gearhog

"Flabbergasted" or "Apoplectic"? The consecutive posts of alternating large/small double underlined font could indicate either. I appreciate the time you've taken to present your opposing viewpoint. Just understand that I'm not a Johns Hopkins professor with a PhD. I just find it interesting that one would attempt to make such a controversial claim, and for what reason? If you're looking for somewhere to direct your apparent anger and indignation, her contact info is easily found. I fully understand that, as Mark Twain says, there are three types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. She has hers, you have yours. Statistics, that is. As for the claims on both sides, I think there's always an element of truth. The answer always lies in the middle. Did 300,000 people die from COVID? Possibly. Are there errors and misrepresentations within those numbers? Possibly. It's impossible for either of us to believe we 100% know what is true unless one of us has unsubstantiated faith in our sources. Brother, relax a little. If you're going to get all bent out of shape and attempt to contravene, ridicule, and silence every bit of information out of existence that competes with your beliefs, you're gonna wear yourself out. I'm glad you're skeptical of these things, as am I. Same team.

This is going to sound like a lecture to some. It's not. Just trying to sort through what's happening. I've got a rural farm and things are A-okay here. But things aren't for a lot of people and it's had me thinking about the subject above. Totally agree people are not inherently evil. I also agree society hasn't trended downward...lately. I don't know what the best definitions of good and evil are, but if we aren't talking about fictional heroes and villians, it's sort of hard to pin down. We're not talking about serial killers, rapists, terrorists, etc. Those typically don't last long. As for the rest of the world, one might say good and evil is a sliding scale. On one end, a person acts selflessly and at great sacrifice to themselves to improve the lives of others. In the middle, a person acts in self interest, but also wants the best for others, at the other end, acts to purely out of self interest at great detriment to those around them. Who are the people leading us and where do they fall on the scale? Prosperity Principles, morals, values and ethics seem to increase as people are lifted out of poverty and now have options for social behavior. As people treat one another better and have the freedom to honestly work toward their own increasing prosperity, good prevails. However, there are always people who seem to have a massive increase in prosperity without having treated those around them better. It seems that for some people who acquire massive amounts of prosperity, their principles, morals, values, and ethics diminish. If people feel they are moving toward poverty while a few are moving toward wealth and prosperity, perhaps that leads to decrease across the board of "good". Economics If prosperity is determined by economics, we can say we've enjoyed the most massive overall increase in wealth in human history over the last few decades. However, the global economy is teetering on the edge of a cliff and has been since 2008. Around 22% of US Dollars in existence have been created in the last 8 months. Around 30% of the US is facing mortgage default or eviction in the next few months. Small businesses are closing at the fastest pace ever while Big Tech has gone parabolic. Everything good and bad in the economy is driven by creation of debt, not creation of wealth. For policy makers, the decision is whether to let the whole thing implode spectacularly, or let it down gradually through devaluation. Either way, none of us regular folks will enjoy our current standard of living in 5 years. Social Unrest People are already pissed. A Google News search of "protests" today reveals massive protests around the world. France, UK, Germany, India, Iran, Poland, Belarus, etc. Social issues are at a boiling point. Combined with everything surrounding COVID and an impending personal, regional, national, and global financial crisis (decrease in prosperity), there are no improvements on the horizon. People will act out. Who is evil? Being in the airlines, It seems the world follows a similar natural progression: Aggregation and consolidation. In this case, of wealth and power. When an organization or individual achieves these things, what else could they want? More. Why? At some point, you get the idea you may have the resources to make the world a better place. Call me what you will, but the most successful people in the world have looked at the planet and believe the track we are on is an unsustainable path. We have a growing population and decreasing resources. Cultural and political differences are creating conflict. There are massive economic inequalities and suffering. If you have the technological and financial resources, would you attempt to address these problems? Would you stop this train in it's tracks and move it to track in another direction? How would you address it among a population that either doesn't care or doesn't have the same vision of a better world? What lengths would you go to achieve it? How would you bring the USA into the fold? Good usually does prevail, but not always through peaceful means, and it is often accompanied by a fair amount of bad.

Romain Grosjean. How the hell did he survive?

Johns Hopkins University newspaper article. Published, then quickly deleted. https://web.archive.org/web/20201126223119/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19 The unlisted and likely soon to not exist YouTube vid of the webinar by by Dr. Genevieve Briand, MS in Applied Economics Assistant Program Director, that explains the numbers.

Interesting stuff. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/ "The COVID-19 crisis is affecting every facet of people’s lives in every corner of the world. But tragedy need not be its only legacy. On the contrary, the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future." I've wondered if the WEF really has any influence over anything. When you hear of a person or company pushing a COVID related policy or restriction, google the parent company, once you find the top tier, find the CEO or prominent members of the board of directors. Search the WEF webpage here for that person or company: https://www.weforum.org/about/our-partners Here's a few I did: Quantas, Ticketmaster, Time Magazine, Facebook, Reuters, VISA.

Judge blocks PA certification. Likely going to supreme court. Mail-in ballots are disenfranchisement. https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Kelly-v.-Pennsylvania-Injunction-Halting-Certification-Memorandum-Opinion-Filed-11-27-2020.pdf

All scientific conclusions herein are made to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty in my fields of expertise. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering in May of 2004, a Master of Science in Circuit Design in May of 2006, and a Doctorate in Computer Arithmetic in May of 2007, all from The University of Texas at Austin. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.12.pdf

Hey, China: Supersonic F-35s droppin' nukes. "ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A mock B61-12’s strike in the dusty Nevada desert successfully completed the first in a series of flight tests with the U.S. Air Force’s newest fighter jet, demonstrating the bomb’s first release from an internal bomb bay at greater than the speed of sound." https://share-ng.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/b61-12_flight/

Because blocking the sale of US exports, manufactured by US moms and dads, feeds kids. UAE would probably be disappointed with their "F-35s", anyway.

For those anxiously awaiting the vaccine... not so fast. Dr. Tedros, The Director General of the World Health Organization warns: So, we're not going back to anything resembling "normal". Seems like all the vaccines require follow-on boosters. Pfizer, Moderna, and Astra Zeneca. Perhaps annually. And if you don't want to get it, that's fine. No one will be pointing a gun at your head. However, The post-vaccine world sounds awesome.

It's definitely not a hoax. People are actually dying. I had a family member who said she wished she knew exactly what the odds are she would die if she caught COVID. Sort of a difficult number to pin down. I went to the CDC website. The "Current Best Estimate" data is a little old, 10th of September, but numbers the CDC gives health professionals for planning and preparedness are as follows. I guess it depends on your age, but everyone carries some risk of dying from an infection. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

Awesome! I don't have any currently, but now I know what to look for. Maybe something will turn up tomorrow. I'll keep you updated.

Quite well. Great explanation. Any idea what kinds of machines these are or if they're the hackable type? Interesting video. NBC, so you know it's legit.

Couldn't they just add your vaccination status to the limitations block of the medical cert every year? I'd imagine we would probably be required to get it just in case we're scheduled into a location that requires proof of vaccination.

As I said earlier, you were the only one of five to at least acknowledge specific types of fraud. That was half my question. The other half was about evidence. Please humor me and CRTL-F this page for the word "evidence". Care to count how many times you've used it on this page alone? How many times have I asked what types of evidence you would find acceptable and how many times have you specified what constitutes "evidence"? Empirically speaking, the answer is "lots" and "zero". Are we disagreeing? Likewise, poll watchers and law enforcement have a responsibility to respond to every reported case of fraud. If someone breaks the law and fires a weapon in the park, we don't advocate that everyone's right to own a firearm be violated. As such, if someone commits fraud, we don't disenfranchise the right to vote of others. Investigation of the allegation and prosecution of the offense of either serves as a deterrent and reduces the probability of it happening again. If we decide to do neither because it won't make a substantial difference, are we not inviting it to happen even moreso? I don't know if I can provide the evidence, but I'd like to try. What would you consider as acceptable forms of evidence?

Our earlier discussion got me wondering about not just about cyberattacks on our voting systems, but other systems as well. Turns out, the COVID-19 virus has exposed massive inconsistencies and inadequacies in our global systems architecture. According to experts, a future cyber attack would "make COVID-19 seem like a small disturbance in comparison." Fortunately, the Cyber Polygon event (maybe you've already heard of it) has allowed us to use the COVID-19 pandemic as a timely opportunity to reflect on the lessons cyber security community can draw and improve our preparedness for a potential cyber pandemic. Anyway, I thought it was a cool website and thought it'd be right up your alley. https://cyberpolygon.com/results-2020/ This guy has some amazing things to say about the importance of cyber security. Maybe you'd enjoy it and I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Only if she's hot.

Really? Which ones? Who, specifically, do you mean when you say "the tin foil hat crowd"? I haven't said anything here I hadn't already verified on Infowars.com. I'm not sure if you're an airline pilot. I am, and as far as I know, passengers can google CFRs. I constantly get questions about how the aircraft works, is the weather going to be safe, can they see inside the cockpit, what's that button do? Not once have I, or witnessed anyone other pilot, told a passenger to fuck off and trust the system. I've gone so far as to show systems diagrams on my EFB to anyone who wanted to see. Ok, I guess you are an airline pilot. Agree on all points. ....sooo if your sources and your standards for reliable information are good enough for you, they're good enough for everyone else. If you're not asking questions as a self-proclaimed non-expert and non-authority, no one else should, either. Ok.

Ooooo. Sick burn! LOL

Already been addressed.

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out. Actually, I did not ask that. But I gather your point. Honest question: Do you believe Trump is trying to undermine the process knowing full well that he didn't legitimately cross the threshold needed to win, or do you think he truly believes he did win the states he needed, and that the process was undermined by someone else against him? I understand what you're saying. To you, it seems like I'm mad Trump lost and I'm trying to take advantage of the fog to construct a narrative that the forces of evil conspired against him. In reality, I'm saying the fog shouldn't exist. The entire process should have been completely transparent. Why are we not allowed to see how the sausage is made? One example: there are a lot of questions about Dominion, Scytle, Smartmatic, etc. I don't think either one of us knows how their part of the process works. Maybe 17D_guy does. I may be wrong, but I think you'd probably accept at face value that these companies are on the up and up. I also believe it's possible that they have the best interests of our democracy at heart, but I also believe it's possible that they do not, and are corruptible. But because I make a suggestion that it's possible, I'm a conspiracy theorist. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist because they say a possibility exists is sorta kinda like calling someone a racist in that it is used to stifle debate and attempts to de legitimize anything they have to say.

I always thought the answer was 42, but I've also wondered if it depends on the total number of votes cast, and the close the race is... But I have no idea.

Sorry, what other educated person(s) here posted a TikTok video? I didn't consider you might be referencing them instead. Great point. I suppose I actually was the first person here to express skepticism. I hate to nitpick, but is there a number that you have in mind when you say the word "miniscule"? I believe some of the others said their number was "low". I don't know if the number is large or small. It could quite possibly be either, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was less than 5.5% and I'm going to describe that number as "small to very small". That's not based on anything substantive, that's just an arbitrary number I assigned to my gut feeling. What's yours? Again, this lends itself to my question about what is the evidence you're looking for? Is it a "I'll know it when I see it" type of thing or do you require things like eyewitness testimony? or signed affidavits? I don't know. Kind of hard to provide you with what you need if you won't specify what it is. But it wasn't enough to change the results of the election, right? It was just a "little bit" of hacking, correct? Certainly nothing we should be concerned with. Great stuff. Thanks for the insight. Not my wheelhouse. I want to clarify a couple things before I quote a USAF Cyber Officer on Twitter: 1. It's possible someone could plug something into the machine and modify vote totals. 2. Audits of the machine and ballots are the correct way to ensure the counts are correct. 3. A conspiracy across counties and states is statistically impossible because a hack would require multiple locations to also operate the same systems and equipment. 4. Cyber shouldn't be wasted on machines used for voting. 5. Voting is the bedrock of the democratic experience, and a big red line. Cool, brother. I think I got it.

Is the Heritage Foundation your sole source of data? The title of the page you're referencing is: A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States. "Sampling" being an important word. Following the title, there's a large font header that reads, in part: "This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. It does not capture all cases and certainly does not capture reported instances or allegations of election fraud, some of which may be meritorious, that are not investigated or prosecuted. Because of vulnerabilities in the system, election fraud is relatively easy to commit and difficult to detect after-the-fact. Moreover, some public officials appear to be unconcerned with election fraud and fail to pursue cases that are reported to them." It just doesn't seem to me you should be deriving any statistics, generous or not, from the numbers on that site. My intent was to demonstrate some of various types of fraud that can exist, and the types of evidence that fraud was committed. Before we make the giant leap into "there's not enough fraud to make a difference", shouldn't we establish all the different types of fraud we should be looking for? Bear in mind we haven't even begun talking about electronic data vulnerabilities and inconsistencies. Nor have we talked about problems that affect the results that aren't fraud, such has failure to adhere to security measures. We've only talked about ballots. What would be 5? I would agree that blind implicit trust in election integrity is as damaging to our process as unsubstantiated allegations that the whole thing is rigged. Is that fair to say? You keep saying there is no evidence. Are you familiar with the legal definition and types of evidence? Before we get there, I just want to know we're on the same page when you say there is "no" evidence. Not a fair comparison. Apples and oranges, but I'll play. Say you report gunfire in your neighborhood park where your kids are playing, does your sheriff have a duty to investigate? He asks how many shots. You say 5. He says that's not enough to worry about.