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

471–480 of 600 posts

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

#471

Post by vfc1 »

articwombat wrote: post #463
vfc1 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recent meta-analysis got to the same conclusions as before (the link between meat and cancer), it's just that the interpretation of the authors was different. They said that although a link exists, its not worth it for people to change their diet, which has triggered outrage on the scientific community. One of the authors of the studies meta-analysed complained that he never saw such as misrepresentation of the d…

> When you open someone up after a heart attack, what do you find clogging their veins? It's cholesterol. What happens when you eat cholesterol? Your cholesterol serum goes up. That’s an incorrect oversimplification of the situation. Like most of what is being bandied about here. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

The amount of cholesterol in the blood is largely produced by our own body depending on the mix of fat and carbs that we eat, and a smaller but still significative part comes from dietary cholesterol.

Most people eat more than just an egg a day in terms of cholesterol. They eat dairy, meat, eggs, and fish multiple times a day typically one or more of those at every single meal.

So dietary cholesterol does add up over the day, combined with a bad mix of processed carbs and fats it's a recipe for disaster.

Yes, you can eat one egg day and get away with it, but most people eat way more cholesterol than that every single day.

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

#472

Post by cameldrv »

jessaustin wrote: post #443
cameldrv wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but what did they lie about to the FISA court?

Did they not make up something about Trump's lady friends pissing on a bed in Moscow?

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 bottom of page 15, top of page 16. Steele is source #1.

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

#473

Post by jessaustin »

cameldrv wrote: post #472
jessaustin wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they not make up something about Trump's lady friends pissing on a bed in Moscow?

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?

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

#474

Post by xrd »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #428
Lendal wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He should be judged fairly by a jury of his peers and that trial should be held in a transparent, fair and open trial for all to see. The government won't let that happen. They'll say that, for national security reasons, the public can't be allowed to know the actual impact of the secrets he disclosed. And if we can't see the impact, it's impossible to weigh judgment. Democracy can't work in the face of such secrecy.

That's exactly what happened with Nacchio mentioned above. Right or wrong, he was prevented from establishing evidence because "state secrets."

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

#475

Post by jonhohle »

root_axis wrote: post #410
mieseratte wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three years of investigation and nothing. Yet you insist we're willfully blind? Are you privy to information the rest of us aren't?

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 as to whether the President
    > committed a crime. That was our decision then and it
    > remains our decision today."
Any suggestion that the Mueller report asserts that crimes were committed by the president, to my best interpretation, are false. The report does not include any suggestion to indict the president and was never a consideration of the investigation due to the policy you referenced. These claims are repeated incessantly, however, which makes them easy to believe.

0 - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/did-mueller-me...

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

#476

Post by Aperocky »

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…

There will be no fair and open trial, the media will rile up potential jury beforehand with dubiously authored hit pieces. Alternatively, he might decide to suddenly fall into depression and remorse and commit suicide in a jail cell.

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

#477

Post by asjw »

hos234 wrote: post #144
roenxi wrote: post #70

There is a real lesson here about just how cavalier the American government - and to some degree the public - is about civil liberties, but that isn't the biggest problem. The problem here isn't even so much the government is being shady - that has happened before, it will happen again. I can understand people not feeling threatened by constant snooping even though I disagree. To me the real problem is how effectivel…

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, but escaped from the consequences of his actions.

A position that made everything he's done questionable

Had he faced a trial, even the most unfair of trials, would have put him in the position of being at least true to the values he was trying to protect.

Question the authority, suffer the consequences.

Question the authority, go to Russia is not what generally the public opinion accepts as "honest".

There is much to say also about who leaked the data but didn't protect the source.

The identity of deep throat has been made public after Nixon was already dead for years and Mark Felt was already an old man suffering from dementia.

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

#478

Post by dragonwriter »

jessaustin wrote: post #446
pstuart wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is the Democratic house representatives that are trying to remove the president. Edit: Original words below Actually, the Democratic party is in motion to remove a questionably elected president. And he'll actually end up resigning in utter disgrace. His crimes will be revealed and his name will become synonymous for greed, stupidity, and treachery. I bet you, here in front of all of HN.

Will this be before or after he is reelected one year from now? I really did have hopes for the Democrats, but they just can't quit on Biden.

> I really did have hopes for the Democrats, but they just can't quit on Biden

Biden’s polling in the 20s, occasionally breaking into the 30s, and he's running low on money. Sanders and Warren have much bigger warchests, and there's a lot of votes to be picked up as minor candidates fall off, which it'll be hard to compete for without funds. He's in a weaker position than the early frontrunners that ended up not winning in basically every Democratic primary in a generation without an incumbent President or Vice President in the race. (EDIT: Yes, 2016 was an exception to this, but Biden has nothing like the DNC backing Clinton had, nothing like the office-holder backing Clinton had, and nothing like the DNC rules that magnified the effect of both of those advantages.)

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

#479

Post by runedog »

ksdale wrote: post #361
jammygit wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had hoped that things under trump would have been much worse, so as to shock the public into re-evaluating their civic values.

I've always been rather suspicious of this way of reasoning. It basically goes, "Things aren't as bad as they need to be for people to change their ways, so hopefully they get worse so people change their ways." And it is implicit in this line of reasoning that there is some terrible and inevitable catastrophe waiting to befall the people who don't change their ways. (Because why would a catastrophe be worth it, unle…

The issue is that those in power can seize power from the people without the people knowing as long as there isn't some huge mistake. Once there's a mistake/catastrophe/whatever, those in power come under scrutiny of the public, and changes get made.

So my fear would be that everyone continues on in complacency, and one day we wake up and realize we live in an authoritarian state, where mass catastrophies can occur and no one can do anything about it.

I don't want people to get hurt or die, but I also don't want power to be quietly seized by the few.

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

#480

Post by jessaustin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #478
jessaustin wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will this be before or after he is reelected one year from now? I really did have hopes for the Democrats, but they just can't quit on Biden.

> I really did have hopes for the Democrats, but they just can't quit on Biden Biden’s polling in the 20s, occasionally breaking into the 30s, and he's running low on money. Sanders and Warren have much bigger warchests, and there's a lot of votes to be picked up as minor candidates fall off, which it'll be hard to compete for without funds. He's in a weaker position than the early frontrunners that ended up not winn…

Thanks for the good news, I'd prefer either of them but definitely Sanders more. I voted for him last time.
Post reply on HN