Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GW Hayduke

  1. 5 minutes ago, Bravo said:

    explain how BTC is a ponzi scheme? you keep saying it. there are definitely ponzi scheme coins but bitcoin is a ponzi?

    Isn’t bitcoin simply an investment where future returns are contributed by new investors?  And that investment doesn’t have any actual legitimate purpose - like it isn’t to increase production capacity of a good? There might not be any “fraud” in that someone isn’t out there promising a certain return, but it still fits the ponzi pyramid model.

    I get that folks think it is school and that they are creating or maintain wealth, but isn’t it still just ponzi/pyramid model?  How is it not?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 3 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

    So, let's continue the conversation hpslugga and brisket are having to a logical conclusion:

    -Concerned/Mad because Joe Rogan allegedly is a bad/misinformation actor

    -Concerned/Mad because he has a massive platform to influence 

    So what are the action items in your mind to limit the concerns and issues that you guys seem to have? You guys already don't listen to the show so boycotting won't work. Support Neil Young and buy a bunch of his music? Write angry letters to Spotify?

    Beyond making fun of his 11mm listeners on the internet, what do you think is a good (and legal) idea to water down his appeal and influence?

    Fix our education system

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Haha 1
  3. 4 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

    As Bravo said USD, cash money is by far the best way to buy something illegal. The only cryptocurrencies that I would recommend trying to do that with are Monero or ZCash, but they are smaller shitcoins. 
     

    Again, by far the best use case so far for any cryptocurrencies is bitcoin. Censorship resistant wealth preservation outside of the financial system. Almost all the rest is hand waving VC promises as I think Ant said. Maybe they’ll deliver, but for example the Eth 2.0 update has been in the works for 5 years I think. 

    But why would anyone use bitcoin rather than a bank? To create/maintain wealth from rubes through a ponzi scheme?

  4. 1 minute ago, Bravo said:

    That is it. His audience of 11M per episode except for football would be the most viewed program on TV and even there it beats a lot of NFL games. His show is collectively the viewership of the 3 moron cable news channels. That freaks people out. 

    Which is a reflection of how dumb a large segment of our population has become, which freaks people out.

    Ideally, the floor of our education would produce enough critical thinking for anyone exposed to Rogan to understand he is dumb and then not watch him.  Sadly, our floor is lower than that

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
  5. 11 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

    It seems, i dunno, more than trivially important, if you define in that sentence what exactly is the nature of speech people can or shouldn't be convicted for.

     

    If he says "for my diet i swallow 8 whole eggs, eat exclusively elk meat, supplemented by Onnit brainfood", thats not your cue to follow.  certain not mine.

    If he says "i got the covid, and my doctor prescribed me xx, yy, and zz", thats not your cue to follow either.

     

    So what do you believe he said, in exact terms, that makes him responsible for "effectively kill[ing] thousands of people"?

    Because if that was remotely provable, prosecutors would have his head on a spike in a court.  Instead, it's just a bunch of people getting really really angry over social media.

     

     

    So you are against a prosecutor bringing charges against him?  Ok.  Which prosecutor are referring to? Which one brought charges?  Do you think you are arguing against a strawman?  Have you considered whether you may have adopted a victimhood complex and applied it to JR because you share an identity with him?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

    If certain speech should be excoriated or censored on grounds of being unpopular or factually DUMB…most politicians wouldnt be in office and most of you wouldnt be allowed to post. 

    So your position boils down to the idea that people (or maybe certain people) shouldn't have consequences for their speech?  Because when a politician says something dumb, they are usually excorticated for it.  When someone says something dumb here, they are often excoriated for it.  Why do you want JR to be immune to consequences - immune to ridicule? Is it because you perceive JR to have a unique/different lifestyle?  

  7. 5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    If the polling data was the lynchpin of the conspiracy, maybe some knowledge of what was actually contained in the information that was shared is further enlightening (from SIC).

    The polling data doesn’t need to be lynchpin in anything.  But we do know the 2020 senate intelligence committee report on page 70 that the data was encrypted when transferred and deleted daily.  Page 78 notes that the polling data was “significant to the Trump Campaign and was relied upon by the Campaign’s data operation.” It goes on to state that the campaign used the polling data to allocate 98% of their resources.  Page 80 they describe how Manafort described campaign strategy in battleground states with the Russian intelligence officer.  That is the part Jane at the juice bar really has a hard time with

  8. 21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Manafort told Gates to share the information with Kilimnik so that he could pass it along to two Ukrainians and to OVD.  The two Ukranians owed Manafort money he had been unable to collection, and he was trying to posture on those invoices.  He owed OVD a shit load and was bogged down in lawsuits over it, trying to inflate his potential future value. These financial relationships were at the middle of the exchange. A political grifters doing grifter things to try to extricate himself from a really bad financial situation with really bad people. Now Manafort should 100% be in prison for the rest of his life, but bootstrapping that poll data (mix of dated public and top line internals) as the lynchpin in the Orange Man's conspiracy with Russia is a stretch, imo.

    Or you can just read Mueller's account:

    Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee, to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign—including internal polling data, although Manafort claims not to recall that specific instruction. Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign...

    The Office could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period. Manafort did not see a downside to sharing campaign information, and told Gates that his role in the Campaign would be “good for business” and potentially a way to be made whole for work he previously completed in the Ukraine. As to Deripaska, Manafort claimed that by sharing campaign information with him, Deripaska might see value in their relationship and resolve a “disagreement”—a reference to one or more outstanding lawsuits. Because of questions about Manafort’s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it. The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort’s sharing polling data and Russia’s interference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts. 

        

    And Deripaska is a Russian oligarch.  Why would a Russian oligarch place any value on internal Trump campaign polling data in the lead up to a presidential election?  How would it make Manafort “whole?”

    This isn’t rocket science.

    Mueller wasn’t able to trace the polling data past Kilimnik. But we do know he was a Russian/Ukrainian political consultant and a “Russian intelligence officer”  per the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2020 report.  We also do know that he was tasked with giving it to Deripaska, the Russian oligarch. 

    In order to conclude the motive wasn’t related to helping trump get elected, we have to accept as coincidence that manfort’s job title was ‘trump campaign manager,’ that it was a coincidence he happened to give it to a Russian intelligence officer while Russia was coincidentally running troll farms to get trump elected, and that a Russian oligarch would value polling data on US citizens in the lead up to a presidential election for reasons unrelated to that election.

    I hear Russian oligarchs often use US citizen polling data to boost their hits on tiktok.

    I also hear Manafort often gives US citizen polling data out randomly as payment. It always befuddles Jane at the juice bar

  9. 15 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

    Communication of plan and strategy that was going on directly with Kilimnik by Gates and Manafort. 

    The meeting below discussed is in May. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf page 80 of the report, 94 of the PDF:

     "At the meeting, Manafort walked Kilimnik through the internal polling data from Fabrizio in detail.453 According to Gates, Kilimnik wanted to know how Trump could win.454 Manafort explained his strategy in the battleground states and told Kilimnik about polls that identified voter bases in blue-collar, democratic-leaning states which Trump could swing.455 Manafort said these voters could be reached by Trump on issues like economics, but the Campaign needed to implement a ground game.456 Gates recalled that Manafort further discussed the "battleground" states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.457"

    It's pretty clear, to me, he was doing what he was doing in order to inflate his value and try to collect on $10mm in owed debts from Ukrainian oligarchs given he was broke. In my opinion, his goal was not "share info in order to influence the election" although I don't think intent matters much here.  The Trump campaign literally did zero vetting to understand Manafort's significant liability given his financial situation. 

    The question is, of course, was Manafort doing this with Trump's knowledge/blessing?  I don't think that was ever answered and as I understand it, within a day or 2 of Trump's first national security briefing in August, Manafort was out.

    Guys, it is pretty clear that Trump's campaign manager gave polling data to the russians for his own financial gain and it had nothing to do with helping Trump get elected.  It is just a coincidence that his job title was 'trump campaign manager' tasked with getting Trump elected.  It is also just a coincidence that the russians were running troll farms (likely based on polling data) to get trump elected.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  10. 2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

    So it was known to not even be real since 2017. The FBI is doing a bang up job.

    What wasn’t real in 2017?

    That Russia set up troll farms to sway US opinions and instill division to help Trump win election? That Trump’s campaign manager provided internal polling data to russia? That Trump’s son and campaign manager met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary? That Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary’s emails? That Russia hacked DNC emails? That russia provided those hacked emails to Wikileaks? That Trump’s advisor worked with Wikileaks on the timing of those hacked emails? 

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 5
    • Rage+1 1
  11. Lulz. Science has been using mice, monkeys, rabbits, dogs, and cats as test subjects since before Fauci's grandma had that twinkle in her eye.  Connecting Fauci to some instance somewhere in the world is exactly the kind of right-wing misinformation we have come to know and love.  WhY dId FaUcI hUrT sPoT, dAdDy?1??

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
  12. 5 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

    I think most people underestimate what it takes to survive in the wild. Yeah, our ancestors lived off the land, but game was plenty in those days. They had a full powder horn and could hunt for food without worry and plant crops at whatever homestead they set up. Even then, the wilderness was small, and they could count on running into other folks fairly regularly. Some of whom would know of them or their family.

    If he is out there and still alive, it is somewhere where he can scavenge for food in dumpsters or steal from caches that backpackers have left for upcoming hikes. The chances that he knows enough about primitive weapons or snares and has the ability to actually use that knowledge are pretty slim. Otherwise he would have been posting that stuff all over social media before now.

    All he needs is some basic camping gear (which we know he has), a big enough stock of beans and rice, and a fishing pole.  A 5 gallon bucket of rice and a 5 gallon bucket of beans could last him two months.  If he is at a place he could reliably fish, probably add a couple more months.  

  13. 9 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

    Also, @GW Hayduke, why do you not view commuting as commerce?

    I'm not sure what the question is about.  

    My overall point is that state law allows a cyclist to travel on our roadways and gives them as much legal right to a travel lane as a vehicle in most circumstances.  The false belief that cyclists must stay on the far right side of a lane is not supported by the law and actually invites additional danger.  The actual mechanics of how a cyclist should use any facility is dependant on the specifics of the corridor.   All of that applies to recreational riders along with commuters.  

  14. 2 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

    Huh?  TxDOT routinely builds standard lanes from 16' to 18' nowadays (why would they make a law with an exception that is not an exception??)

    Why would TxDOT ever build a 16 or 18' wide lane?  That is literally crazy. The widest they currently build is 14'. 

    The typical width of existing lanes is less than 14'.  14' is a recent design standard, and most of our network was built decades ago.  10' wide lanes is most typical for existing facilities.  These are the situations we are talking about - 10' wide lanes and no shoulders.  A facility with 14' lanes is a new facility. A new facility would also either have wide shoulders or a dedicated bike lane.  

  15. 3 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

    This is pretty clear. That's the rule, not the exceptions which you included, and it applies to all cyclists, tandem or not.  Rule (4) only applies to narrow roads, and there are a lot of them where cyclists ride but in general the great majority of roads with vehicular traffic aren't those.

    A cyclist cannot ride two abreast, nor in the middle of a lane, unless they can ride at the normal speed of traffic, with those exceptions in the code.

    Yeah, and those exceptions give a rider the right to an entire lane, to ride in the middle of it, when the lane of any width is "too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side" even when going slower than traffic.  In virtually all situations, a 14' wide lane (which is the widest lane TxDOT builds) is too narrow for both a bike and car to travel side by side in the same lane.   

  16. Just now, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    Don’t be an asshole, just because you are allowed to.  Unwritten law.   

    It isn't about being an asshole. It is about traveling safely on a corridor.  In most cases it is entirely unsafe for both a cyclist and an automobile/truck to share the same 10-14 foot wide lane.  That is just a fact and reality.  A cyclist that does not ride the middle of a lane invites a truck/car to ride in the lane, invites an unsafe condition. 

  17. 5 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

    The law is quite clear that bikes are allowed to share the road with motor vehicles, but not equally in most cases, unless they can keep up speed at all times with the normal flow of traffic.  Check back to my post or look up TTC Sec. 551.103, esp. (a) and (c).

    I don't think the law implies that at all.  There is no obligation to travel the same speed as a vehicle, except when riding two abreast.  A cyclist traveling slower than the vehicles still obtains full right of a lane.  A rider can't take up an inside lane unless passing or making a left hand movement.

     

    (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:

    (1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;

    (2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;

    (3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or

    (4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:

    (A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or

    (B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

  18. 4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

    This is…perfect. 
     

    Yet they constantly are, and are 75% of what people are complaining about. As noted several times, it’s the delta in speed that is the issue.  People would be bitching just as much if it were assholes imitating Tiger Woods while driving their golf carts on these roads. 

    The triggered angst against cyclists here is blaming them for "not following the rules or disregarding traffic laws" although very few here know the actual rules or laws or blaming them for "taking up an entire lane and causing inconvenience."

    The DT heads here are triggered about bikes taking up an entire lane irrespective of number of lanes.  See the comments throughout this thread.  The DT head, the subject of this thread that tried to roll coal, was triggered on a 4 lane facility.  He was likely triggered out of selfishness driven by ignorance, which is also reflected throughout this thread.

    It is true there are some very low income folks that don't have access to a vehicle and are forced to ride on a high speed corridor with only 2 lanes and no shoulders.  That really sucks for that person.  They should probably just walk.  It is not a common occurrence though.

    Roadies that train with mileage and commuters that use bikes for transit to/from work do not frequent those type of facilities, except in very limited rare cases.  The reason they don't frequent those corridors is that they are dangerous, but when they do ride those dangerous corridors it is for limited stretches and to get to safer corridors. Either way, the law still allows them to use those facilities, and that triggered angst against those limited number of riders is driven by selfishness.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  19. 15 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Yeah Big Macs, obesity, and bikes don't really correlate here.  I don;t rage on a guy on a bike because it reminds me I need to get more fitness.  I'm not envious of you sport, neither are 99.99% of the rest of us..  2 Bikes Taking up half a lane and causing traffic to back up behind them is my main gripe. That, and bikes blowing thru intersections, and where I work that's almost a daily occurrence .

     

    The lengths you guys will go to to justify your hobby is funny.

    Yeah, your main gripe is selfishness.  It definitely isn't your obesity.  

    The reason two cyclists take up an entire lane, the reason one cyclist takes up an entire lane, is because that is the law and that is the safest method of travel.  When there isn't a bike lane or a safe shoulder, a cyclist should take up an entire lane.   It is unsafe for a cyclist and an automobile to use/share the same lane.  It is the law that the automobile change lanes to move around the cyclist. A cyclists not taking the entire lane is inviting a vehicle into his lane and is inviting danger.

    The reality is a lot of our roads have shoulders and an increasing number of them are getting bike lanes. Cyclists do not typically need to use vehicle lanes on those corridors; however, they do need to merge to the left to make turns at intersections, etc. on those type of corridors.  The reality is that on 4 lane corridors without a bike lane or safe shoulder, a cyclist is entitled to and should for his own preservation take up an entire lane, forcing vehicles to move into the middle lane to pass. Not all vehicle drivers are ignorant to that fact, but those on the DT board should get on board with this.  Cyclists shouldn't typically be on high speed corridors with only two lanes and no shoulders.  Cyclists should be on and take up the entire lane on lower speed two lane corridors with no shoulders.  

     

    • Hook 'Em 4
  20. 7 hours ago, boilerhorn said:

    I'll save everyone the effort and put the 7 bullets here:

    1. Greener - no CO2 emissions
    2. Plus no gas money
    3. You get tons of exercise
    4. Parking's rarely a problem
    5. More social (stop riding and talk to people you pass - HUH?)
    6. They are cheaper (citing the $100 mech-shit variant you buy from Target)
    7. Yes to helmets, no to insurance.

    Good stuff here.  

    I think most of the bicycle hate isn't about cyclists following traffic laws.  The angst is because too many DT folks are fat and selfish.  They feel they have a right to drive the speed limit while smashing a BigMac into their face, so having having to drive 20 mph and be reminded of their obesity is some kind of triggered tyranny.  Dangerous stuff actually.  Too many instances of road rage, bicycle victims, and coronary disease.  Get off your fat ass people.    

    • Like 1
  21. 7 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    You’re missing the point because you’re not using your brain. Roads today wouldn’t be built without cars. There is no equality amongst cars and bicycles. 

    That is a dumb point. Your facts are wrong also. We have a legal system that gives cyclists full rights to most lanes. I understand your feelings don’t care about the law, which is probably why you have a dumb point. 

  22. 46 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

     

    Dumb argument. Roads were made for walking Romans but more so for Romans on horseback. Roads here were built for horses, and then cars. They were never built with cyclists in mind and they aren’t now. 

    This is the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Roads are designed for automobiles and bicycles.  Our laws are also structured that way. 

    Your facts are wrong, and the point you are trying to make is dumb.

×
×
  • Create New...