A tactic used when the person speaking has been recognized to speak according to the rules of the legislature. I don’t really see why that’s relevant here though?

No, see, it should be allowed when we agree with the people making the disruption. Otherwise absolutely not!

More than a quarter of the independent studies still found neutral outcomes though.

They did use Y-cruncher.

Edit: Some other fun tidbits: most of that 2.2 petabytes of storage wasn’t actually used to store the 300 trillion digits itself - that number of digits fits in like 170 terabytes (which LTT is thinking of making available as a download, lol) - it’s actually used as pseudo-ram during the actual calculation.

I wanted to just post the video, which has a lot more information (though not the kind of info you’re looking for), but I didn’t know if an LTT video was an “official” enough source for this community.

I suppose this was probably the first time that all of the digits of pi up to 300 trillion were calculated, even if the 300 trillionth specifically was already known.

Horizon: Zero Dawn. Such a haunting, beautiful story.

That might not be the best criterion, since that’s basically all that George Carlin did too.

I’m a bit wary of the 2011 stat for male victims with male perpetrators.

Yeah, honestly I felt the same way when I first looked at the numbers, but they seem to be confirmed in the CDC 2015 and 2017 studies as well. I even tried to find independent numbers of, for example, male on male sexual assault in prisons to make sure I wasn’t accidentally excluding relevant data.

It’s also worth mentioning that, as flicker said, it’s impossible to know the huge amount of male- and female-perpetrated and male- and female-victim cases that go unreported each year, which would certainly result in significantly different numbers, though it’s impossible to know exactly how they’d be affected.

Sorry, but I still just do not see how stating the obvious fact that “if you come here illegally you will be arrested and deported” can in any way be seen as “propaganda”.

Yes, I understand that, which was why in the comment I linked to I was careful to be much more precise, including both the numbers of male victims with male perpetrators (which according to the CDC was low enough in 2011 to be statistically insignificant) and the number of male victims with female perpetrators.

And this is still very much a spinjob. The tone of their comment is chiding and patronizing while acting like they’re just “correcting the record”, minimizing and undermining the CDC numbers I’m quoting as much as they can even as they arrive at a more imprecise number only slightly lower than mine.

If you’d like an actual breakdown of the numbers, please refer to the comment I linked to above, which goes into much more detail with the numbers from the CDC report.

Wow, what a spinjob, all to conclude that the number is ackshually just 34% instead of 40% when you use the CDC’s lifetime data instead of their year-over-year data like I did in my calculation. This is to be compared, of course, to all of the “95% of rapists are men” signs and infodocs drawing from the CDC’s incredibly misleading “rape” figures, but it doesn’t sound like you’d be quite as concerned about that much more prevalent, much more inaccurate, and much more damaging discrepancy.

Anyhow, based directly on the CDC’s year over year data from the three years they’ve released the report, as I detailed in my other comment, yes, 40% of rapists are women, and I think it’s pretty disgusting how much effort you were willing to go through to wiggle out of so few percent, all just to minimize male victims of rape as much as you can.

Here’s everyone’s daily reminder that, in the US at least, 40% of rapists are women, and fully half of rape victims are men.

The irony of this comment being posted in this thread is palpable.

Thanks for the good-faith discussion. :)

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like in that case the “Visit Mexico!” ads I saw when I was growing up in the US would be Mexican propaganda then, correct? Since they’re advancing a specific political cause, namely increasing tourist revenue and the government’s share of that revenue.

In that case, an ad saying “hey, don’t try to get into our country illegally because we’ll arrest and deport you” feels much less like propaganda to me than “hey, come visit our country so we can get your money!” does.

Edit: So, (aside from the comment that mentioned that this may be a mistranslation), if what you say about the situation is correct, to me it’s starting to sound like this might just be the Mexican government being intentionally incendiary and a bit hyperbolic in their language because they’re pissy about the US government going over their head and speaking directly to their people, which may be due to the (accurate or not) perception that the Mexican government isn’t doing enough to prevent illegal immigration. In that case, it seems like my original comment implying that this isn’t really propaganda is still mostly accurate.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense, thanks for the explanation. It definitely feels discriminatory. That’s a terrible translation if this is the case.

You’ll have to explain who you’re talking about, or how that’s relevant.

In any case, this may help. Let me rephrase: “TIL that if you’re American, buying an ad in Mexico saying ‘if you come to our country illegally, we will arrest and deport you’ is propaganda.”

TIL that saying “if you come to our country illegally, we will arrest and deport you” is propaganda.

Edit: oops, I seem to have accidentally posted a reasonable thought that goes against the circle-jerk. I’ll try to be a bit less objective and a bit more filled with myopic, conformist, unquestioned rage next time I comment here.

Don’t worry, I still believe that disappearing people to El Salvador is a terrible thing, and it makes me really angry, so I think I still pass the tribalist purity test.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I mean, they still have the commissioner being this impossibly pure naïve good guy instead of being fully complicit in covering everything up, which is what would be (and already is) the case IRL.

Don’t get me wrong - the show’s clearly a step in the right direction, but it’s still got too much of an “a few bad apples” vibe for me.