Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 600 posts

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#511

Post by cameldrv »

jessaustin wrote: post #473
cameldrv wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an allegation in the Steele dossier. What Nunes had alleged in the “Nunes Memo” was that the FBI mischaracterized the provenance of the Steele dossier in their FISA application to surveil Carter Page. At the time, the FISA application was classified and no one could see it. When it was declassified, it turned out that Nunes was lying. See https://vault.fbi.gov/d1-release/d1-release/view footnote at the botto…

So did they piss the bed or not?

Read the Steele report and Keith Schiller's testimony to congress and decide for yourself.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#512

Post by monk_e_boy »

naasking wrote: post #370
nradov wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the opposite impression. Bostrom is just making up nonsense, then dressing it with fancy words and big numbers to prevent people from calling out his bullshit. It's the opposite of clear. If you look a little deeper he has nothing meaningful to offer in any field.

Actually, the simulation argument is solid. One of the three possibilities Bostrom outlines absolutely must be true.

Well, Bostrom states that there will be more ideas in the future that may change the simulation theory. It's the latest most plausable theory.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#513

Post by soraminazuki »

asjw wrote: post #477
hos234 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two. Snowden is pointing out an issue. And he has done it with courage that I massively respect. You hardly see it these days. And that makes it anxiety and fear inducing, as the solutions are unknown. But think of it this way - tomorrow someone might hand you a diagnosi…

The difference here is that the oncologist doesn't just observe. The oncologist deals with the consequences of the observation: communicate with the patient, gives advices on treatments, makes a therapy plan, deals with families, answer to their questions, takes the hit when the relatives think that the solution is not good enough or an Indian shaman could cure everything with snake's poison. Snowden have done good,…

> Question the authority, suffer the consequences.

I’m pretty sure questioning the authority without fear of retaliation is what the first amendment is supposed to be about. But that aside, your phrasing is a bit misleading. Snowden didn’t question the government. He exposed illegal activities by the government.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#514

Post by user8373 »

Lendal wrote: post #386
xrd wrote: post #195

Snowden's book really speaks to me on so many levels. As a hacker, as a boy growing up in the new age of the Internet. As a person who experienced 9/11 and never aligned with the direction it took the USA. As a person who questions my identity and the messages I get about identity on a daily basis. He will be remembered for a long time because of the actions he took, but if he had not done anything else, his book wou…

I used to agree with this but now that I've seen where this path leads, I think he should be given a fair trial and judged. Our government and the security of 350M US citizens cannot be held at the whim of a single hacker, no matter how right he believed himself to be. Our Congress has 535 members for precisely this reason, the president answers to Congress and is not a king, and even the Chief Justice does not rule…

You almost made me believe the system is perfect. Unfortunately, it's not.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#516

Post by 0_gravitas »

agumonkey wrote: post #76
platz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you focus on the individual - and what of outcome, effect, and ends?

His logic and motives matters to me. It's true I don't know much about the effect, give me some clues about what it did change.

everyone now knows for a fact the gov is listening to everything whereas before it was just "assumed"

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#517

Post by gfdgsgaagrhstrs »

MrGLaDOS wrote: post #126
yodsanklai wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like Joe Rogan, and the format of its podcast. I don't know other medias where they let people speak for three hours. I was suspicious the first time I listened to him. I thought, can this beefy archetypical MMA dude say anything interesting? actually he can. He's at ease with all types of guests, he just seems to be an outspoken, honest guy. I agree that he tends to bring up his favorite topics all the time…

I am sure there are many others, but these three shows feature long-form interviews which feature interesting guests: The Ezra Klein Show - Ezra Klein Making sense podcast - Sam Harris 80000 hours podcast - Rob Wiblin [1] https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast [2] https://samharris.org/podcast/ [3] https://80000hours.org/podcast/

[dead]

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#518

Post by gfdgsgaagrhstrs »

z3ncyberpunk wrote: post #343
resters wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what it was. The guy was venting about how irritating he finds trans people.

Uh thats exactly what it was about... For 20 minutes Mr flamboyant Adam tried to spout bullshit about how it should be perfectly acceptable to give children, who don't even know themselves or bodies, incredibly powerful psychoactive drugs that drastically alter their behavior

> Mr flamboyant Adam

Love some homophobia in my HN.

Fuck you.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#519

Post by bumby »

Lendal wrote: post #386
xrd wrote: post #195

Snowden's book really speaks to me on so many levels. As a hacker, as a boy growing up in the new age of the Internet. As a person who experienced 9/11 and never aligned with the direction it took the USA. As a person who questions my identity and the messages I get about identity on a daily basis. He will be remembered for a long time because of the actions he took, but if he had not done anything else, his book wou…

I used to agree with this but now that I've seen where this path leads, I think he should be given a fair trial and judged. Our government and the security of 350M US citizens cannot be held at the whim of a single hacker, no matter how right he believed himself to be. Our Congress has 535 members for precisely this reason, the president answers to Congress and is not a king, and even the Chief Justice does not rule…

>Our Congress has 535 members for precisely this reason

He touches on this in the podcast. He claims the vast majority of Congress had no clue and only the Gang of Eight had that access. If true, the implication is that the full representation of the People was not present to provide those checks and balances

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#520

Post by jonhohle »

jonhohle wrote: post #475
root_axis wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming that the investigations yielded nothing is frustratingly dishonest. The conclusion of the Mueller report was that the president would have been indicted if it weren't for a standing policy that the president cannot be indicted.

I believe you are mistaken based on Mueller's own statements[0]: > … Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as > to whether the president committed a crime." > > That statement was more in line with his report, and > with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary > Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department > policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would > not make a determination a…

To anyone who disagrees with this, is there any inaccuracy above? I was trying to make a factual observation and included a source.

Does anyone have a reference to support the "conclusion of the Mueller report was that the president would have been indicted if it weren't for a standing policy that the president cannot be indicted"?

Post reply on HN