Wait, I thought "people and companies are abandoning NYS due to some of the highest taxes in the nation."

Now, if the best educated adults from other parts of the country are moving in, who's moving out?

The whole point of bitcoin is to keep your transaction history public and traceable.

The illegality here is not trying to obfuscate transaction history, but rather for trying to hide the fact that the bitcoin was used to transact drug deals.

...but to OP's point, they didn't report false results. You keep stating that, when it's not the case.

What they did do, is delay the results because they stated there was a problem with the app.

Who eventually won? Well, it seems that there was a close tie between Sanders and Buttiegieg.

Neither was the ' "winner the _establishement_ wanted, manipulated by the MSM.'

So let's stop pretending your posting effort is about accuracy in electronic caucus apps, and more about spreading the idea that the evil Democrats are manipulating what the _establishment_ wants. (how's that working out for them, btw?)

your second point is becoming the sole determinant of when I use/upgrade to new programs or systems. drives me crazy...

I was going to ask a similar question. Wouldn't editors know the identities of reviewers, and periodically "metamoderate"?

I think a more statistically significant way to look at this would be to see how much the billionaires spend for political campaigns/influence, and to see if it correlates (and how) to the distribution & amplification of false or misleading information.

A bigger discussion to be had is how this stuff influences attitudes long term (think propaganda), which makes future elections easier.

I think your comment proves the point. They chose to ignore the great responsibility they had, to horrific results.

Yeah, I'm not so sure. Media companies have always "owned the town square" including when the town square had printed notices posted in it. Zuck was engaging in some creative revisionist history, as if Facebook was created for a noble cause other than rating college students' hotness, decorum be damned.

Dorsey's point, and a good one, is that with these platforms, it's about more than someone's approved / contemptible worldview, it's also about the need to recognize that this information can be hyper-amplified, whether true or not, or disruptive or not, and that can have serious consequences.

I get it, he's Zuck's competitor, but he at least seems to understand the nuance of how these platforms can be used for good/evil, and Zuck just seems to want to pacify everyone with platitudes so he can get back to running things the way he wants.

Peak Godwin's Law in 60 seconds.

Huzzah, Slashdot, we did it!

Nice strawman. Those children "separated by families who commit crimes" are not locked up as well. And if you're going to seriously go down the path of stating that the families' immigrations are illegal, please also acknowledge that the current administration has intentionally shut down ways of legitimately entering the country including eliminating ways of claiming asylum.

I think another thing that gets left out, is the difference between income and wealth. One of the ways the very wealthy stay that way is that while their income may be taxed at a (slightly) higher rate, much of their wealth isn't, through deductions, loopholes, etc.

The summary example (Google scanning 4% of books), while it may be "a lot" of data, isn't really big data, is it? I understand the whole point about more data not necessarily being better, but here I don't even think the example shows proves the point?

"there's not much Spam in it!"