Terrorists, funsters and all the other nice people

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Well Parler has been breached and 70TB of data captured. Word of warning, don't drink anything while reading unless you plan on hydrating your screen,
https://cybernews.com/news/70tb-of-parler-users-messages-videos-and-posts-leaked-by-security-researchers/
https://twitter.com/bitburner/status/1348558563019427842?s=20

The data might prove valuable to law enforcement since many who participated in the riots deleted their posts and videos afterward. The data scrape includes deleted posts, meaning that Parler stored user data after users deleted it.

Well, maybe. Depends on whether the data would be "legally obtained evidence." If it isn't, law enforcement can't use it, and probably couldn't even look at it. If they did, anything they developed from it would be inadmissible in court ("fruit of the poison tree"). If it's legitimate as a starting point, I suppose it's possible that its authenticity could be questioned in court.

From the WAPO article about the scrape,

Before it went dark, chief executive John Matze posted on the site that "violence and coordinating riots, coordinating rebellions and coordinating insurrections has no place on social media."

Your wish was Amazon's command. So why the heck are you suing them?

Matze posted that "the media tried to claim that 'The Insurrection' was organized on Parler." He added that Parler has no way to organize anything and that "bad actors" turned the Capitol protest into a riot.

This reminds me that in The Devil's Dictionary, the definition of Homicide includes the immortal phrase (my emphasis), "There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy,..."

[storm5510]

Funders: Something I noticed about 10 days ago. Cryptocurrency. Bitcoin was running above $41K USD per share. Then came the capitol riot. It dropped back $31K USD. It has came back up to $35K. I do not understand all that Wall Street jazz. This is a simple number plotted over time on a line graph. Anyone knowing how to use Excel, or similar, can do this.

What relevance this has to everything else, I have no idea.

[Xyzzy]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...d%2FYeehawdist

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...d%2FYeehawdist

[Dr Sardonicus]

Tucker Carlson: Joe Biden declares war on 'White supremacy.' What does he mean by that?

Can somebody tell us in very clear language what a White supremacist is?

Perhaps "Dude. Look in the mirror." is too facile. How 'bout one of the right wing's latest darlings, whom they portray as heroically fighting off BLM CHICOMS, a mere lad of tender years for whom they raised a cool 2 mil to spring him from jail? (my emphasis)

Kyle Rittenhouse's bond agreement modified after allegedly flashing white-power signs at bar

KENOSHA CO. — Kyle Rittenhouse's bond agreement has been modified after prosecutors say the 18-year-old flashed white-power signs while posing for photos, drank several beers, and was "loudly serenaded" with the Proud Boys' official song at a Mount Pleasant bar earlier this month.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

...Perhaps "Dude. Look in the mirror." is too facile...

There is no way for me to express my hatred of the word above in bold red. Most men do not take to it well at all.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by storm5510

Most men do not take to it well at all.

Most men are younger than you and thus are less likely to take umbrage at the word.
In fact it is not uncommon to hear young women talking amongst themselves use it when referring to the individual being spoken to So, while a krusty dude that was into sea shanties in the 1960's might not like it, Those born since Reagan elected (people 40 and below) may not have much issue with it.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by storm5510

There is no way for me to express my hatred of the word above in bold red. Most men do not take to it well at all.

A dictum of mine: offen{c,s}e is in the mind of the offended.

From one dude to another (and I may well be older than either you or Uncwilly).

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by xilman

A dictum of mine: offen{c,s}e is in the mind of the offended.

Intent to offend may or may not lie in the heart of the 'offender'.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Intent to offend may or may not lie in the heart of the 'offender'.

True, but that concentrates attention on intent, not on offen{c,s}e.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Most men are younger than you and thus are less likely to take umbrage at the word...

A valid point. I cannot remember the first time I heard it. Perhaps 10 to 15 years ago. I remember watching some program on TV where a teenage boy applied it to a police officer probably in his 40's. That went over like a turd in a punch bowl. The boy received an ear-scalding with a baton pointed at his face.