TheSanSabaSongbird

The short version is that it was about the transfer of power from hereditary nobility to a different elite consisting of wealthy merchants and "gentlemen" farmers. This transfer was already happening anyway throughout the British Empire, the Americans just wanted to speed it up and codify it.

Several things can be true at once. We don't have to be all-in on one side or the other of the Snowden affair. I've never understood why people seem so eager to pick a team on this issue.

WTF are you talking about? I see zero evidence that this is what OP is doing. It can't be the case that every time someone asks a question that you don't like, they must be doing so in bad faith. That's a fallacy.

Oh, look at John fucking Von Neumann over here!

Either a square knot or a "granny" knot will work. A lot of people don't know the difference, but it's actually a pretty important distinction in different types of rigging because a square knot is so much stronger and more secure.

It's how the other great apes do it too, which as far as I'm concerned is pretty much the end of the issue. It really is one of those things where there's a right and wrong way to do it.

Double Nickels on the Dime, Minutemen. Also probably the best power trio record ever made. Granted, they only made one more record before D Boon died, but as legendary as he is, Mike Watt has still never done anything as good since.

I don't think Lemmy is ready to hear that kind of thing.

True, but not for the reasons that most people think.

Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.

Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a "firewall" between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.

Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they've always been very hands-off. It's a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn't care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.

Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You're completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.

Unfortunately advocacy journalism is very much a legitimate type of journalism, just ask Glen Greenwald, who I fuckin' hate.

It's more of a cause or a movement than an organization. I guess I don't know why that should be difficult to understand.