2/ Another issue which I don’t address in this piece is the issue of promised pardons. That’s probably the most interesting and newiest part of the article. But again, people are misunderstanding it. I’ve seen many here interpreting this as promised pardons for the bad acts …
3/ the insurrectionists were about to commit as part of storming the capitol. That’s clearly not what it says. It refers to people who were already in legal jeopardy for other things being promised pardons for participating in the insurrection. I think we know what ….
4/ those other issues are. But we don’t know that for certain. But the relevant point is the promise is not tied to things people are about to do.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's a part of this story that doesn't get enough attn. It's presented as a dispute abt science. But that's not exactly true. There's quite a lot of evidence that boosters provide additional protection against COVID infection. nytimes.com/2021/10/25/hea…
2/ Quite possibly a dramatic increase in protection against infection. The more operative question is whether that additional protection is evanescent or more durable. One theory is that the original dosing regimen was simply not optimal. You do much better if you have one ...
3/ dose and then wait a significant amount of time for the second. In any case, the clinicians and epis who have misgivings make the argument that we shouldn't be using the vaccine to prevent COVID cases that don't land people in the hospital. But a lot of individuals ...
Many more details in this LAT piece. Many of which are terrifying to hear if you're anyone with liability for what was happening on this set. But the description of events sounds somewhat different here. latimes.com/entertainment-…
2/ As a non-movie person I'd been assuming this was during the filming of a scene. But the reference here to an accidental discharge seems less a matter of an accidental firing of a real bullet than the gun firing between scenes. This cld perhaps explain why the DP & Director ...
3/ were near enough to the weapon to both be injured from a single firing of the weapon.
Few more points on this. I know everyone is dunking on him. But I feel profound sympathy for Baldwin. This is an unimaginable nightmare. But piecing together the various facts I discuss in the thread below it appears that this was a bit of a DIY, low budget production set.
2/ Says here there was no union propmaster/armorer involved. Just a local hire. Curious what movie people say about this. But I don't think this is like you had some non-union construction guys building your house. My impression is that all the people who are prop/armorers ...
3/ in movie work are union. So saying the folks doing that weren't union sounds like they didn't really have someone on set who does this professionally. As noted in the thread, producer friend of mine tells me that most major production sets don't use actual firearms anymore ...
Tragedy on the set of Rust reminds me of the decades old story of Jon-Erik Hexum, young rising star actor who as a joke put a prop gun to his head on set and fired the trigger not realizing that a "blank" if it's fired in direct contact with your head has a forceful enough ...
2/ discharge to kill you if you put it to your temple. He died. Young handsome guy in his 20s. This was like in the mid-80s. I've been wanting to ask: has there been any reporting of what set of facts possibly led to Baldwin fatally injuring one person and seriously injuring ...
3/ another? Were live bullets in the prop gun? I honestly don't know if that's possible. If it is what makes it different from a gun? why not just use a gun with blanks? This isn't a leading question: are there any details on this?
obviously she’s not the only one supporting these things. but all of them together really is basically the economic agenda of dc lobbyists, private equity and VC world. It’s what you come up with if you give each lobbyists a shopping list to fill out at donor events
like again, it’s not that she’s unique precisely. but basically this is a list you come to only if you have no policy views and you have the donors text their asks while your on the phone to the White House. She doesn’t even go through the motions
3/ I mean, carried interest. Lol. According to IRS regs you’re not even allowed to know what carried interest means unless you make more than $2m a year in taxable income.
So the idea is that Facebook essentially wants to distance itself from … well, Facebook. The company will be named Zuckplex let’s say and then it has a range of products of which Facebook is just is one. It has the feel of a mobster trying to move assets into legit enterprises.
2/Or simply one of many companies that began as makers of something obscure or tawdry and then tried to moonwalk their way into something classy and respectable. For some reason I’m reminded of Banana Republic’s transition from kitsch safari gear brand to midrange clothing brand.
3/ Not really the same thing but somehow seems related. Google obviously did this. So there’s precedent. But two big issues stand out. The first is that Google was already far more diversified than search by the time of the alphabet rebrand. Maps, gmail, self-driving cars …