As much as this is the dream, she is not electable in American politics for president.

Worked at a major company you would instantly know the name of.

They were a large corporation but were not public ally traded. Trillions of dollars in assets with more than 60k people employed.

DEI was a MAJOR push, with not just required corporate training but also sessions held often for minority groups of all types to speak their minds in forums about how to connect with them etc.

DEI initiatives and campaigns were a thing, VP of DEI was hired and they had a whole subsection under HR. Corporate events, entertainment, whole virtual bands playing to the theme of inclusion.

This same company did nothing when facing the burning obvious culture of being yes men to their bosses. They did nothing different than most any other massive rich company for how they treated workers, tracking their activity, location, and even physical assess login to buildings for reviews or as excuse to fire.

In an large address by a major leader in the organization I personally gave virtual written innocuous feedback, that they asked for, only to have that be met within minutes with being told never to do that again. The message wasn’t even seen by the speaker. It was just purely culturally unacceptable to offer any constructive criticism of any kind to people in high enough authority.

More than half a dozen people messaged me to tell me they appreciated I gave it public ally and it needed saying. I didn’t know any of them.

So if people are so important and we value voices being heard equally so much, why would you have people desperate to be treated like people and any such statement be met with greats of reprisal?

Yeah. DEI is fan fare in the same way the office cafeteria and gym were. They are designed to entice talent to come or stay while costing the company minimal amounts to do so.

They very much did.

The numbers I gave are the model outputs for the state as of yesterday off his subscriber based model talk page.

So no.

Of course these are the likelihood of a win and not polling differences. That’s why I said model output, not a poll aggregate.

An 8 point spread in a state for polling averages is incredibly large. For reference Ohio is as deeply spread red in polling averages as Nee Jersey is blue. You think New Jersey votes red this year in any reasonable reality? No.

For an even more crazy but accurate comparison: Alaska has the same mid point statistical odds of going red as Ohio, but its error bars are more than double Ohio. Meaning? There is an incredibly slim but massively more possible chance Alaska goes blue than Ohio.

Current model from Silver and the polls raw data averages say it’s not even close. Trump will win the state by a 97.6% to 2.4% spread.

Because so many of you cannot understand modeling vs polling averages… that is the likelihood of a win as a result of taking poll inputs through Silver’s model, reflecting overall chances of a win as a output.

It is NOT polling average percentages.

Better still, is he swore under oath to having $450 million in cash. So if he says otherwise he then opens himself up to charges for lying under oath.

Most modern cancer drug treatment is sequenced to at least the specific proteins of the type of cancer it is.

Have breast cancer? Cool. We figure out which of the many variations so that we can give you medications for that exact type of breast cancer.

This sort of specific targeting has been increasing and increasing for the last 20 years. MRNA is the next step of that and is highly likely to be a means or become or for treatments in many other areas.

Opinion letter.

None of the accusations in the title can be substantiated, more than a dozen other apps and technologies are backed by the same organization the article mentions funds part of a signal’s budget.

Assertions that TOR has a governmental back door, that the CIA wants people to use Signal, are not substantiated, and the article states at the same time that there are fears the anonymity of Signal threatens western governments. Can’t have it both ways.

The only definitive thing this article can prove or cite is where some OTF funding goes, which was publicly disclosed since it’s inception. It reads like a /r/superstonk GME reeeeeee post equivalent for communication security by a ti foil hat.

Sure it does, but that doesn’t make it bad.

Open source code is not the only solution to secure communication.

You can be extremely secure on closed source tools as well.

If they found specific issues with Signal aside from not being allowed to freely inspect their code base, I suspect we would be hearing about it. Instead I don’t see specific security failings just hat it didn’t make the measure for their security software audit.

As an example of something that is closed source and trusted:

The software used to load data and debug the F-35 fighter jet.

Pretty big problem for 16 countries if that isn’t secure… closed source. So much s you can’t even run tests against the device for loading data to the jet live. It’s a problem to sort out, but it’s an example of where highly important communication protocols are not open source and trusted by the governments of many countries.

If their particular standard here was open source, ok, but they didn’t do anything to assure the version they inspected would be the only version used. In fact every release from that basement pair of programmers could inadvertently have a flaw in it, which this committee would not be reviewing in the code base for its members of parliament.

Not being able to inspect their code vs no passing are different things.

The front running trades amounted to a total of 6% of all the personal trades he made in that period.

I think he was assuming, that inter dispersed in the group and traded in segments of the sums, it would be hard to dig through the mountain to spot the relationships to the company trades.

Why is that wall needed? Can you expand on this more?