I think this is giving too much credit to those concerns as genuine. Or rather, as genuinely motivated by a sense of free speech, as opposed to just using it as a rationale for for general animus.

Hey I'm not saying it was prefect! But it did things like crypto, metadata, hacktivists, firewalls, search engines etc with a level of understanding. Pretty impressive, especially for the time.

Not the wire but famously I recall that some mafia types were caught on tape by the FBI saying how true the sopranos was (!)

That's fair - I absolutely do not have the knowledge to make any sort of judgement on that aspect of it!

The good wife was always shockingly on point around tech. Used a lot of stand-ins and took a lot of liberties, but compared to shows where saying 'ip address' was considered magical it stood out.

This is fascinating and validating to me, because I remember buying and appreciating the Telegraph as part of a rounded media diet in the early 2010s. It's nice to know I didn't hallucinate it being readable.

This is a difficult discussion because it's emotive and hard to prove. But I think dismissing the possibility because it doesn't fit your understanding of an agreed framework is a huge blindspot.

I'll take that as a yes, thank you.

To be clear I'm not trying to troll, I'm genuinely interested as it seems like your objection here rests principally on the idea of intent and lack of proof thereof.

Given that determining intent in the moment is subjective, and legally establishing intent is often a long and complicated process, often involving significant documentation and eye-witness testimony gathered after the event, do you believe that it is *possible* that Israel is commiting genocide?

I was making a point purely around the definition of genocide. You are free to widen that discussion to what Israel is currently engaged in, but that was not my purpose.

Whilst I appreciate your instictive deference to established prescedence, the history of defining genocide is not one of certainty or even at the time clear and exhaustively reasoned positions. It's not something that should be considered sacrosanct necessarily.

That's not a fair comparison. The definition of murder has mutiple categories and has been legislated & modified over time as found necessary.

Defining genocide for legal purposes was fraught and imperfect; it's hard to define. Questioning the one adopted when it proves insufficient is reasonable.

In theory true, but even in those cases the person is eitger already annoyed at the payroll issue existing or perceive HR as a blocker to agile recruitment.

I'm not saying it's fair, just that that when HR is involved sone thing has (Usually) gone wrong, so people build negative associations.

Certainly a factor, but I think it's also because most people's interactions with HR will, by definition, be negative or in a negative time. Similar to lawyers!

We don't ignore any of those things? Eagles' supporting cast is just by concensus agreed to be probably the best in the NFL, and even if you want to dismiss Herbert (I wouldn't personally) Stafford has the resume to take the 5th spot over Hurts.

Personally I think he's in the 'win with' tier with Purdy, Goff, Baker, Dak etc. Which isn't an insult - those are all good QBs!

Yeah but a lot of that is the Eagle's roster. And this isn't a question of 'is Jalen good' (that's simple, he is good) but rather 'is he top five'. There you're not contesting the top four spaces (Mahomes, Allen, Lamar and Burrow) so is he the next best? Both Stafford and Herbert seem better fits.

Seems more likely that he's planning to vote for it, and knows that would mean a loss in re-election.