Boom du jour:
Tony Bobulinski, Hunter and Joe’s biz confirmed last night: the former vice president was a willing and eager participant in a family scheme to make millions of dollars by partnering with a shady Chinese Communist firm.
The Cardano founder’s rant (above) is highly entertaining and persuasive. His story ought to be told if for no reason than what it illustrates about the seedy operations of “the encyclopedia anybody can edit.”
I’m not endorsing Cardano, which I know little about. Caveat emptor.
Leading the charge against crypto in general on Wikipedia is one David Gerard, who is, let’s just say, one of the people responsible for the mess that Wikipedia has become—and a leader of the libelous, silly RationalWiki. Has been a friend of Jimmy Wales.
1/ Interesting news this morning. First, Hunter’s laptop it is not a Russian hoax, it is…Hunter’s laptop. zerohedge.com/political/full…
2/ “The Russia excuse ... collapsed when Fox verified the information with someone on the email chain. The Biden campaign has yet to say these emails or photos are not real. The reason? Hunter’s lawyer sent emails trying to recover the hard drive.”
1/ Let me "fact-check" the very idea of fact-checking.
I have great contempt for fact-checkers. Here's why.
When people claim to do a fact-check of some claim, what they purport to do is to test it against objective evidence in order to determine whether it is true.
2/ The problem is that the claims they are "fact-checking" are usually ambiguous: they are open to many interpretations. It's easy to show a claim to be false; you merely have to pick an interpretation according to which it is false. That is usually not hard.
3/ Among academics who pride themselves on their intellectual fairness, there is a basic principle, the principle of "charity," according to which you choose an interpretation of your opponent's claim based on which possible interpretation is most likely to be true.
It is appalling that now YouTube has taken down channels, like @99freemind, who just research various sources, share info, and draw sometimes wild (sometimes correct) inferences.
If it’s not libel, they should be free to speak their minds, period.