How do you even compare these two stats? I get that it sounds dramatic, but you can't work with this crap.

Conspiracy insight level 2: The government already has a sentient AI, but it's an Aspie like Data on Star Trek, so they're crowd-sourcing its emotional development. *dun-dun-DUN*

This guy compares wealth in his argument, yet he seems to make a conclusion about income. Does he use the terms interchangeably to both mean income, or does he conflate the one with the other to obscure the differences between wealth and income? For instance, you can earn $35k/year and live frugally, not take out huge loans/mortgages and have 100000x more wealth than another person earning the same salary but made different choices.

Does that happen because open-minded people will tend to form more inclusive groups AND perform better, or because switching up sexual orientation and skin color makes people perform better? That is, do inclusiveness and higher performance merely coincide together with the third variable of open-mindedness, or does inclusiveness itself trigger higher performance?

unless Svensgaard vetoes it...

I agree. Nationalized universal healthcare must be accompanied by fat-shaming (and smoking-shaming, non-exercise-shaming, etc). If you're squandering other people's healthcare resources, you should be motivated in every way possible into correcting your ways.

Also, people owning worthless games nobody likes because they were bundled in with that one awesome one.

Free speech makes verbal abuse (and the subsequent self-harm/suicides) more efficient. Outlawing certain phrases and forcing people to use inoffensive words makes bullying exhausting.

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up, and same to everyone below.

How can a problem with a backup computer on the ISS impact supply delivery by a SpaceX capsule from Earth?

Not to mention Russia does not have, and has never had, a moon capable launch vehicle (inb4 N1 explosion pictures), which means if the US has to pretty much start again from scratch to get people to the moon, the Russians are even further behind.

Where is the unit workshop? Just a bs reskin without unit workshop.

It has been pointed out previously in the comments section of The Crimson that such an act of divestment would be only symbolic. The reason is that publicly traded shares only fund a company in its initial sale during the IPO (which, for oil companies, was decades ago at the very least). All subsequent trades of shares only impact valuation of the company. Harvard's divestment would take down the price of an oil company stock by a fraction of a fraction of a dollar* which means any purchases or sales of assets using shares in the near term subsequent to this divestment would require a fraction of a fraction more shares, which, in the grand scheme of things is meaningless.

*in all likelihood the investment managers would try to divest in portions to minimize losses, so the price movement might be even closer to zero.

manly tears

The article doesn't say anything about defacement, it actually says that journalists themselves were the targets. I assume being able to penetrate a journalist's work account is one of the first steps to either subsequently penetrating that journalist's personal accounts elsewhere, or to build a profile in order to create false identity elsewhere. The first could be used to reveal current sources, and the latter could be used to ensnare future sources.

Everyone is on high alert to stopping their own Snowden event, and I think that's a far simpler and more relevant explanation than "USA is trying to frame other countries by defacing its own news site"