1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

As my point was, you need to prove we landed on the moon, not that we didn't land on the moon. It's important not to reverse the burden of proof. If you're satisfied with all the proof you just described, great.

It's 6 landing sites, not 3.

You asked if I "believe in" telescopes. I don't "believe in" anything. I believe things when it can be demonstrated. Meaning I "believe that, because...". If telescopes can be demonstrated, then it can be believable. If telescopes cannot be demonstrated, then there is no reason to find it believable. "Believing in" things is asking one to turn their brain off and not think about why you believe it or if it's warranted to be believable.

As for your chain of logic here, you're making some unwarranted leaps. If your only proof that NASA went to the moon is from supposed photos provided by NASA and not a neutral third party, then that's a proof that wouldn't hold up in a court of law by itself. Being combative about minor side issues like satellites, telescopes, and lasers is not a clear way to think about this.

Finally, I never even shared what my position on the moon is. I'm only providing guidance on how to properly analyze fantastic claims, in a way that's grounded in reality. FYI, my grandfather worked for a NASA contractor and was one of the engineers who designed the Apollo Spacecraft, a fact we're very proud of in my family.

2
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 2 points ago +3 / -1

Never allow yourself to be programmed.

Once people start realizing that most "conspiracy theories" are true, the government is going to muddy the waters by hiring people that say all the right things so they're "on our side", and then they start adding some new really wacky ideas to attract people to. The result being that our side starts getting filled with people believing a lot of off the wall things.

Every case needs to be judged on its own. It doesn't matter who first said it, or who currently believes it, or whether it appears they're "on our side" or not.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +2 / -1

Whether the earth is flat or round or a triangle can be proven by a variety of techniques. These are experiments that anyone can conduct on their own.

Regarding some people actually being lizards, that's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. Humans landing on the moon is also an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. To prove either of these, we need more than the claims of a few, or out of focus questionable "big foot" videos. Please don't reverse the requirements on either of these. Likewise, saying Biden is really someone else also requires proof, especially when the supposed proof shows a lot of points of comparison that haven't changed.

6
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yeah, I see the ear thing as well. Aside from the bottom part of the ear, they look the same. As you said, perhaps a face lift explains that discrepancy near the bottom.

The bumps on the temple also look the same.

He probably had a lot of work done on his face. But some key aspects remains the same between the two.

5
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 5 points ago +5 / -0

So I examined the ear between the two of them in this photo. Looks to be at a slightly different angle between the two. However, the ridges looks more or less the same between them.

2
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, in this case, perhaps even years before hand.

Windows has a 64 bit time function even on 32 bit systems. Applications just need to make sure to use it.

Other Operating Systems are currently in the midst of transitioning all their time interfaces to be 64 bit, even on 32 bit systems. Any application which makes use of a time related variable will do the right thing when recompiled.

The issue here will be with applications that are never recompiled, or use a 32 bit variable instead of a time variable, or are on Windows and continue to use the 32 bit time interface.

2
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 2 points ago +2 / -0

Even if the system itself is 64 bit, some applications may be 32 bit.

2
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 2 points ago +2 / -0

But the computers could have gotten the date wrong.

It's not "could have", many of them did.

I got my computer in 1997. I was worried about Y2K compat, so I set the time to December 31 1999 at 12:58 PM, and waited to see what would happen. It rolled back to 1900. I then manually set the date to Jan 1 2000 at 7:00 AM, and played around with a bit, and found everything I used was working. So I knew when the time came, I would just need to manually correct the time, and everything else would work.

So at this point I knew that my personal stuff would have a minor inconvenience which would take a couple of seconds to fix, no big deal. I was mildly worried what if some major system somewhere went nuts from a similar issue, but thankfully none did. Whatever major systems out there that might have had an issue were fixed in time. When the time came, I heard some people yelling outside, but that was it. After the weekend, I fixed the time on my computer when I next used it and that was that.

The 2038 issue is more problematic. Operating systems that use 32-bit time will have no way deal with time after the seconds rollover. A few years ago, I checked a bunch of systems I have to see how they would handle it. All my newer systems are 64 bit and have no issue. Almost all the older operating systems I tested had time roll over and some programs acted weird, but nothing appearing to outright break except some music player. However, there was no way to actually set the time to be a correct later date. Once resetting the time to something positive (after 1970), that broken music player started working again.

The one exception to this was Mac OS X, I forget offhand which versions (and I haven't checked anything newer since then), when the time was hit, the system just froze. Rebooting the system did not work, as Mac OS X would not boot up. Had to figure out how to enter the EFI and change the time back before it would boot again. The EFI had the time frozen on the last second of 32 bit time.

12
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 12 points ago +12 / -0

Actually for them, Musk is charging them $1000/m for their main account, but they refused to pay up.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

If the claim was that Bill Gates wanted to make viruses for Windows so that people buy his anti-virus software, the it does matter how it's bundled.

Since Windows Defender is free, he's not making any extra money because of its existence. He has no incentive to create viruses.

And as I said previously, Windows Defender was part of Windows Vista and onward, which was after Bill Gates stepped down. All their recent services like Azure and Endpoint protection are also after Bill Gates stepped down.

I don't like Microsoft, I think most of their products are junk, and I'd be just fine if someone were to execute Bill Gates. However, I'm not going to claim he had a financial incentive to create computer viruses, when the evidence for such is sorely lacking.

If anyone had a financial incentive to create viruses back in the day, it would have been Norton/Symantec and Mcafee, the two leading companies that built their fortunes on their paid/subscription anti-virus services.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

Windows Defender is a free Windows anti-virus application that got bundled into Windows starting with version 6 (Vista). This only occurred after Mac OS starting getting a sizable market-share, claiming their OS was more secure.

2
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hate Gates as much as the next guy here. However, Gates never sold any computer anti-virus software.

2
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bit of a huge leap if you ask me.

A lot of the rubble was dust spread all over NYC, it's not like it disappeared. Also, a lot of the metal ended up in the basement, and some of it was ejected into the surrounding buildings. Sure if you just hone in on the area around the towers above ground, it doesn't look like it's enough, but that's hardly the whole picture.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

You don't need a phone for TOTP. If you use a Google Chromium based browser, there's this extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/authenticator/bhghoamapcdpbohphigoooaddinpkbai which offers it. Most Linux distributions offer oathtool which can do it, and there's plenty of other implementations as well.

TOTP is nothing more than a mathematical algorithm based on the current time, and has nothing to do with any cellular, phone, or internet network. The algorithm is defined at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4226.html and https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6238.html and if you have basic programming skill and can understand these documents, it's not hard to implement yourself.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is kind of my thinking when I first saw this. Although perhaps there's some new legistation / EO affecting this that we don't realize is.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

Both halves are true, just not connected to each other.

2
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 2 points ago +2 / -0

Being direct to the point where some people might think it's rude is a common trait among native New Yorkers. We don't find it rude, and in fact, we find not being direct to be annoying and deceitful. Trump speaks like a native New Yorker, because he is one.

The media may act like this isn't normal behavior, but if you spent any amount of time in New York, you'd find this behavior to be typical.

2
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 2 points ago +2 / -0

And nvidia just announced a big loss in revenue and their stock took a big drop. Didn't take long for her insider trading to pay off.

7
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 7 points ago +7 / -0

Demolish their main office.

Build a memorial to testify that the agency existed to blackmail congress, plan domestic kidnappings, and perform terrorist attacks on US soil. We must learn from this to never again accept any agency like it.

3
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 3 points ago +3 / -0

Emoluments is when the proceeds of something owned by the government goes to an individual. So for example, if we said all the toll collected by the government for a particular road or bridge goes to so and so, that would be an emolument. If a public servant started renting out rooms in the capitol building or the whitehouse, and took that money for themselves, that would be an emolument.

Tagging along with someone else to get a free plane ride, or to use your connection to a public servant to cut a deal is varying levels of corruption, but it's not an emolument.

3
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 3 points ago +3 / -0

We don't know what she actually lost. If she has insight that Nvidia's stock is going to massively drop, then she just saved herself from even more loss.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›