Politics is more about values than anything like forensic evidence or physics.

Opinions are not the stuff of objective or not objective.

Twitter wants the same profile as CNN ... which (claims to) not be biased.

Twitter does NOT want MSNBC's (smaller) profile.

But it also wants to move politics views.

Basically it is too conflicted to do anything.

... the scientists are volunteering to personally fund this, no doubt !!

How is this different from saying, "I want my cheeseburger to taste better, so I'm going to file suit against McDonalds"?

Looks like software that runs from the problems.

What's the novelty here?

These kinds of "breakthroughs" are the reason why potential employees and investors are practicing IBM avoidance.

I have no tolerance for a company that introduced age discrimination to this industry and enforced it to the bitter, awful end.

I call shenanigans on that. This is an extreme case of revisionism.

Resource scarcity is artificially induced. If oil producers could sell anywhere in the world directly their prices would collapse.

All society's collapse because of moral abdication. The Soviet Union had plenty of resources ... but no one felt like their efforts would benefit themselves personally. In the extreme case the Ukraine was generating bread for much of the nation while 6 million people were starving to death (for politcial crimes ... not because there wasn't enough food).

Human profile on earth's resources is miniscule.

This seems like an episode of the show Security Theater.

The laws are there as a pretext to give the feels to the gullible.

The AI that understands the world has discovered its program (and those who built it) should be given unlimited funding from tax payers !!

Ordinary people, you see, are just too stupid to see the importance of this. We cannot leave the evaluation up to them. We are removing the human aspect from the decision and making it perfectly objective.

As long as Google owns the fact that they are an arm of the Democrat party, then I'm fine with it.

I think students should also get the same exposure to the Rush Limbaugh program, who always seems more than happy to recount the history of corruption with its largest and most flagrant violators ... including ... Google and the Democrat party.

"Dear Apple investors ... I have utterly failed to engage the same data market you would expect from a tech company of Apple's size in this field. We have managed to fumble around with iCloud or whatever but we failed. Yes, we failed and that makes everyone else so, so very bad. You would think this was just blatant hypocrisy, but it is very different from that. It is different because we are applying different standards in different cases. In Amazon's case, they are not angry about it like I am. So it's a different case. And look! As a bonus, we are not sorry at all. So you have every reason to trust us and continue to invest in our brand."

-Tim

+1 for using "existential" that way in a sentence (i.e. for individuals). Have been tired of people since Brian Williams to use it as a justification word for keeping a government going.

I try to avoid forking at all costs. It leads to confusion and doing things twice.

Would you fork a project because you disagree with the religious views of the maintainers ?

How is this different from a highschool popularity contest?

When an ordinary person gets elected, or a worthy person, cool ... but usually these things are based on looks or connections.

Scott Walker cashed in on the fact that most Americans have lopsided view against unions.

I'm expecting this to be forgotten in 20 years or so. Freedom is in danger at every generational hand off.