Oops. There's failure point. You're using an article about a really narrow set of facts with limited implications to try and support a profound generalization that is totally out of proportion to what's described in the article. That is a completely out-of-control leap to be making.
And as others have pointed out "the media ignores..." is a subjective reaction, not something established by the articles, and those votes have been covered by mainstream outlets.
And the articles don't show any fraud, and they don't show anything that would change the outcome in Georgia, and they don't show anything that warrants systemic skepticism of the election writ large.
>Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not saying this one instance proves the whole election is fraud.
You're not saying it, you're just implying it by speaking in a way that leaves open-ended implications that you aren't qualifying with concrete statements. You're putting an isolated example into a broader category, "things like this", to suggest it's not the only one, and to invite people to believe there are more.
If you really do agree with everyone that the scope, scale and significance of the facts presented in the article are extremely narrow, are isolated, and that there aren't similar examples, and are choosing to ignore that most important fact to emphasize a less important fact than I'm not so much interested in your point as I am in why you would choose to emphasize facts in that way.
And nothing about the articles suggest anything one way or the other about media bias. The articles could presuambly be used to argue somethingorother about the scale of human error in vote counting in Georgia. That would be valid. But they don't have anything to do with any conclusions you are trying to advance about what the media is or isn't "being honest" (again an extremely vague, unprovable claim that you aren't quantifying).
I can’t help it that the attack vectors used by the media to push agendas are themselves vague and non-specific. It’s not like any given piece of news that gets published is outright false.
On the small scale, the bias is in the framing of stories. Flaky evidence in stories that serve the agenda are glossed over. In stories that go against the agenda, nits get picked and then used to attack the main idea even if the nits are really inconsequential.
On the large scale there is editorializing. Spotlighting certain types of stories. And forgetting and quickly moving past others.
I have some specific examples in mind, but it would be completely pointless for me to list them or argue about them like you seem to want to. I’ve already argued each one to death as it came to light and have heard all sides of the arguments. That is a complete misdirection from my point of view.
This is “systematic bias” in the media in much the same way that there is “systematic racism” in the world. It’s hard to pinpoint specific instances of it, but we know that it’s there because you see it in the aggregate statistics. And in fact, a common tactic used by people who deny systemic racism is to try to move the discussion away from the big picture and nitpick localized specifics to death.
This is an instance where imprecision in language is being weaponised for talking points. There are always many small errors and fraud in any large election. I don't think anyone would dispute this. And it is tolerable because the error is unlikely to be statistically significant.
The question is whether there is large scale, organised electoral fraud. Of that there's precisely zero evidence.
So when the “mainstream” media says “there is no fraud”, they're talking about organised fraud, not small counting errors and individual voter misconduct.
You are also using that annoying tactic of reframing the discussion into a question for which the answer suits your own opinion.
That is why you choose to ask “is there _organized_ and electoral fraud?”. What about the question of whether there was enough non-organized fraud to swing the results? Seems just as important to me.
Let’s be patient until that there is an answer to these questions. From the courts please, not from YouTube, or CNN, or FOX, or John Oliver, or Tucker Carlson.
I can’t tell you which court because I’m not prescient and don’t know in what areas of the country there was substantial election irregularities (if there are any) until it is done being investigated. Guess what, the media isn’t either, so I don’t know how they can keep claiming this election is accurate before everything is investigated and audited.
Not to mention the really weird things happening like states deciding it’s not important to verify signatures. Sure they might have passed laws before the election that makes it legal to not check signatures, but does it make it right? I don’t think so.
I did say. The problem is you phrased your question in such a way that implies the only acceptable answer would be in a stupidly restricted set of answers (“which specific court?”). Very tricky! Good rhetoric. Except it’s self-defeating and hinders you from understanding viewpoints that aren’t yours. You might be too smart for your own good.
Not sure what podcasts you are referring to, I don’t listen to any.
I don’t have a horse in this race. Don’t care for Trump or Biden. There’s other people in the world that would make much better leaders than these two, but this is all besides the point.
Here is my beef: instead of just reporting, the media is invested in producing a specific outcome.
For 5 years now they are trying their best to make Trump and his supporters into bigger idiots than they actually are.
They are trying their best to make Biden and his supporters appear more noble than they actually are.
Why was the Russia election collusion story in the spotlight for years despite flimsy evidence?
Why are Trump supporters on the other hand not allowed even a few weeks to investigate their doubts about this election without being ridiculed for doing so?
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections
ICA 2017-01D 6 January 2017
Key Judgments
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. ...
(For the record I'm Australian and I don't have much riding on your election result.)
> Why was the Russia election collusion story in the spotlight for years despite flimsy evidence?
Perhaps the most genius thing Trump ever did was re-frame the Russian interference story as "no collusion". Unfortunately many on the left are morons and got led away from the real story (Russian interference) over to the fake story (Russia-Trump collusion) which left the real story forgotten and ignored.
> Why are Trump supporters on the other hand not allowed even a few weeks to investigate their doubts
Because the "investigation" isn't being done in good faith. The complaint has its basis in the Trump playbook and not on serious evidence of organised electoral fraud. The "investigation" is clearly designed to sow permanent doubt where none is warranted.
The medium-term effect will be to make Biden/Harris considered illegitimate in the eyes of some Americans.
The long-term effect will be to lessen American confidence in elections and democracy. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but this is exactly what Russia has been trying to achieve around the world for decades.
> For 5 years now they are trying their best to make Trump and his supporters into bigger idiots than they actually are.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps Trump, his brand of populism and his supporters are worthy of that caricature?
> Why was the Russia election collusion story in the spotlight for years despite flimsy evidence?
The only people who think that the evidence was flimsy are those willing to ignore the fact that there was a level of obstruction from the administration that would make Nixon blush.
> Why are Trump supporters on the other hand not allowed even a few weeks to investigate their doubts about this election without being ridiculed for doing so?
My guess: because this is playing with fire. You might not be privy to it, but the calls for violence in their various echochambers if the crapshoot for overturning the election doesn't pan out(hint: it won't) are reaching audiences well armed and with nothing better to do than to engage in stochastic terrorism.
>Has it occurred to you that perhaps Trump, his brand of populism and his supporters are worthy of that caricature?
No it hasn’t. The news shouldn’t be caricaturizing anyone. The reporting should be as faithful to reality as possible.
> My guess: because this is playing with fire. You might not be privy to it, but the calls for violence in their various echochambers if the crapshoot for overturning the election doesn't pan out(hint: it won't) are reaching audiences well armed and with nothing better to do than to engage in stochastic terrorism.
So because there exist some extremists with a particular viewpoint, nobody else should be allowed to entertain that viewpoint?
Funny because on the other side of the political spectrum there actually just recently were extremists that were not just hypothetical and they did actually go out and commit violence in order to “make their voices heard” and their viewpoint was not condemned by the media at all for doing so.
Can you provide a citation to that level of geographic diversity per region? My understanding is that all AZs are within the same physical facility, but independent networking and power.
AWS has a map that shows the physical location of all data centers. us-west-2 for example is split up among three cities in Oregon. Probably 60-70mi between each of them.
An Availability Zone is represented by a region code followed by a letter identifier; for example, us-east-1a. To ensure that resources are distributed across the Availability Zones for a region, we independently map Availability Zones to identifiers for each account. For example, your Availability Zone us-east-1a might not be the same location as us-east-1a for another account. There's no way for you to coordinate Availability Zones between accounts.
The long and confusing explanation:
At least not in us-east-1 and us-west-1-2, but I am pretty sure many of the large regions are also run in multiple physical facilities.
The so-called availability zone is an abstract and virtual concept. Let us use us-east-1 as an example.
Assume the following:
* Physical DC buildings: Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Staten Island
* AWS accounts: Joe, Alice, Bob
* AZ: us-east-1a, us-east-1b, us-east-1c, and us-east-1d
Every AWS account in us-east-1 region is assigned three AZs. But for sake of this explanation, we assume only two.
* Joe: 1a, 1b
* Alice: 1a, 1b
* Bob: 1a, 1c
You now ask, "WTF?" but you let this go, think this is done for capacity reason. So do we actually have four different physical facilities, one per each AZ? Nope.
So is 1a and 1b in the same facility? Not necessarily, but very possible.
So 1a and 1b in Queens, 1c in Brooklyn, and 1d in Manhattan? Nope.
So what the fuck is AZ? What is the relationship between AZ and physical facility?
Think about virtual memory address space.
Joe's 1a and Bob's 1a are in Queens, but Alice's 1a is in Manhattan. But Joe's 1a and Bob's 1a are on a different floor, different racks, while Joe's 1b and Bob's 1c are in Brooklyn and on the same floor. This is why certain customers run out m3.xlarge in 1a but others don't in their 1a.
In essence, AZ is a label and is unique per account. AZ is very similar how virtual memory address in OS looks like.
We learned this because our EMR failed due to low capacity in one account.
"Amazon initially said little about the physical layout of AZs, leaving some customers to whether they might be different data halls within the same facility. The company has since clarified that each availability zone resides in a different building."
“It’s a different data center,” said Hamilton. “We don’t want to run out of AZs, so we add data centers.”
To make this work, the Availability Zones need to be isolated from one another, but close enough for low-latency network connections. Amazon says its zones are typically 1 to 2 milliseconds apart, compared to the 70 milliseconds required to move traffic from New York to Los Angeles.
“We’ve decided to place AZs relatively close together,” said Vogels. “However, they need to be in a different flood zone and a different geographical area, connected to different power grids, to make sure they are truly isolated from one another.”
So, distance of availability zones from each other is limited by speed of light in fiber optics (which is slower than through a vacuum or microwave wireless).
Based on this calculator: http://wintelguy.com/wanlat.html, availability zones can't be more than 0.5-1 miles apart (about) to retain their 1-2 millisecond network latency, so they're different buildings in the same industrial/business park. We could confirm this by pulling permits (public record) in Amazon's (or their subcontractor's) name.
That is not a guarantee. AWS doesn't actually publish more than what I cited (well there are photos of the DC flooding around the Internet). But there are different physical facilities, and they are some miles apart. Like I said above, 1a for Joe and 1a for another customer don't have to be in the same building, or on the same floor.
Even if Nokia isn't looking at your information, they're breaking the trust model of SSL even more than it already is. Since they would have to terminate SSL at their proxy server, you lose control of what certificate authorities you trust, and what certificates you trust. Not having one of these phones, I can't speak to the specifics, but it takes a lot of the ability for the user to verify the authenticity of the https connection.
