I've actually more or less given up on public forums except for hackernews and a bit of reddit surfing (but not discussing). This is just another throwaway Google account after I deleted several
Hackernews is an extreme left Silicon Valley wankfest where, much like Ars Technica, they're very intolerant of any opinions viewed to be insufficiently progressive. You often hear the regulars chirping about how insightful the discussion is compared to so many other "toxic" websites, but this simply isn't supported by any objective appraisal of the commentary. Spending years living in an echo chamber distorts one's view of reality.
Take your concern trolling elsewhere.
As is Glenn Greenwald. Regarding the second set of "independent researchers", a group by the name of PropOrNot:
And as for the first source, The Foreign Policy Research Institute's motto is:
"Bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests"
I'm curious to know, how can one possibly like an interview where the subject dodges every inconvenient questions asked? It was calculated PR and victim narrative just as everything Wu does is, and if you want to get behind that as being "a good interview" then I have no reservations in calling bullshit on it. The likes of amimojo and yourself seem desperate to normalize such content on slashdot, whereas the majority of the audience sees it for the progressive wank-fest that it is.
The remainder of your post merely serves to indicate how hypocritical an deluded you've become. Accuse other people of ad-homs when you yourself have only slung insults from the start and never explained your position. Ahh right, I forget the sort of mental gymnastics that are possible when you've decided ahead of time that you're on the good side fighting the good fight. No need for objective appraisal of people / events, just keep pounding away with labels and ideology.
As charming is the faux concern is ("IT WILL LEAD YOU THE DARK SIDE" lololol), if you're really out to change people's minds then you'd be well advised to explain yourself instead of acting like some crazed Baptist preacher at the pulpit.
The fact that the mere mention of Wu completely nukes any capability for rational thought in your brain indicated I still have plenty of work to do.
I gave a factually accurate statement about why Wu isn't an interesting interviewee for slashdot or any other tech focused site. Despite the gnashing of teeth and the fact that you seem to view yourself as her personal bulldog, you didn't provide any refutation to what I said. Nor can you.
The bolded text says it all about who's being rational and who's an extremist with an axe to grind.
Oh dear, we seem to have a nutjob. What is it about people like you? As soon as you see "Zoe Quinn" or "Brianna Wu" your brain short circuits and you start babbling incoherent crap.
Nah. It really is OK to point out the rather large difference between interviewing Stallman and Brianna Wu on a site that's ostensibly "news for nerds". It's left as an exercise for you to determine which of these individuals should have something of interest to say on the collection of topics that fall under that banner.
Now serviscope, I can't help but notice you running around this thread lashing out at all the "nutjobs" who express dissatisfaction with the barrage of social justice fodder that's appeared on this site recently, and it isn't the first time you've done so. As I recall, you've shown yourself to be willfully ignorant of facts but heavy on finger-pointing and ideology. Who is the nutjob with an obsession here?
Some people really, really don't seem to like stories about women or education
I like you how casually put interviewing Stallman and Brianna Wu on the same footing. Really now Amimojo, maintaining the delusion that a failed mobile game developer who has taken up a new career as professional victim has done anything worthwhile in the tech community just to perpetuate her unearned e-celebrity status isn't going to lead to a good outcome for anyone. Aside from the extra cash in Wu's Patreon account, that is, which is I recall was brazenly linked to directly in the summary.
Musk's FCC filing proposes tests starting next year. If all goes well, the service could be up and running in about five years. The satellites would be deployed from one of SpaceX's rockets, the Falcon 9. Once in orbit, the satellites would connect to ground stations at three West Coast facilities. The purpose of the tests is to see whether the antenna technology used on the satellites will be able to deliver high-speed Internet to the ground without hiccups.
It appears to me that Musk's constellation will be made up of cubesats, small and cheap to build, and easy to launch in large numbers as secondary payloads on every Falcon 9 launch. In other words, as long as SpaceX can get customers to pay for launches of large satellites on its Falcon 9, Musk will be able to launch and maintain his constellation of cubesats for free.
And you can of course consult RPS for the first of Grayson's PR pieces as it is still up:
I see you're willfully misinformed about the TFYC incident also.
The response you're looking for concerning the positive PR Quinn received from Grayson has already been posted:
But you already knew that, didn't you AntiMojo. By all means please continue to troll your own thread
It is better to live rich than to die rich. -- Samuel Johnson