popmystack

5 ms·

1.
by popmystack 10y ago
>And before you say those scandals are a result of partisan witch-hunting, Obama never had these scandals that Hillary did. Um, are you just blanking 2004 out of your head? This is just the same stuff all over again. All of the screaming
2.
by popmystack 10y ago
>And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of the literature being discussed. >Look mate I'm not interested
3.
by popmystack 10y ago
I'm sorry, what?
4.
by popmystack 10y ago
>Huff is full of titles Trump is sexual predator without facts, just talks. We have, on record, him describing sexual assault. With his own words. On the other hand, some of the people who now are claiming Bill is a rapist once testified
5.
by popmystack 10y ago
That's a really cheap false equivalency. You've basically side nothing while ignorning the practical reality of what we're discussing. Take for example, the fact that Fox News will continually post stories about how Global Wa
6.
by popmystack 10y ago
I'm not sure what you want me to clarify? At no point did I indicate that it's okay to downvote people you disagree with. They should constructively contribute to the conversation, and in cases where they are not, the downvote but
7.
by popmystack 10y ago
You shouldn't downvote based on disagreement, on top of the fact that that seems like an incredibly disingenuous sentiment, what is your point?
8.
by popmystack 10y ago
>primarily the low quality of Google's SDK for Android. This has always been my biggest frustration with Android. I've written a few applications for the platform, and while their architecture leaves a lot to be desired I'
9.
by popmystack 10y ago
Yeah, all because people wanted to scream "bias." Sadly the community here seemed apt to agree with it, but I definitely have my opinions on that. Quoted from a previous thread: >Did the standard for their sources remain relati
10.
by popmystack 10y ago
>I'm surprised at how many people are responding negatively to software that improves user experience. At the cost of doing things technically correct.
11.
by popmystack 10y ago
They are not doing the same thing. It's two completely different operations.
12.
by popmystack 10y ago
>Consideration of these aspects may help you better convey your technical points. And yet despite him blatantly confronting me in an aggressive personal manner, you've ignored his original post and decided to focus on my post, all i
13.
by popmystack 10y ago
You consider his first post to be productive? You must be dreaming. > ajkjk strikes me as someone making reasonable points He is not making any point, so it's weird that you would say that. He hypocritically stated I was coming off
14.
by popmystack 10y ago
>Someone makes a project trying to make something easier to learn (so, trying to make the world a better place) Again, spare me the hyperbolic the "trying to make the world a better place." The principle behind my post, as give
15.
by popmystack 10y ago
Uh, what? You respond to my post with some of the problems with this system in a hyperbolic, confronting manner without contributing anything. They are not "making the world a better place." Please don't post such non-sense h
16.
by popmystack 10y ago
This seems extremely pointless. At worst, this seems like the Gitless team doesn't understand what Git is doing internally, which is a pretty dangerous state to be in when you're trying to "improve" something. Git as a w
17.
by popmystack 10y ago
Because it's no longer filled with hackers.
18.
by popmystack 10y ago
Observing that there has been a steady trend of right-leaning opinions being blasted across every thread is not a "conspiracy-theory" (it's extremely ironic that you chose to label it in such a way, in a thread with some heav
19.
by popmystack 10y ago
It's not ridiculous. In fact sometimes it's not even thorough enough. If you can't understand the problems with vetting a device to be used by quite a few people, then you're just being foolish.
20.
by popmystack 10y ago
They're not refusing to approve competing products. The products refuse to go through the process of being vetted by the FDA. Get your story straight.
21.
by popmystack 10y ago
No one is controlling the press. I am not sure where you are hearing that, but it's genuinely concerning that you seem to be concerned about things that aren't happening. The government is not blocking any information. It is manag
22.
by popmystack 10y ago
The FDA is not stopping journalists from being "independent, skeptical." It is stopping journalists who attend their press releases from misquoting their statements -- which in case you missed out on a little bit of history has de
23.
by popmystack 10y ago
The FDA is not stopping the press, they are preventing them from misreporting their statements and processes. Spare me the over-zealous "independent" label. The press isn't some magical segment of society with high standards
24.
by popmystack 10y ago
> a close-hold embargo doesn't really prevent them from doing so; It makes it pretty difficult to have any kind of information to spin. Whether or not it's 100% preventative measure is as you say, orthogonal to helping prevent
25.
by popmystack 10y ago
>Actually, the FDA is PROMOTING yellow journalism because they refuse to allow reporters to interview independent sources prior to the embargo being lifted. That is the most backwards statement you possible could have made. I am not even
26.
by popmystack 10y ago
No where did I say the FDA "is never wrong and that its activities need no public oversight." No part of my statement could even be misconstrued that way. But thanks for being disingenuous! The FDA gets _true_ oversight from the t
27.
by popmystack 10y ago
That could be seen as false equivocation of positions. The FDA is an organization that needs to broadcast signals to nearly every level of society about certain products. All the way from corporate RnD divisions to consumers. Not being conc
28.
by popmystack 10y ago
You brought up those points, but there is no supporting evidence for them. There is plenty of accounts from people who went through this process with the exact opposite opinion you are stating. No where in my post was there indication or an
29.
by popmystack 10y ago
>I do see the difference, but I'm not convinced it's anything but marginal. That is incredibly myopic and presumptuous. You're effectively arguing that we're going to destroy your life so it'll be better if we ju
30.
by popmystack 10y ago
The U.S. wasn't as smart as it should have been. Let's put it that way.

More ›