Do you have a source that shows Gates "directed the foundation to make investments which profit him personally" thereby increasing his net worth? The foundation's investments are public, but I don't believe that's true for Gates' personal investments. Without knowing what Gates owns, I don't see how it's possible to determine that Gates profited from the foundation's investments.

In 2018, Gates' net worth was about $90B. By that time, Gates had given his foundation about $36B. Gates is worth about $130B today. If Gates has given nothing since 2018, that's still about 22% of his net worth. I don't see how that's "giving away very little". It's a much higher share of his net worth than I've given to charity, and I consider myself pretty charitable.

So what? The UMN "group" is assistant professor Lu, 5 PhD students, 3 master's, and one undergrad. Aditya Pakki and Qiushi Wu, whose name IS on the paper, share the same damn office.

There is absolutely nothing inaccurate about GregKH saying they are in the same "group". You have to be severely mentally challenged to believe otherwise.

LOL! Fingers in my ears? Your head so far up your ass you have to peer through your navel to see anything at all, and your ears are so clogged with your own shit you can't hear a damn thing.

But let's say Pakki is in a different "group" than Lu's. That would mean 2 different groups from the same university knowingly submitted vulnerabilities into the kernel pipeline, without prior notice to anyone, months apart. Thanks for making the case that UMN deserved to be plonked.

More proof you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just making shit up. Virtually all the major corporate contributors to the Linux kernel have training, support, mentoring, and oversight for their kernel developers.

Your bullshit just never stops flowing. Tell you what, cite a source that supports your claim that the vast majority of corporate Linux contributors are hired straight out of school and are "generally" not given any training. Prove to us that you didn't pull that directly out of your ass.

That's pretty damn funny, considering the fact that Aditya Pakki, who has been studying for his PhD in Computer Science under Lu since 2017, and has been studying CS in a university setting since 2007, claimed "We are not experts in the linux kernel". LOL, who do you think Pakki's "We" refers to? Everybody in his "group"? Including professor Lu?

Somehow after over 13 years of CS study in higher ed, Pakki is still a "newbie". Apparently Lu's kernel development expertise never made it into Pakki's head after over three years. Neither did any kernel development expertise enter Pakki's head in the ten years at university prior to studying under Lu. Is this the kind of person you say industry hires straight out of school to be a kernel developer that requires no training? Sure bud, whatever you say.

Christ. Your reality is upside down and inside out. If anything, it is UMN who burned the bridge with the Linux community. Kernel developers/maintainers will absolutely be better off without selfish twats who knowingly submit vulnerabilities as part of some ill conceived, ill advised, and shoddily conducted experiment.

Here is the statement from the UMN CS Department heads on the matter, the first sentence of which reads:

Leadership in the University of Minnesota Department of Computer Science & Engineering learned today about the details of research being conducted by one of its faculty members and graduate students into the security of the Linux Kernel.

UMN department heads were unaware of the details of what Lu's GROUP was doing, and have "immediately suspended this line of research." Looks like the UMN CS department heads have joined the "mob" hounding Pakki.

[sniffle] Poor poor pitiful Pakki. It's all soooo unfair! [sob]

Go ahead and continue defending these clowns. But you might want to use some facts for your defense instead of just making shit up.

Yes, GregKH claimed that, and it is an entirely factual statement. It bears noting that the very next sentence from GregKH in that same message is "Now you submit a new series of obviously-incorrect patches again, so what am I supposed to think of such a thing?"

Funny how that sentence provides the actual context. I can see why you omitted it.

No, Aditya Pakki in fact is in the same group as Kangjie Lu (assistant professor) and Qiushi Wu (PhD student), authors of the paper mentioned by GregKH. Pakki claims to be working to find and fix bugs via static analysis, but there is no "group" at UMN doing that. It's just him.

Here is professor Kangjie Lu's page at UMN. You will note that Aditya Pakki's name appears alongside Lu's as an author of four papers listed on Lu's page.

Just because Pakki wasn't a named author of the Lu/Wu paper doesn't mean he's not in the same group as Lu/Wu. He quite clearly is. They are all systems security researchers working under the same assistant professor in the same floor in the same building in the same academic department at UMN.

In this message on the mailing list, Leon Romanovsky says:

Yesterday, I took a look on 4 accepted patches from Aditya and 3 of them added various severity security "holes".

Those spurious "patches" don't include the patch Aditya Pakki submitted that reintroduced a old vulnerability and kicked off the entire shitstorm.

The original Lu/Wu paper was published months ago, and the linux devs made their displeasure known about the methods employed by the researchers. It completely stretches credulity to think that Pakki believed he wasn't doing anything wrong by pushing yet another bogus "patch" into the pipeline months later.

Your understanding is based on faulty assumptions/reasoning. Maybe you should try understanding the reactions of the expert devs whose valuable time was wasted by this "researcher".

Uh huh. Are there linux devs hounding or harassing Pakki? What's your proof that Aditya Pakki is being hounded by anyone? Or is this just something you think might be happening?

IMO, the Linux development community has every right to be angry. These UMN "researchers" acted unethically and possibly criminally. If the only consequences they face as a result of their behavior are some nasty e-mails, they should consider themselves lucky.

Yeah...you don't know what you're talking about. The Linux kernel community primarily gets its supply of new developers from industry.

Hopefully students will learn a valuable lesson from Aditya Pakki's actions and only contribute code that actually fixes bugs instead of introducing or reintroducing them for the purposes of their "research".

Let's take a look at your "factual" statements:

AFAICT, it is *unknown* when their encounter occurred. As has been pointed out to you, Giuffre herself couldn't recall the date of the encounter or how old she was at the time.

The only likely possibilities are the island conferences Minsky organized/attended. The first one in 2002, six years *before* Epstein's plea when Giuffre was ~19, and the second one in 2011 when Giuffre was ~28.

If you've got a credible source that says the encounter took place when Giuffre was 28 years old, you should post it. I'd just note that prostituting twenty-eight year old girls doesn't really fit Epstein's MO.

Uh huh.

The last Epstein donation to MIT was in December of 2017. The first Epstein donation that was rejected by MIT was in February of 2019. Between 2002 and 2017, Jeffrey Epstein made 10 donations to MIT totaling $850,000, including nine donations, totaling $750,000 made after his 2008 conviction.

Minsky died in January of 2016. That's almost two years *before* MIT accepted the last Epstein donation.

That statement rests entirely on the assumption that the encounter took place *after* Epstein's prostitution of young girls became public, which was around 2006. So the only possibility is one of a 2011 encounter with a 28 year old "young lady". Thing is, Giuffre married her husband Robert in 2002 and she broke off contact with Epstein and Maxwell.

So, can you cite a credible source that says Giuffre left her husband and children after years of marriage and went back to Little Saint James to resume her work as a prostitute for Epstein?

Well, at least you got one thing right. I guess that's better than nothing.

Your post's "factual" statements aren't really factual at all. If not "Troll", what sort of moderation do you think your post deserves?

Fascinating. What country do you live in?

In the US, about 1 in 5 hospitals are for-profit, and for-profit hospitals existed for decades prior to the 1970s.

Oh wait... maybe you're just trolling?

Of the 87 recommendations made by the commission, the only one I can find that the Democrat platform opposes is this:

2.5 VOTER IDENTIFICATION
2.5.1 To ensure that persons presenting themselves at the polling place are the ones on the registration list, the Commission recommends that states require voters to use the REAL ID card, which was mandated in a law signed by the President in May 2005.The card includes a person’s full legal name, date of birth, a signature (captured as a digital image), a photograph, and the person’s Social Security number. This card should be modestly adapted for voting purposes to indicate on the front or back whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. States should provide an EAC-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge.

One single item on "the list" of things they oppose, voter ID. That's it. The more than 40,000 word Democrat platform spends a whole 16 words opposing voter ID. And the last sentence of the commission's specific recommendation above is most certainly supported by Ds (though I don't see it mentioned in their platform).

But maybe I missed something. So, can you find any more of the 87 specific recommendations that the Democrat platform explicitly opposes? Please quote the specific recommendation from the commission and the corresponding text in the Democrat platform that stands in opposition to it. If you can't, all you've done is made yet another partisan, absolute statement that doesn't reflect reality.

I personally think voter fraud is bad, and I'm not aware of any Democrat saying otherwise. The only thing the Ds have made clear is their opposition to voter ID, and if zero cost IDs were universally available as "their" commission recommended, that position might fade in importance.

Like I said, I really don't have a problem with voter ID laws because I don't think obtaining an ID is really that onerous to anyone. But for whatever reason, non-white populations are less likely to have acceptable photo IDs than whites, so I view all the effort spent on passing voter ID laws as suspect - especially since there doesn't appear to be any data showing that in-person voter impersonation is even remotely a problem anywhere in the US. If you've got better evidence of any kind of voter fraud than Heritage , I'd like to see it.

I guess I should say I generally lean Republican, and I think a lot of things going on with the Ds these days are batshit crazy. But that doesn't mean I just switch off my ability to think critically when it comes to evaluating specific positions by the Ds or the Rs.

Since car analogies go over so well with the crowd here, I'll leave you with this: I have a very well made trouble-free car with a reputation for reliability. If I bring it into a shop and they tell me I need a $500 "rattle prevention" service because my model is prone to rattling, and my car has never rattled, I can be reasonably sure the shop is trying to enrich itself.

FTFY. You seem to have a habit of leaving out relevant pieces of text. Now, one can reasonably conclude that text constitutes a "recommendation", but the document also says: "The Commission puts forward 87 specific recommendations." Those 87 specific recommendations appear in blue boxes at the conclusion of each section and presented in full at the end of the document. Those are the recommendations I was referring to. For some reason, "Elections shouldn't be run by the elected secretary of state" didn't make the cut.

Clearly false. Reducing a complex process to one dimensional grade-school math reflects a stunning ignorance of how voting works in the real world. Doubling the number of voters absolutely can sway an election, especially a close one. Your statement also assumes targeted voter suppression doesn't exist. Sorry, it does.

Even if the ridiculous claim "doubling the number of voters doesn't change who wins" is true, the claim I actually objected to is "more voters benefits nobody". The act of voting absolutely benefits the voter through the simple act of citizenship that gives them some voice in government. The more people who vote, the more people feel like their voice is being heard, and there is more overall trust in the process. More trust in the system undeniably benefits everybody.

Let me put it this way: If you went to register to vote, and the county clerk said "Sorry, we already have enough voters. Allowing you to vote won't change who wins", what would be your reaction? Would you feel like you're living in a strong democracy? I hope not.

Let me guess, that's just the Democrat party. No Republican has ever intended to engage in voter fraud or benefitted from it. I invite you to check the Heritage database to see if that is true. Here is a recent example you may find informative.

One of the 87 recommendations in the Commission's report is "Congress should pass a law requiring that all voting machines be equipped with a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and, consistent with HAVA, be fully accessible to voters with disabilities." Are you really claiming the Democrat party wants to do the opposite of that? Cite a D leader who opposes voter-verifiable paper audit trails. Can you?

The fact is, there are many of the 87 recommendations that Democrats support. Your partisan bias is causing you to make absolute statements that simply aren't true.

More fraud? My question is "what fraud?" I've given you an authoritative source that shows the incidence of voter fraud in the US is miniscule. For instance, Heritage documents 13 cases of "Impersonation Fraud at the Polls" (what voter ID is supposed to prevent).13 cases in some 40 years with billions of votes cast.

Now, I don't really have a problem with voter ID laws per se. But I've gotta ask, what problem is being "fixed" with them?

Five states (including Utah) are exclusively vote by mail. Heritage lists 13 cases of "Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots" in those states, out of tens of millions of votes cast.

When I see the government "fixing" problems that don't exist, I get suspicious. You should too.

Funny, I don't see anywhere in that document where the Commission recommends "Elections shouldn't be run by the elected secretary of state". I am also unable to find the statement "Absentee ballots remain the largest source of voter fraud".

I do see the statement "Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud". That one word changes the meaning of the statement significantly, and I only see anecdotal evidence supporting it.

The most comprehensive database of voter fraud that I'm aware of is here. It provides the best evidence of voter fraud across the USA for the last ~40 years. It also provides the best evidence of the LACK of voter fraud across the USA for the last ~40 years.

I also take STRONG issue with your claim "So "more voters" benefits nobody." IMO, such a statement is quite clearly antithetical to democracy.

Uh huh. Can you provide one single example of the Chinese government blaming a lab? ANY lab? It's quite clear that China has been pushing against the lab accident theory since the beginning. I've given you multiple sources proving it. Of course for you, facts that contradict your reality are immediately rejected.

The entire world IS calling for them to stop running wet markets and "other stuff" - and has been for quite some time. Where the hell have you been?

Indeed, readers can read your claims. Among other ah...interesting things, they'll find you citing sources that actually refute the claims you make. Pretty much the exact opposite of "well substantiated".

[rolls eyes] Sorry, all you've laid out is a kind of deranged conspiracy theory that has as much evidence as "Hillary's running a pedo ring out of a pizza parlor's basement".

That isn't the "core" of your argument That's nothing more than a question inviting speculation. Your actual argument, the one I responded to, is this:

You're claiming China is "pushing" the lab origin narrative. My counter to that ridiculous claim is multiple examples of the Chinese government vigorously *denying* the lab origin theory. If you can cite a single credible example of China pushing the lab origin theory, "happily" or otherwise, I'll happily concede the argument and issue you a personal apology.

Again, why haven't they blamed a lab accident? If there are all these supposed economic incentives for China to say "yeah, it leaked from the lab", why have they spent so much time - literally from the moment the theory appeared - strongly saying otherwise? What is taking China so long to take the economically beneficial course of action?

Please take your time, have another chug on the bottle or hit off the bong and post a lengthy explanation. I'm sure it will be entertaining.

Wow.

So you're actually saying that China, who has vigorously and repeatedly denied "the lab narrative", is in fact happily pushing "the lab narrative"?

Regular readers here are familiar with your frequent claims that are in direct conflict with reality, but this is pretty "out there" even by your standards.

You feeling OK buddy?

That question has been asked since early in the pandemic, and there have been many observational studies performed showing mask use lowering transmissibility to one degree or another. Like this early study of mask use in China:

Face mask use by the primary case and family contacts before the primary case developed symptoms was 79% effective in reducing transmission

Well, since "Uninformed" is not a moderation option, I don't think you should be modded down for mere ignorance. But that's just me.

This source says Deliveroo has 6 million customers in 12 markets. Where do your numbers come from?

The average weight of an adult in the UK, where it appears the vast majority of Derliveroo's customers reside, is 173lbs.

Given that Deliveroo's top delivered items are mostly cheeseburgers and burritos, and that they lose money on every delivery, I can see why they might want to avoid operating in the US market.

The title of the article you link to is "Study points to evidence of stray dogs as possible origin of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic". In your article, it says:

Now, University of Ottawa biology professor Xuhua Xia, tracing coronavirus signatures across different species, has proposed that stray dogs—-specifically dog intestines—- may have been the origin of the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

. Your article quotes the study's author, saying:

"Our observations have allowed the formation of a new hypothesis for the origin and initial transmission of SARS-CoV-2"

The "stray dog origin" researcher's actual paper, published a year ago with no co-authors, can be found here. In it, the researcher states:

"This suggests that the canine tissue infected by the canine coronavirus may provide a cellular environment strongly selecting against CpG."

Nowhere in the paper does its author state anything about canines being the origin of SARS-CoV-2 with certainty. Nowhere. In fact, things like "may select", "may have evolved", etc. are used over a dozen times in the paper.

You have taken an article where the headline, text, and quote from the researcher all point to a possible origin of SARS-CoV-2, and turned that into the unequivocal statement "No, they're not possibilities.The virus went from bats to some other animal for many generations before becoming contagious to humans". You followed that up with "Well, maybe they're possibilities in Conservatopia or Libertardia, but not for those of us who live in the real world."

Now, I've got some questions for you.

1) Has any research been performed in the year since the paper was published that confirms what the author of the paper itself describes as a "hypothesis"?

2) Do you believe the 8 authors of the paper I cited (published after your paper, pointing to a bat origin with only the possibility of an intermediary) all live in Conservatopia or Libertardia?

3) Do you believe 14 researchers from all over the world, who published a direct refutation of the paper you cite, do they all live in Conservatopia or Libertardia?

4) Do you often make rash claims of scientific certainty when the science is so very clearly NOT settled?

5) Are you prone to making arguments that anyone who disagrees with you is some "political other" who isn't living in reality?

6) Could it possibly be that YOU are the one with "reality problems"?

Not according to these scientists, who say:

Collectively our analyses point to bats being the primary reservoir for the SARS-CoV-2 lineage. While it is possible that pangolins, or another hitherto undiscovered species, may have acted as an intermediate host facilitating transmission to humans, current evidence is consistent with the virus having evolved in bats resulting in bat sarbecoviruses that can replicate in the upper respiratory tract of both humans and pangolins.

If you have an authoritative source that says "The virus went from bats to some other animal for many generations before becoming contagious to humans", you should post it.

Let me try to make this simple for you: All Stallman did was suggest using a different genderless pronoun as an alternative to "they". That's it. Doing so does not deny or deride the trans experience, or the "feelings" of someone who identifies as male, female, neither, both, or a fluidity between any/all/no genders. Rational people who object to Stallman's position pretty much say "well that's dumb" and move on. Not you, though. Not you.

You are making the ridiculous argument that because Stallman expressed a view you disagree with, he therefore has problems with communications skills.

The fact is, Stallman's communication skills were good enough to write and deliver speeches for decades, author books that have been translated into multiple languages, create a foundational tech project that attracted thousands of contributors, and manage hoards of developers (literally herding cats). Not to mention having the communication skills required to express a vision that led to the founding of an entire socio-political-technological movement.

Yet for you, the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor, none of that matters. He said something you don't like, therefore his communication skills suck, therefore he should be removed from any and all leadership positions. Remove all your tedious, repetitive rhetoric, and that's really all you've got.

You go on and have fun with this witch hunt you're gleefully participating in. And the next one. And the next. But watch out, the next target may actually be someone you admire and/or respect. Or even closer to home than that. The slightest infraction of wrongthink might eventually get YOU unpersoned.

You have a nice day.