Look at the MOVE bombing, etc - if they wanted to glass the Bundys, they would have. Safety wasn't the reason they didn't.

I wouldn't describe 'safety' as the state of things after the last time feds glassed a right-wing adjacent group. When the feds 'glassed' Waco, a little known guy named Timothy McVeigh was there. He used it as inspiration to bomb a federal building at which there were 700+ casualties of which over 150 were deaths.

The feds were very much aware "Bundys" was not just the ranching family but a whole bunch of people and greater militia network. If they had glassed Bundy himself it would have been a total shit-show.

I probably agree with your position in general. I would note that from my position it's more about the politics of the right and how that's more tolerable for folks in power.

Consider Michael Reinoehl.

I can't find a source for this at all... Any reporting on this?

What kind of non-long-term outcomes are worth looking at?

If you read the original comment I think he only cares about the effects on Trump, not on Venezuela. People in Venezuela will likely celebrate in the streets which will bolster Trump to keep doing stupid things. The backlash will come in a couple of years for the Venezuelan people and the world but then Trump will have been able to fuck up more things.

Having worked in advertiser support: fb pages are basically an unsupported product and their support channels for advertising are farmed out to the lowest bidder.

They do bucket out support into spend tiers, although when I was there it was overall spend, not frequency

Thanks for the insights! That was helpful.

Bro you may have just been socially engineered to give out the internal workings of Facebook from a neo crime lab.

You don't have to socially engineer someone who already doesn't care ;)

What's your mother's maiden name? (Humor)

My username is a dumb old name, but it's the one I have.

is it really that difficult to conclude support quality is tied to overall advertiser spend?

You understand that the set is greater than those two countries, thus you understand the problem already.

billionaires aren't a protected class in the UK (yet), afaik

Neither are politicians or immigrants at large so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

So who's "our" in "coming for our data centers"?

The good guys.

It's weird to write "Coming for our data centers" when you really mean "Anyone outside of Texas" :/

Everyone the policing system interacts with is not only a convinced criminal, but convicted justly, yeah? That's what you actually believe?

No, that's not what I believe, I didn't say any of those words.

The person you replied to didn't say "criminals are victims", either, so comprehending your post requires some inference.

Feel free to clarify what you did mean, it's a lot more helpful than insisting on what you didn't mean.

It's not helpful. You put a lot of words into my mouth, I deny them. I already made my point in my own words. I don't have to deny every position you make up for me.

If you read his comment, he refers to everyone going through the system as victims of the colluding judges and LEO. Almost none of them are. The victims are the people whom they committed crimes against, of course.

This isn't my position, it's just the language we use to describe reality.

You're putting words into the other user's mouth, though, by assuming they mean "everyone" and not just "the innocent proportion of accused people".

So this seems like a good place to take your own advice, right?

No, I responded to their comment as-is. It's you putting words in someone's mouth again, not I.

The way you can tell what they mean is this line: "More you punish the victims better you make out." Nobody in America thinks that judges make out for punishing actually-innocent people. That's not what "victims" means here.

They didn't say "judges". I think the American justice system has a grandiose disregard for its impacts on the falsely accused.

You're doing the thing again, even now.

I agree, I think it does as well. That's not what the guy said, though.

I think I'm just reading what his comment says, but maybe I am doing the same thing as you. I'm just better at it. I got his position correct, you got it wrong.

You told me what I believe, you got that wrong, too.

I didn't tell you, I asked :)

From my POV you seem to be making a lot of inferences and then declaring them correct, based on some information about the original intent that I must not be privy to?

Generally "small patches" and "well-compressed assets" are on either end of a trade-off spectrum.

More compression means large change amplification and less delta-friendly changes.

More delta-friendly asset storage means storing assets in smaller units with less compression potential.

In theory, you could have the devs ship unpacked assets, then make the Steam client be responsible for packing after install, unpacking pre-patch, and then repacking game assets post-patch, but this basically gets you the worst of all worlds in terms of actual wall clock time to patch, and it'd be heavily constraining for developers.