To each his (or her) own. Humor is subjective.

Ok, yes, they got heavy handed at times. I gave them leeway because they had to figure out how to dub an entire movie out of another one, so I expected a lot of filler. Considering the source material, I thought they did well.
I had the advantage of not seeing it in theaters, so I didn't pay money for it. I do expect more from a movie I spent $15 to see. As a lazy Sunday movie, it was great.
Full disclosure, I watched Saturday Midnight Kung Fu Theater religiously for over a decade, and those movies are mostly awful...so bad they were hilarious too.

I think it would be fair to point out that the context of the two situations is very different, the most important difference being that Kim Jong-Un announced he is willing to stop his nuclear weapons program and meet with the US president.

That in mind, their hypocrisy is not as flagrant as it seems on the surface because they aren't actually praising Trump for exactly what Obama did because he's doing it with the preconditions they criticized Obama for lacking.

This video's side-by-side would have real significance for me if Trump had ever agreed to meet with Kim prior to him declaring he'd give up nuclear weapons (which to my knowledge Trump never did).

I'm no Trump fan by any stretch (except when it comes to income taxes, full disclosure), just calling it as I see it. Am I being a voice of reason here or am I totally out of line?

I understand where you're coming from, but I stand by my previous posts.

Full disclosure, I never got professionally employed as a programmer / coder / software engineer. However, my Bachelors Degree was in CS, and I have many friends working in the field.

In the show Silicon Valley, Richard Hendriks is working for a large corporate entity but has an idea / personal project that he ends up spinning into a new company. He is trained as a software engineer (CS), NOT with any business or management background (MIS), yet he becomes sort of the de-facto boss / CEO (at least early in the show). He hires a small team to help him develop his product.

Given that scenario, I think the show portrays things very accurately or at least completely plausibly. He's a coder, not a manager. Programmers may understand the importance of formatting and style standards, but at least tend to not have the correct personality type to be comfortable with formally dictating those standards to a team (an activity which would generally be more in line with an MIS background).

Also, his company is small -- just a few other programmers. They are all specializing on different components of the product. So they generally aren't working on each other's code. Standards for function arguments / helper functions / etc. would have to be agreed upon to get their individual components to interact, but that is a separate issue from tabs vs spaces. It would be wise to set a style and naming convention standard and have everyone conform to it, I agree completely. But Richard isn't built for the manager / CEO position, so he either fails to recognize that or doesn't feel comfortable dictating standards to his team.

One more thing to consider is that he (Richard) essentially is the product. He's the keystone piece, the central figure. He's John Carmack, Linus Torvalds, or Steve Wozniak. Even in a very large team / corporate environment, I'd wager that more often than not the style standards that end up getting set tend to fall in line with whatever those key guys want them to be. Don't touch an id Software graphics engine without conforming to Carmack's way, or the Linux kernel without conforming to Torvald's standards. Especially if they are building something new from scratch -- which is again true in the Silicon Valley show scenario.

The show isn't a documentary on how to properly run a startup company in the real Silicon Valley, but it is generally accurate enough that it has a lot of nuances that people with a programming background can pick up on and be entertained by (even people that don't actually work professionally in the field like me). And more important, the general feel of the show can be entertaining even for people that know absolutely nothing about programming.

And there are plenty of white people stuck in terrible situations who don't take the "bus."

There is a concept out there in pedagogy land about the importance of "grit." A teacher noticed who made it out -- those who had grit.

So there has been some movement to teach kids to have "grit."

Turns out it isn't that easy.

Full disclosure -- I do NOT have "grit." I get knocked down, I stay down. I am leveled by some of the smallest events.

I DO have tremendous luck. Born with good health, good brains, an addiction to food and not to something that wipes out my brain like some drugs, Depression-era parents who were frugal and determined that their children would not suffer what they suffered, easy access to college in the early 70s when tuition and rents weren't hugely expensive.

I wouldn't be sitting in relative ease right now if I hadn't had that string of luck. Because had I had to climb over serious obstacles, I am 99% sure I would not have done it. No grit, you see. Just luck.

Frosts my beehind that this racist tool who criticizes social justice advocates with that first clip of Freeman saying "stop talking about race" don't have the intellectual and emotional intelligence to understand what he is saying. It is clear as a bell -- but this tool is tone deaf. As is the sifter who posted this (I say that with clarity, based on years of reading his posts before I started ignoring him as a lost cause.)

I almost agree, except for the timing part and the public disclosure of yet to be read 'evidence' in an open investigation which appears to be purely politically motivated.
What about the fact that they've had these emails for weeks, if not longer, but waited until it would have maximum effect on the election to inform congress (and therefore the public), against the direction of the D.O.J. that warned against notifying congress of this mid investigation 'development' (which likely is nothing more than normal work emails to her assistant, something that could be determined in a single hour if they just READ them), or the fact that they insist they can't tell if there's anything improper before the election, creating this false question about her criminality.
What about the public disclosure of yet to be analyzed evidence that likely is nothing, but the disclosure without analysis reopens a question in the minds of many voters, a question that's been answered repeatedly by numerous thorough investigations with no criminal act found by any of them?
To me, the timing and abnormal public disclosures of non-information are clearly politically motivated efforts by the FBI director to harm her candidacy, something that's undeniably wrong and a horrific precedent to set.

Thank you Trump, for being such a thoroughly disgusting person that even Republicans can't support you anymore.
Thank you Trump, for being such a cry baby that you have begun attacking any Republican that doesn't support you to the end, actually telling your followers to not vote for them.
Thank you Trump, for likely handing the control of the government to the Democrats. Barring more unforeseen surprises, that is. It seems probable that Trump will end up being the most important Democrat in recent history, doing more for the Democratic party than any other 10 politicians combined.
It's gratifying to see that even zealous right wingers have a line they won't follow their leader past....I was honestly beginning to wonder. They had no problem at all with him repeatedly saying he wanted to screw his daughter, repeatedly failing in business, repeatedly not paying his bills, repeatedly being caught as an adulterer, repeatedly making blatant racist claims and plans, etc.... it seemed there was no line to cross for them.
I can only hope that the tapes of him repeatedly saying the "N word" among other unacceptable disgusting behavior from the unaired Apprentice tapes come out in the next weeks. I find it hilarious that there's actually a go fund me page trying to get $5 million to pay for the non disclosure penalty if someone leaks them. Anonymous, where are you? Go hack MGM and get those tapes to Assange.

Clinton....make an offer to release the transcripts of your speeches if Trump releases the Apprentice recordings....please OH please.

Yeah wow. I like that after insulting 20,000 years of hard graft before europe learned to tie its shoelaces (which it didn't invent) he throws in the US which has only graduaded from a bunch of english genocidal religious fantaics, via industrial slavery, to violent global domination after the rest of the world imploded less than 80 YEARS AGO!!
Full disclosure: Im British (sorry)

True, no one KNOWS, but it's a no brainer that his election would be seen as unpredictable by the markets, and dire political unpredictability=bear market.

Not so in any way. He has so little actual power it's laughable that you would think that. He's not even allowed to run the companies he actually owns large parts of because the boards won't allow him to, because they have a duty to not let him drive the companies into the ground. What "power" do you think he has?

He probably can't "seize the reigns" by force unless he's elected. He can attempt to seize them if he is elected.

Facism-(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Has Clinton been convicted? You didn't even say "likely broken Federal law", you said "on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law" Because his past has not been as transparent by far and usually those dealing with him are forced to sign non disclosure agreements, it's patently ridiculous to imply that his crimes would be simple to just point to....but OK, not paying off on interstate contracts is a federal crime, one he's admitted publicly that he's committed uncountable times, any time he gets service before payment in full it seems....and he's been found guilty of that in civil court. Satisfied?

Um...lacking knowledge is being naïve.
Naïve-having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:

It seems really strange from an outside perspective. It isn't all that long ago - at least in my memory - when certain types of American were almost celebrating that they were willing to torture and maim people if they 'got their answers'. Even if some of those people were innocent, it was an acceptable price to pay.

When Ed Snowden came out and told us that our governments were spying on us, trawling through our data and tracking our entire history online and in reality through surveillance cameras. The majority of America was against Snowden (in all the polls I've seen) - in any other day he would have been given the Nobel peace prize and celebrated as an all-time hero that stood up to impossible odds just to give the human race full disclosure on their 'freedom'. That's the stuff of legend, the stuff that people should be talking about in 1000 years time like we talk about Genghis Khan or something. Instead he was treated like a traitor and forced to live in exile in Russia because it was the only country that wouldn't hand him over to the torturing, controlling, law-breaking bastards he'd just made to look very stupid..... Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to face "criminal proceedings"? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - except if you cross the wrong people?

Not too long ago freedom WAS an acceptable sacrifice for security.

When a lunatic got hold of an automatic rifle, killed 50 people and injured another 50, the prevailing argument seems to be "Hey, hey, let's not over react here, we can't sacrifice our freedom because of one terrorist act."

The only difference in this situation is that it isn't about "other people's" freedom and "my security" any more. It is about "my" freedom and "other people's" security.

You probably weren't one of those people, but I think it's fair to preface my comment with that contradiction.

I accept you have a decent point in this case; people shouldn't lose their freedom because the FBI made a mistake. But that's not the question being asked, let's talk about the general case rather than this specific one. The question is does legislation exist that will make mass shootings less common in the US? And I think the answer is yes, but I also think that culture is the biggest factor, not just access to guns.

As an example of what I mean - what if there were legislation that limited his ability to get hold of the weapon, registered that he had expressed an interest with the FBI who could then investigate based on his history? And maybe some other legislation could make it harder in general for him to just go and borrow one of his friends', or steal one from a local lax firing range, or whatever other illegal means exist to get hold of one.... perhaps because there were less in circulation, or those that were in circulation were more stringently secured?

At the end of the day it might not stop him getting hold of one, but it might make it harder and he might have second thoughts or make a mistake and be caught if it were harder. Hell, at least then the families of the dead would be able to say that a CRIME was committed when this fucking lunatic who had been under investigation was allowed to get access to a weapon that could so easily kill or maim a hundred people.

I stick to people who believe in America.

Voodoo the fetus that got away from the abortionist.


You can stand with Pedophile Bill and criminal Hillary or an a bum named Bernie who never had a real job till he was 40,


http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-the-bum-who-wants-your-money/


Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money


2016: Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Monday his parents would never have thought their son would end up in the Senate and running for president. No kidding. He was a ne’er-do-well into his late 30s.

“It’s certainly something that I don’t think they ever believed would’ve happened,” the unabashed socialist remarked during CNN’s Democratic town hall forum, as polls show him taking the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire.


He explained his family couldn’t imagine his “success,” because “my brother and I and Mom and Dad grew up in a three-and-a-half-room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn, and we never had a whole lot of money.”

It wasn’t as bad as he says. His family managed to send him to the University of Chicago. Despite a prestigious degree, however, Sanders failed to earn a living, even as an adult. It took him 40 years to collect his first steady paycheck — and it was a government check.


“I never had any money my entire life,” Sanders told Vermont public TV in 1985, after settling into his first real job as mayor of Burlington.

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

@enoch

Sorry, bro, you know I love you but I had to downvote this.

You mentioned in a previous comment in this thread that context is important and I think you're right--particularly the fact that the author of this video is hugely pro-GamerGate and the purpose of this video seems to be--yet again--to rationalize the personal attacks against high profile activists in the GamerGate saga.

This video is a classic example of how and why GamerGate as a movement completely self-destructed--it wanted to debate the people involved and avoid debating the actual ideas.

So what if the people making the claims are narcissistic? So what if they believe they are special snowflakes? None of that matters. What matters is their arguments and how strongly they can support them.

Some initial GamerGate arguments actually had merit, for example complaints about too close ties between media sites and game publishers and a lack of disclosure about those ties.

And you know what? People actually listened! For what it's worth, GamerGate did in fact cause most gaming media outlets to reconsider and revise their ethics guidelines. For example, journalists now feel the need to mention whether they bought their own copy of a review game or were gifted one by the company (honestly, I don't give a fuck either way but apparently some people thought it was a big deal).

I think the irony of this video is that everything that the author says about "SJWs" can in fact be applied to many GamerGaters themselves. Are they not seeking reform? Who could be against ethics in gaming journalism? It could be argued that just as the Occupy movement was destroyed from within by people more concerned with their priviledge than actual change the GamerGate movement was destroyed from within by "gamers" who felt their opinion alone was what should matter to publishers making games, and any form of dissent from that party line meant you were an SJW unworthy of being listened to.

On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have downvoted this video... the irony here is too delicious.

...and they will start at an equally higher rate than they would have otherwise.

And if they can lay people off that easily, they probably weren't worth the money to begin with. Or, the company is badly run and doesn't understand the value of their employees.

Either way, having been in management, I agree that it would benefit everyone if it was transparent, as it keeps everyone honest. That said, taking a formerly private disclosure and making it public would be a disaster; it's kind of amazing how some people make what they do doing the same job.

Just to play devil's advocate, how is that ritual of welcoming an official significantly different to kids preparing for a visit from the queen of England, or the potus?

I get that they're welcoming the representative of a state/person many of their parents fought against, but that's hardly unusual, and to me didn't seem the focus of the piece.

(full disclosure: I have Russian relatives very near there, and have visited the area seveal times)

Downvoted for being a hype based, nonfactual, hysteria video that was put together by anti-abortionists without proper disclosure of facts.

As you can see in mysdrial's post, this has been mostly debunked. The costs being discussed are for secure shipping of biological materials that may be hazardous.

As far as her tone, she works in this field. I bet if you saw some undertakers or coroners talking shop, you would be pretty disturbed as well.