, who inherited it from millennial incels (most of whom fled the site around the time of Ellen Pao’s tenure). MRAs were mostly Gen X and elder millennials.
> I assume the actual political makeup of the user base hasn't changed that much in that time
Why? The site used to have a minority of right-leaning users (/r/conservative, /r/anarcho_capitalism, /r/DebateFascism, /r/TheDonald, /r/altright, /r/darkenlightenment, /r/politicalcompassmemes, etc.). All of these communities are completely marginal now; half of them were outright banned from the site. Reddit doesn’t have a positive reputation among people who are even moderately conservative because of how heavy-handed the moderation is. It has always had this reputation, but there was a brief time from around 2014 to around 2017 when conservatives could actually engage with parts of it in a way that they just don’t bother to do anymore.
reply