I actually thought that the whole "mainland infiltrates HK police" conspiracy was just PRC-phobia (which is a real problem in HK when it becomes xenophobic, sadly) but there's actually been evidence of it (albeit not much). If you're interested you can find videos of a riot policeman saying 「退後一點」 to protesters (and other weird sentences), which is extremely awkward in Cantonese (instead Cantonese would be 「褪後啲」 or something, sounds totally different), especially if you're in an intense situation.
Wasn't the Obama campaign tech effort more about coordinating organisers/canvassers/etc in a "data-driven" way, rather than the Cambridge Analytica "propaganda network" type?
Clinton did indeed have a programme similar to Obama's, which has since (perhaps uselessly overdue?) been panned heavily in the MSM[1].
This isn't to say that Obama/Clinton wouldn't have relied on a Cambridge Analytica type service for moral reasons (in fact IIRC Clinton's campaign did do something similar, but at a much smaller scale), though, but more that they underestimated its potency...
Obama and Clinton both had a 'consortium of behavioral scientists', who helped with such things as how to craft messages for maximum impact, and how to counter what they felt were lies floating around about their candidate. If Trump had the same thing, they would be labeled cold blooded propagandists.
Perhaps because what he refers to as lies are annoying truths and what Obama called lies were in fact imaginary malarkey like him not being an American or being a crypto Muslim?
Surely someone else would have done it for them, and paid the $400? After all, you don't get wealthy by having your loved ones paying $71k when $400 would suffice.
Not necessarily. I grew up around some wealthy kids that were dumber than rocks, who have since been handed millions of dollars and have tried to invent their own jobs by creating businesses. Most of these businesses have failed, and they keep starting new ones. Success really isn't the point of these companies...it's to keep their parents off their backs about doing something with their lives.
These are the kinds of people that will pay it. They don't need to "get wealthy" - they already are.
I think a lot of that is just to advertise the car ("this the future, people!!"). For example, the article notes how large parts of the F 015 is made of "plastic that changes shape in hot weather", which Mercedes (or any other self-respecting auto brand, for that matter) is never going to put in their actual cars that they sell.
So I don't think we can take the cosmetic aspects too literally as to what Mercedes' design team will actually go for with the final product.
That's a really weird reading of michaelochurch's comment. Note the past tense -- he "wanted to find KP guilty". I'm pretty sure he was simply illustrating his initial reaction to the case, that he feels KP isn't completely innocent, but (more irrationally, perhaps) also that SV clearly has some problems with sexism.
But the case is about whether or not Pao was mistreated by KP on the basis of her gender, and to that, as the jury has (likely?) decided, michaelochurch's opinion is "probably not".
I hope HN voters are not down voting for that reason. The Brown incident is a very strong point for michaelochurch's argument and a good, current example.
The DoJ report was specific and full of examples. Brown was in the wrong (hand up was a media creation), but the Police were systematically oppressive (the tickets for the monetary example). I have several issues with the current DoJ, but the investigation and documentation looks pretty well done. They prove there is a real, systematic local problem, but the focus of the investigation is not an example of it.
They were probably downvoted because they say bluntly that they wish KP would have been found guilty, but then go on to say that it isn't clear if they violated CPA and they probably didn't discriminate. Their bias is clearly outlined in their comment, and they certainly aren't being objective/logical. Why find someone guilty if they aren't, by your own words, "probably not guilty"?
This case was about justice, not advancing causes.
> They were probably downvoted because they say bluntly that they wish KP would have been found guilty, but then go on to say that it isn't clear if they violated CPA and they probably didn't discriminate.
If they were downvoted for that reason (rather than the more likely, but also inappropriate, reasons also offered in other comments of either the post author's identity or people not reacting to the Michael Brown reference) then people seriously need to read.
He didn't say he still wishes KP was found guilty, he said he wanted that coming into it, but even with that initial desire couldn't see a basis for finding anything worse than negligence. E.g., he said even coming into the case biased against KP, he couldn't view the evidence as strongly supporting wrongdoing.
> One of the stranger points brought up in testimony was how Ms. Pao, before she was married, had dated a colleague for six months without ever realizing he was still living with his wife.
...and what about the married man who was also in that relationship, and lying about being married for those six months? And not just a lie of omission, but "We aren't together any more."
Yeah, maybe she ... "showed questionable judgement" for believing his lies, but he actively lied. What does that say about his judgement?
While it is kind of odd that one can go out with someone for 6 months, live in the same city as them and never visit their house.... this guy was actively lying.
Its entirely possible, wanted to visit his place all the time, and gave a laundry list of bad excuses until she finally broke up with him for being dishonest as the relationship was becoming increasingly serious in her mind.
It's highly unusual to see someone for 6 months and not realize that they're still living with their spouse and kids. Even if the other person tells you it's not the case.
We don't know what kind of "seeing" they were doing though - "dating" someone in modern lingo can mean anything from casual sex twice weekly to having breakfast every morning together. There's a huge variance in the type of information you know about someone between those two types of relationships.
