Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I'm curious as to why any of the other intelligence agencies haven't weighed in yet.
This story would be much harder to dismiss if it were more then just the much maligned and unpopular CIA taking a stand on it, especially against the relatively more popular FBI.
That seems a bit extreme.
edited 15th Dec '16 10:50:13 AM by Mio
The news I've been hearing is that all of them (Apparently we have sixteen of them and I'm not sure why.) agree that there was Russian hacking. If anything, they're probably unwilling to get into a politicized fight between the FBI and the CIA. Even if it ultimately fizzles out to nothing, it seems like the kind of thing that leaves a lot of bad feelings between the participants.
Just a dash of Trump pettiness from NPR to start the new page
Trump Lashes Out At Vanity Fair, One Day After It Lambastes His Restaurant http://n.pr/2gF5Lzw
edited 15th Dec '16 11:32:24 AM by sgamer82
Fuckin hell. This is the exact same conversation that got him and me banned before.
In other news, My home city which proudly voted red at 70%, is likely to suffer under Trump
You reap what you sow bitches
edited 15th Dec '16 11:34:55 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youNYT: Facebook Mounts Effort to Limit Tide of Fake News
Now, in the company’s most concerted effort to combat fake news, Facebook said on Thursday it had begun introducing a series of experiments to keep misinformation and false articles from being disseminated across its site.
The maneuvers the company is trying include one that makes it easier for its 1.8 billion members to report fake news. Facebook is also creating partnerships with outside fact-checking organizations to help it more clearly indicate when articles are false, as well as changing some ad practices to choke off the economics of fake news purveyors.
Facebook is in a tricky position with these tests. The company has long regarded itself as a neutral place where people can freely post, read and view content, and it has said it does not want to be an arbiter of truth. But as the social network’s reach and influence has grown, it has had to confront questions about its moral obligations and ethical standards in what it presents.
Its experiments on curtailing fake news show that Facebook recognizes it has a deepening responsibility for what is on its site. But Facebook also has to tread cautiously in making changes, as the company is wary of opening itself up to claims of censorship.
“We really value giving people a voice, but we also believe we need to take responsibility for the spread of fake news on our platform,” said Adam Mosseri, a Facebook vice president who is in charge of its News Feed, the company’s method of distributing information to its global audience.
He said the changes — which, if successful, may be available to a wide audience — are the results of many months of internal discussion about how to handle false news articles shared on the network.
How much Facebook’s moves will make a dent in fake news is unclear. The issue is not confined to the social network, with a vast ecosystem of false news creators who thrive on online advertising and who can use other social media and search engines to propagate their work. Google, Twitter and message boards like 4chan and Reddit have all been criticized for being part of that chain.
Still, Facebook has taken the most heat on fake news. The company has been under that spotlight since Nov. 8, when Donald J. Trump was elected the 45th president. Mr. Trump’s unexpected win almost immediately spurred people to focus on whether Facebook influenced the electorate, especially with the rise of hyperpartisan sites on the network and numerous examples of misinformation, like a false article about Pope Francis endorsing Mr. Trump for president that had been shared nearly one million times across the site.
Mr. Zuckerberg has said that he did not believe Facebook influenced the election result, calling it “a pretty crazy idea.”
In an interview, Mr. Mosseri said Facebook did not believe its News Feed directly caused people to vote for a particular candidate, given that “the magnitude of fake news across Facebook is one fraction of a percent of the content across the network.”
Facebook has made changes before to the way its News Feed works. In August, the company announced changes to marginalize what it considered “clickbait,” the sensational headlines that rarely live up to their promise. This year, Facebook also prioritized content shared by friends and family, a move that shook some publishers that rely on the social network for much of their traffic. The company is also constantly fine-tuning its algorithms to serve what its users most want to see, an effort to keep its audience returning regularly.
This time, Facebook is making it easier to flag content that may be fake. Users can currently report a post they dislike in their feed, but when Facebook asks for a reason, the site presents them with a list of limited or vague options, including the cryptic “I don’t think it should be on Facebook.” In Facebook’s new experiment, users will have a choice to flag the post as fake news and have the option to message the friend who originally shared the piece to let them know the article is false.
If an article receives enough flags as fake, it can be directed to a coalition of groups that would perform fact-checking, including Snopes, Politi Fact and ABC News, among others. Those groups will check the article and can mark it as a “disputed” piece, a designation that will be seen on Facebook.
Disputed articles will ultimately appear lower in the News Feed. If users still decide to share disputed articles, they will receive pop-ups reminding them that the accuracy of the piece is in question.
Facebook said it was casting a wide net to add more partners to its fact-checking coalition and may move outside of the United States with the initiative if early experiments go well. The company is also part of the First Draft Coalition, an effort with other technology and media companies including Twitter, Google, The New York Times and CNN, to combat the spread of fake news online.
In another change to how News Feed works, articles that many users read but do not share will be ranked lower on people’s feeds. Mr. Mosseri said a low ratio of sharing an article after it has been read could be perceived as a negative signal, one that might reflect that the article was misleading or of poor quality.
“Facebook was inevitably going to have to curate the platform much more carefully, and this seems like a reasonably transparent method of intervention,” said Emily Bell, director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University.
“But the fake cat is already out of the imaginary bag,” Ms. Bell added. “If they didn’t try and do something about it, next time around it could have far worse consequences.”
Facebook also plans to impede the economics of spreading fake articles across the network. Fake news purveyors generally make money when people click on the false articles and are directed to third-party websites, the majority of which are filled with dozens of low-cost ads.
Facebook will scan those third-party links and check for things like whether the page is 85 percent advertising content — a dead giveaway for spam sites — or to see whether a link masquerades as a different site, like a fake version of The New York Times.
Articles disputed by the fact-checking coalition will not be eligible to be inserted into Facebook ads, a tactic viral spammers have used to spread fake news quickly and gain more clicks to their websites.
Facebook said in these early experiments it would deal with only fake news content and did not plan to flag opinion posts or other content that cannot be easily classified. Satirical sites like The Onion, which often jabs at political subjects through tongue-in-cheek humor, will not be affected by the changes.
Facebook must take something else into consideration: its bottom line. Any action taken to reduce viral content, even if it is fake news, could hurt the company’s top priority of keeping its users engaged on the platform. People spend an average of more than 50 minutes of their day on Facebook, and the company wants that number to grow.
Mr. Mosseri said he did not believe the tests would hurt Facebook. He emphasized that fake news continued to be a small amount of the content on its network and that fighting it would not be at odds with Facebook’s business.
“But even if it was,” Mr. Mosseri said, “it’s our responsibility to take it seriously.”
edited 15th Dec '16 11:38:34 AM by FluffyMcChicken
Then again, maybe I don't need to mourn the suffering of weapons-makers and death-dealers, whose firms have been rumored to be mired in corruption and incompetence.
See: Lockheed Martin's F-35 program, which spent 10 damned years in development, and failed to meet standards at the end.
They got fucking rich off of it though, asking for more money each time they delayed launch...
To be fair, the Huntsville branch of Lockheed-Martin doesn't develop fighters, it develops surface-air missiles...
edited 15th Dec '16 11:40:29 AM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
Then you're about as late to the party as Trump is - with the exception of the -B, the F-35's development is now proceeding as scheduled, with unit prices steadily decreasing.
(Also "just build more Super Hornets" isn't a solution anymore)
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThe problem isn't the long development time
The problem is that the craft failed to outcompete the planes its meant to replace.
F-22 has better stealth
F-16 is a better interceptor
The Harrier can do better vertical landings. And hell, the Osprey can do vertical takeoffs.
The F-35 is a jack-of-all stats, but for everything it can do, we have something that can do it better. Not to mention its enormous financial cost.
edited 15th Dec '16 12:03:38 PM by blkwhtrbbt
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youThe idea was likely to replace all of these different air-frames with just one that would in theory be cheaper.
That last part can only really come about if they are able to build them in bulk which they haven't been able/ may not be able to do depending on how the politics in the US and other nations go.
It may have been entirely innocent, but the way they kept getting progressively worse or failure to improve results over the ten years made the whole issue feel very much like Penelope at her loom, only replace "Penelope" with "Large military contractor" and "her loom" with "the government's teat".
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you<after reading the past few pages> Great. My days since November 8 just keep getting better and better. On the bright side, though... Go California!
Regarding the Intelligence Community investigation into the Russian hacking of the election... Isn't there any legal way to delay the electoral vote until the investigation is done, on grounds that it's absolutely crucial information for said electors to base their votes on?
~IF Wanderer (#162469
): You're a bit late to the announcement, actually.
edited 15th Dec '16 12:20:42 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.F-22 has better stealth F-16 is a better interceptor The Harrier can do better vertical landings. And hell, the Osprey can do vertical takeoffs. The F-35 is a jack-of-all stats, but for everything it can do, we have something that can do it better. Not to mention its enormous financial cost.
True for the F-22 as it is a air superiority fighter while the F-35 is a multi role and smaller aircraft. Wrong for the F-16, both on the accounts of it being better than the F-35 and it being an interceptor and wrong for the Harrier as being a better VTOL not to mention that all the Harrier-I Is are too fucking old and have the highest crash and maintenance rates in the US air fleet. The Osprey is a tilt rotor transport/cargo aircraft, which shouldn't be used to be compared to anything outside it.
Also, with the numbers of ordered F-35's being placed, the production cost of a F-35 is slightly higher than a modernized legacy aircraft and its production costs are as much if not lower than its competitors such as the Eurofighter typhoon and the Dassault Rafale.
Trump has no idea of what he is doing.
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Military procurement in general has been kind of crap for the past couple of decades. The Navy has had plenty of its own problems with LCS, the Zummwalt class, and now the Ford class.
![]()
![]()
![]()
No, and any move to do so would likely be seen (not necessarily incorrectly) as trying to subvert the election, which would not go over well to say the least.
edited 15th Dec '16 12:25:34 PM by Mio

Ta-Nehisi Coates recently appeared on the Daily Show.
Unsurprisingly, he talks about the racism intrinsically at the heart of Trump's win, and how he only ever needed to be a rich, boorish white man to win, while Obama had to be The Ace.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."