There is no credible argument that the election was stolen. This has been repeatedly challenged in court, and each attempt has failed.

> Political prisoners, ushered in by the docents. I don't think putting your feet on Pelosi's desk is worth 4 years in jail.

David Dempsey attacked officers with flagpoles, crutches, pepper spray and broken furniture after standing at a gallows talking about hanging Democrats Daniel Rodriguez repeatedly drove a stun gun into officer Michael Fanone’s neck, causing him to lose consciousness and suffer a heart attack Patrick McCaughey crushed officer Daniel Hodges in a doorframe with a stolen riot shield for over two minutes Julian Khater pepper sprayed Police Officer Brian Sicknick in the face, causing him to collapse, and he died the next day

Do you really want to pursue this line of argument?

They are notorious for their left wing bias by right-wing commentators and for their right-wing bias by left-wing commentators. By law they are neutral.

> Their mistake was to twist Trump's speech to make it say the actual opposite of what he did say.

I don't see how you can argue that. His speech involved 70 minutes of falsely claiming that the election was stolen (how's that for twisting the truth?) and encouraging his supporters to march on the Capitol. He wasn't stupid enough to explicitly call for violence, but the implication was there.

The circumstantial evidence supports this: the actual ensuing riots and violence, Trump refusing to condemn it, and then pardoning the rioters.

The BBC admitted a mistake. The error was reported by an internal BBC investigation, not because Trump's team complained (it is highly unlikely they saw it originally, because it was an UK broadcast).

The BBC makes thousands of hours of video annually. You can't expect perfection, or to sue them for billions of $CURRENCY for every mistake.

The mistake in this case was to make their quite reasonable case (that Trump encouraged the violence of January 2021) very slightly more emphatically than was perhaps justified.

Trump of course showed his disapproval of the violence by pardoning all the rioters, including those convicted of injuring police with weapons.

I suppose you could build a scraper to do it but a platform like Facebook take steps to make it difficult. Maybe we're almost at the stage where a personalised AI assistant could parse your feed on the fly and reconstruct it into something user-friendly (a much smarter algorithm to build a dumber one!)

I'd like to have the old social media back, but then again it depends if anyone is still posting content.

I am also prepared to be included in the set of people who are (apparently) easily impressed.

It's a problem that has been around for getting on for two centuries and no human has been able to solve it in that time (despite there being a $1 million prize and a lot of kudos on offer for the past quarter-century).

What kind of domain are you working in?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10076766/

I'm going to stop you there. "That's absolutely not true" versus "iirc". You're making a vehement argument based on remembered nonsense.

There was no such requirement. And if there was, then you should have no problem citing it.

> I could go off forever on this topic

Please don't.

> The amount of obfuscation and gaslighting

Such irony.

This implies that corners were cut. They were not. They went through the full regulatory procedures.

> many people still sit with the issues they caused

Few medicines are entirely without side effects. The effects of the virus were in general far worse. Millions of lives were saved from the vaccines.

> Not a win

Apart from the millions of lives that were saved.

> at the very least, they reduced the confidence of average people in vaccines and gave credence to the anti-vaxxer

This was thanks to scientific illiteracy, cynical political opportunism, and rancid leadership. The vaccines were a huge success by any reasonable measure.

This is a very common problem on the right -- whatever Trump says gets constantly reinterpreted into something more favourable.

This wasn't out of context. It was part of a broader and systematic attempt to play down the pandemic.

He had multiple opportunities to clarify what he meant, and declined. When explicitly asked if the "slow the testing down" remarks were a joke, Trump said "I don't kid. Let me just tell you. Let me make it clear."

He then kept repeating the argument in subsequent tweets on 23 June: "Cases are going up in the U.S. because we are testing far more... With smaller testing we would show fewer cases!"

> Grow up.

Another common problem on the right -- argument by insult.

Climate change, and science in general, is associated with nerds, boring reality, obstacles to immediate gratification, and effects on poor people.

Fossil fuels are associated with large wads of cash, action films, and sticking it to the libs.

Decisions might have terrible consequences. Who cares? Thinking things through is boring, and the people making the decisions are rich enough to be insulated from anything that might happen and old enough to not be around when it does.

That's completely counter to everything we know about Putin's mindset, and completely counter to all his actions so far. How would a war for territory look any different to what is occurring now?

> when Ukraine has to be a sovereign and neutral state

That's an oxymoron. Why does a sovereign democratic have to be neutral? A democratic state has the right to pursue whatever alliances it chooses.

Please explain your analogy. Everyone should give up their property whenever they are threatened? For free, or whatever the aggressor chooses to give them?

> I don't think we need to go to war. We need to find a way to deal with Russia with humanity instead of treating them like some boomer-era cold war bogeyman.

What does that mean? How would you deal with them with humanity? Just give up your country when they invade?

It's an interesting theory. I'm going to call it capitalist-optimism. It's roughly oppositional to Doctorow's theory of enshittification.

> but everyone came to the conclusion that the trade off is just not worth it

The trade-off here being profit margin versus customer convenience. They've calculated that they'd make more cash with non-changeable batteries (e.g. by encouraging more buying of new devices rather than changing batteries) would make them more cash than selling a phone with a replaceable battery. And they might well be right, but that doesn't make it a good thing for civilisation.

> And now the EU, in its infinite wisdom has decided it knows whats best.

Before the EU mandated USB-c chargers pretty much every phone had their own charger. It was awful. You couldn't easily borrow a charger because everyone had a different configuration.

Now things are far better. It turned out that the EU did know best. It maybe wasn't best for phone manufacturers in the short term, but it was better for customers.

> why don't they just fund a company to create such a phone? Why doesn't anyone?

Is this a serious question? In order to create a competitor to the major smartphone operators you'd need a huge amount of capital. I don't think I could convince a venture capitalist or bank to give me that kind of investment just to start a company selling a phone with a replaceable battery.

They wear masks in case their political opponents take exception to their actions and hunt them down later and hurt their families.

(This seems like an extremely dubious justification to me, but I've been told on HN that this is the reason that ICE wear masks, so why wouldn't it apply here...?)

I recommend you watch this documentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_(Star_Tre...

> It's just a piece of software designed to output probable text given some input text.

Unless you think there's some magic or special physics going on, that is also (presumably) a description of human conversation at a certain level of abstraction.