> In a notice posted on its website, the agency said technicians are working to resolve the disruption as quickly as possible.
This article is very likely misreporting the US National Weather Service radar outage page you can find people reposting elsewhere in this comment section. The NWS page has been updated to say it does not reflect a current issue. Anecdotally, my local NWS weather radar is working fine. Also, weather doppler radar and ATC "radar" are very, very different technologies.
> Look. This is a new golden age of cocaine, because of the big cuts in everything in the US took away the cocaine busting operations in Colombia and Bolivia, because the revolutionaries that previously kept control of it stood down and became a political party and new, profit-driven cartels came up, and because battery technology means that narcosubs and similar drone things work much better than before (and they can be made remote-operated, so the cops can't do shit even when they find one). Wholesale prices have halved or gone down 60% to like, 12k usd / kilo, street prices commensurate. The huge new opportunities created by increased market size have increased competition and made the cartel nature of the cartels decrease. So always think of that when you look at people acting like this and having such megalomaniac goals.
I hadn't heard this before. That's actually pretty interesting. My assumption has always been run-of-the-mill ADHD meds like Adderall and its several cousins, but I can't say I've got firsthand knowledge of either these days.
Disagree - when a company responds with mealy-mouthed corporate gruel, designed in bad faith to obfuscate and distract, there should be no obligation on the part of the investigator to propagate it.
Why not both? Have the reporter editorialize in the article itself but link to sources and references including the full response as a way of showing their work and letting readers validate.
I'd argue that this just descends into sophistry. If the journalist isn't as convincing as the corporate speak, the company could potentially pull the wool over a reader's eyes.
I think "chose not to provide a direct answer" is pretty clearly "technically they responded, but they waffled about in such a way as to have provided no meaningful information".
The article isn't sponsored and so is under no obligation to reproduce what likely amounts to ad copy.
That is called gate keeping or hoarding information. I read other answers that were full of weasel words and yet still published. Censoring is not the same as quoting.
Because the traditional press believes their readers are idiots that cannot think for themselves and so they require "the reporter" to interpret for them and tell them what to think about whatever topic the article concerns. This is also a big reason why traditional press outlets never link to original sources on their websites when such sources actually exist (despite the entire point of "the web" being to link together disparate sources)[1]. Doing so would mean their readers are not dependent upon them, the priests in the high castle, for learning what the priests want them to learn.
[1] The other part of the reason, and the one they will admit to publicly if pressed, is to maintain their ad revenue by not providing exit paths for their readers.
Ironic how two opinions can be completely opposite, yet both valid and well-founded, and unverifiable at the same time.
I personally believe that journalists should do their job and decide what gets written and how, and save readers from drowning in information we have too much of anyway.
The premise of the article was we asked 11 companies 17 questions about their "TV" product.
The article singled out only 1 company to not publish non-responsive answers. That only does one thing how bad an answer could it be to not be publishable?
This wasn't announced, it was an internal leak reported by Bloomberg. Perhaps they should have known it would leak, but there doesn't seem to be any grand strategy.
Disagree, I review a lot of Opus 5.5 code and its comments and docs are still pretty inane and Claudish. Is it better than the 4.x and 5.0 era, sure. But it's still nouning the verbs, using colons everywhere, a-not-b, "a foos the b" etc. A lot of lingual knots that need a human hand to untie.
I read to the end. One of the loveliest research pieces I've ever come across. Thank you to whomever submitted it.
> By-law No. 2104, “A By-law to Declare the Domestic Contentment of the Citizens,” deemed every marriage solemnized or registered within the City of Calgary to have been “a happy one as of the date of passing of this By-law,” .... Fergus Tait, the widower, voted against it again, and the minutes give his reason as “that I was happy, and I should like it to remain my own business.”
> Blanets are planets that form in the accretion disk around a sufficiently large black hole.... [T]hey can be heated by either radiation from the black hole's accretion disk, or (this is whacky) the blueshifted cosmic microwave background if they're close enough to the hole.
Mindbending! Makes me wish I went into astronomy rather than tech, and not for the first time.
Did you ever provide your phone number at voter registration? I made this mistake once and got added to dozens of text lists, Democratic and Republican. Never had a problem from the usual leaks.
I have never provided my phone number at voter registration. In any case, all the texts to me are marked with "Hello Louella". I have also been "Brenda".
I am not a Louella or a Brenda, more of a "Joe" or "Frank".
I am quite sure that ActBlue just creates a list of names, then create a wardial list and assign those names to a number.
Asking them to stop just confirms your number to work. And yes, it's ActBlue because they have specifically identified themselves as such more than once.
You know those data brokers and skip tracers like Acxiom and Epsilon that merge all the government databases like property records or USPS change of address notifications with private databases like all the contact lists every random app wants you to upload?
They probably did a fuzzy merge and your number (or a number typo'd to yours) got associated with some random old lady.
That's how I got on the lists of all the scummy PACs targeting elderly voters that Adam Bonica called out recently. I only figured it out because the cash for homes cold contacts trying to lowball his house will actually respond.
I have replied STOP a lot and the political texts do, in fact, stop - at least from that particular number (see my other comment for a rant about this). Of course if you do this to a scammer it is as you say.
STOP to a 10DLC number should block further texts from that specific number at a carrier level, regardless of whether the campaign honors its 10DLC requirements. At least, until it’s recycled to a new campaign.
I wonder if 'STOP or I will vote for your opponent' might work. Then again, if that worked, you might just start receiving messages asking you to vote for their opponent instead.
You'll just end up on another list for the next election cycle. It's marketers - no one is forcing them to respect STOP replies, and a STOP reply is just another data point.
Not even the next cycle, as far as I can tell if you say stop or unsubscribe, the political spam mailing list system adds a new candidate to the ~8-10 candidates they keep you loaded with
STOP has worked more for me with Dem begging texts, less so with Repub, but not completely with either. I've switched to sending them troll like messages back, which also results in the same unsubscribed message, but perhaps makes it clear I will not give money to politicians.
That's exactly it. I donated to a candidate once (literally once, ever) and the party basically passes my phone number around to every PAC and campaign organization under the sun.
This stuff must be effective or else they wouldn't do it. On the other hand, it seems like a good way to discourage repeat donors. Why would I donate any money if the result is going to be endless texts and emails?
Heck, maybe they should offer a "premium donation" where you pay extra to not get on these lists, analogous to a no-ads streaming plan.
For commercial and political texters in the U.S. there is quite a bit of FCC regulation. For scammers, obviously that doesn't matter. Probably a sign of the times that people can't tell the difference anymore, though
This article is very likely misreporting the US National Weather Service radar outage page you can find people reposting elsewhere in this comment section. The NWS page has been updated to say it does not reflect a current issue. Anecdotally, my local NWS weather radar is working fine. Also, weather doppler radar and ATC "radar" are very, very different technologies.
reply