From the FAQ linked above:

Will this wake up the Kaiju?

No.

Hubris will be our downfall.

Um, via @POTUS. You know, the account for actual official things he may need to say

So says someone who happens to love IT security, a very lucrative field. I'm glad things have worked out well for you, but from where I sit, I consider you to be a bit of a minority of the population.

It turns out that for a great number of people, there isn't this driving passion to work on a particular topic. We have our interests and our opinions, and hopefully our careers manage to tick a number of boxes of things that fulfill us, but our jobs will never be the most important thing for us - they are a means to enable the rest of life.

There are also those who have passions for things that have little market value. (See everybody with a booth at the average craft fair, for example.). Yes, it is possible to earn a living from the passion, but there is a lot of hard work and not much money.

Poor people are usually poor because they're dumb

What an incredibly narrow and prejudiced point of view! Methinks you need to get outside of your affluent bubble and meet some poor people.

Only in their most caricatured form.

It is mistake to think that people who disagree with you are inherently selfish, stupid, or bad.

Here's another right-wing principle that we should all be able to agree upon - a strongly centralized government is prone to corruption and abuses of power, hence an emphasis on local control gives people more access to power structures close to them and more say into details. Or another: when people work hard, they are entitled to the fruits of their labor.

The flip side to bother of these issues is (respectively) - some issues require coordination over large areas (think of water quality at the mouth of Mississippi depending on a huge swatch of the continent) and that people shouldn't make money by exploiting other people's labor.

It is easy to say these principles, but messy and complicated to look at all the pros and cons of different policies to address issues. Also, depending on who you talk to, you'll hear that the balance is too far one way or another. These are the things we should be arguing about, not just making ad hominem attacks.

Curious. You claim to be familiar with sloppy thinking, yet you are only able to describe liberal thought in the rudest, most simple-minded caricature.

Hmm....

If you spend your days immersed in right-wing media, I can understand how you may think this is true.

There are subtle, nuanced positions for the both the right and the left. There are also simple-minded caricatures of these positions, which are what is constantly attacked in what passes for political discussions.

Pro tip - spend a lot of time listening to pundits that you disagree with. Notice how they distort and simplify your viewpoint until it is ridiculous. Now, go back to listening to the ones you like. If you're careful, you see the same BS flying in from different directions.

This. There is so much FUD put up around the uncertainty about how, exactly, the entire ecosystem of the earth will respond that we are missing some of the basic science.

I would add to this basic experiment that we also need to say the obvious: "Human life depends on the basic systems of earth to provide air to breathe. We are changing this system in unknown ways, that will have unknown effects. We should stop changing our life support."

How are you going to determine a false positive?

This.

Given the large amount of shaving in pubic areas these days, I find it hard to imagine how any algorithm for identifying naked children would be able to reliably tell the difference between children and groomed young adults.

That actually brought up a whole other question - how are they engineering this tool? I know that whenever I've worked on any kind of classifier, we've always needed a set of true/false positive images to work with. Also, when developing, it has also usually very helpful to spend time looking at things like false negatives.

Think of the developers!

Hmm... back in Dec 2020, COVID deaths corresponded to about 20K deaths vs. about 60K deaths by other causes. (Leading causes are cancer and heart disease.)

Given that vaccines were initially given to older people, who are more likely to die, statistically speaking, and that COVID deaths have always been a minority of total mortality, I think the following is a true statement:

In the past few months (when a large population has been vaccinated), more people have died after receiving the COVID vaccine than have died from COVID.

Notice that this fact about statistics can very, very easily be read to imply that the vaccine is the cause of the deaths, which is a clear post hot ergo propter hoc fallacy.

So, yeah, this gets picked up, mutilated and spread around, and now there is "evidence" of the lethal power of vaccines.

Yet again, anti-vaxxers demonstrate an inability to think.

This single example is hardly a proof.

Also, remember that all of Musk's efforts are resting on the backs of lots and lots of government research. I'm talking about the original NASA missions, plus all of the basic R&D from way back on computers and microchips, which are essential to these modern rockets.

Don't get me wrong - there is no doubt that government is bloated and inefficient. Keep in mind as well that private industry is also often bloated an inefficient. You know that movies like Office Space are based on reality, right?

I personally think it is much more important to look at a lot of specific structures, processes, accountability, etc. than to look at who is paying for it.

Can we please stop arguing about how much it costs to de-carbonize the economy and instead start recognizing that it will be much, much more expensive to NOT address climate change?

But he didn't meet any legal USA definition of incitement, nor "high crimes or misdemeanors."

You're right that he didn't meet the standard for incitement, but I do hope you realize that there is no specific definition of "high crimes or misdemeanors."

This is by design. The writers of the constitution recognized that it was possible for a person to follow the letter of the law, but to abuse power and to threaten some of the core democratic processes. As such, the exact definition of "high crimes or misdemeanors" is left to congress to decide.

In the case of this riot, etc., Trump is responsible. He repeatedly lied about the election results and called upon his followers to rise up and fight, all aimed at overturning the election and seizing illegitimate power. This is the most clear-cut impeachment case in US history.

that they should go protest "peacefully" (which is what he said)

I find it amazing that the Trump apologists will bend over backwards to highlight how he used the word peacefully in his speech. This is the clearest, most obvious example of missing the forest for the trees I have ever seen.

Don't forget, though, that the whole claim of fraud is a bold-faced lie. Full stop. Even William Barr says there was no fraud.. In other words, there was only a mob even *there* because of Trump lying and undermining democracy.

He also repeatedly called upon his follows to "be wild" and told them, DURING THE RIOT, that he loved them.

Even the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal talks about how Trump set the stage for the riot weeks ahead of time.

The responsibility for this riot lies with Trump, and he has blood on his hands. Any other position is just more of the gaslighting we've all be subjected to for years.