So the share of income going to the top 1% has increased to new heights during the Obama presidency, yet the election of Trump - as opposed to his rival who was expected to continue Obama's policies - is seen as irrational?
Yeah, well the problem is that while Trump campaigned on change, the actual changes he plans to implement will just centralize wealth at the top even more.
America had a chance with Bernie, but due to some combination of media attention, Clinton's ambition, DNC's corruption, Russian interference, increasingly-polarized news, and the generally anti-socialist slant of American political discourse, they threw it away.
Bernie was the "fuck this, change everything" candidate that actually had the disenfranchised's needs at heart. Trump claims the same but doesn't substantiate it.
EDIT: And honestly, I don't think Bernie would have been able to accomplish much, or that Obama has done much objectionable. I get the sense that Obama actually wants to improve things for the middle class, but is realistic about what he can accomplish with Republican houses shutting him down at every turn simply because any policy that helps the middle class appears anti-capitalist (i.e. socialist) when capitalism is increasingly synonymous with centralization of wealth as efficiency grows.
EDIT Again: This whole "campaign for the poor but systematically serve only large businesses, then tell everyone that the democrats -- who actually systematically care about humans a little bit -- are the devil" thing is kind of the GOP's M.O., and, as an outsider, I think it's disgusting. Trump is only an exceptionally bad example because he amplifies some of the standard GOP stances while mixing in his own crazy brand of narcissism.
> I get the sense that Obama actually wants to improve things for the middle class, but is realistic about what he can accomplish with Republican houses shutting him down at every turn
For the record, Democrats had total control of Congress when Obama first came into office.
Indeed, and it's curious that a lot of the more would-be-impactful things have come later in his term when he faces stronger opposition. I don't have any explanation for this.
Republicans controlled Congress during most of Obama's presidency. Congress controls taxes, spending, and most money-related policies. In fact Republicans have been in control for the majority of the past few decades. It was their policies of cutting taxes, gutting government safety nets, "reforming" welfare, gutting banking regulations, and so on that have helped accelerate these trends.
Democrats lost election after election to them and so shifted their policies to match, hoping to chase votes.
Now we don't really have any populist politicians or political parties left.
It seems we are resigned to lurching from panic to panic with anemic growth until we hit the wall of another Great Depression. Then the pain will be so monumental that the 1%'s influence will be swept aside. What form things will take on the other side of that transition no one can say. I also wouldn't hazard a guess on how long it takes; The Panics of 1873, 1893, and 1907 didn't seem to teach anyone any lessons because they repeated the same anti-regulation low-tax "rah rah rah capitalism!" mistakes in the 1920s and triggered the Great Depression. In some ways you could say our systems worked too well to counter-balance the 2007 crisis; they prevented things from getting really bad and forcing change.
Totally agree, we drastically overestimate the power of the President. Congress does most of the things Presidential candidates promise to do, and local government rules everyday quality of life issues like criminal justice and education.
I didn't find any evidence of Rsync in the Cloud Storage edit history, but there is evidence that Rsync was added to the Comparison of Online Backup Services article on November 11, 2015.
It was reverted less than an hour later with the comment "Thanks for the addition, but as wikipedia is not a directory, please limit the list to services with wikipedia articles." So it's at least plausible that he tried to create an article for Rsync.
"Deletion records go back only a year"? Could you explain what you mean by this? Here, for instance, is an AfD log I cited several years ago on HN; it works fine, as I presume do all the AfD logs for every page deleted through the normal deletion process on WP:
My mistake, I tried using just a year in the search results and got older results, so I don't really know what the restrictions on the search are.
I wasn't able to bring up any pages from earlier than 12 months ago without putting in a specific year. I tried using Wikipedia pages that I have bookmarked in the past but no longer exist. I understood this to mean that I couldn't access older deletions, because of the following line on the page:
> Below is a list of recent deletions and restorations.
edit: Either way, it appears Rsync.net would be notable, as it appears on the Warrant Canary page as having the first commercial use of a Warrant Canary. That's the only current use I can find of Rsync.net. Internet cache pages are blocked where I work, so I can't find any more information.
Hold on. I'm not debating whether Rsync.net is notable. I'm saying that you confidently made a statement about Wikipedia that appears to be false --- and you did so while condemning other commenters here for holding an opinion contrary to your own.
I think you may be ascribing too much confidence and condemnation to my comment. I removed my inaccurate statement about the edit when I changed my comment, as I couldn't determine how to strikeout my text as I normally prefer, but my intention was not to make a definitive claim about the nature of Wikipedia, and I don't believe I worded my comment as such.
As far as I recall, my initial comment about how the deletion search worked was hedged by the phrase "it appears", (or something substantially similar). I provided evidence of what steps I had taken in my work. My joke about pitchforks was merely a joke, meant to point out how quickly users make up their mind one way or another.
I edited my initial comment to admit my error as soon as it was pointed out to me. Had I been acting maliciously, I would have just removed that section completely.
Regardless of what words I used to describe how Wikipedia works, the word I used in my assessment was "plausible", which I think is a very even-handed word. I specifically chose it because it doesn't make a strong claim either way.
You are reading a bit too far in to my comments if you think what I said was a definitive claim about how Wikipedia works, or an attack on other users.
Yes, it was "comparison of cloud storage blah blah" that we've tried, several times, to be added to, but again, "not notable" since we're only discussed in wikipedia, but don't have our own page.
But more to the point, as I have described, we have tried to add a rsync.net wikipedia several times (I'm sorry - I don't know the exact naming that "rsync.net" generates in a wikipedia URL) and as I described - almost instantaneously deleted due to notability - even with 12-15 serious, journalistic sources.
In order to look into this controversy, I searched for rsync.net on Wikipedia, and this is what I found. The user Kozubik submitted a draft with references, but the user Arthur Goes Shopping dismissed each of the references. Then when no one edited the draft for six months, the user JMHamo deleted it.
I have a locally saved copy of the submission and the references included a long form article at arstechnica, a long form print article in a magazine (Linux Format), The Yale Law Journal, theregister.co.uk, Lifehacker, ComputerWorld, EFF/Canarywatch, and more ... all over a 10+ year period.
Dismissed, flagged as not notable, and nothing to do but let the submission expire.
Edward Purcell, Electricity and Magnetism, it is a standard lower division undergraduate textbook. The only prerequisites are basic calculus and some mechanics.
One way is to probe them indirectly. For example, string cosmology makes testable predictions (verifiable by observation, e.g. of the CMB). Conceivably, evidence could be found of something that happened in the early universe that is most easily explained within the string theory.
I registered as a donor in the UK. I received a leaflet saying that I should discuss this with my relatives because apparently those people have the power to kill the person needing my organs [1]. Fuck that.
Exactly. It is easy not to read the agreement, general terms of use, fee schedule, terms of use for your particular account or monthly revisions of these documents and then complain. How about you respect the rules for once, OP?
Not sure what your problem is. Personal use might include commuting to work, clothes for work, landlord referencing fees, overdraft fees, perhaps some basic food.
How the hell is money spent on contracting a house to live in (contracting a person to reference you specifically) different to contracting a person to build a house to live in?
