A.M. Links: Trump to Meet Putin in Vietnam, Facebook Founder Says Social Network Designed to Exploit 'a Vulnerability in Human Psychology'

|

  • Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com

    President Donald Trump is in Beijing today for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

  • President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet tomorrow in Vietnam.
  • Former Trump aide Sebastian Gorka has been hired by Fox News as a "national security strategist."
  • "Saudi Arabia's crackdown on corruption has spread beyond its borders as regulators in the United Arab Emirates ask UAE banks for information about Saudi citizens detained in the investigation, a possible prelude to freezing their accounts."
  • A self-driving bus crashed yesterday in Las Vegas just two hours after it was launched into service.
  • According to Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, the social networking platform was designed to exploit "a vulnerability in human psychology." Facebook "probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it's doing to our children's brains."

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: Get This Straight

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. President Donald Trump is in Beijing today for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

    Get ready because the United States is about to totally own China.

    1. What kind of china? Fine china? Porcelain china? Bone china? Casual china?

      1. The best china.

      2. Blac Chyna

    2. Hello.

      “President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin”

      APOCALYPSE!!

      STALIN-HITLER REENACTMENT!

      HITLER-MUSSOLINI REDUX!

      POL-POT-MAO WANNABES!

      #notmykindofdictators

      1. Trump is going to give Vietnam to the Communists!!!!

        1. Too late, LBJ already did.

    3. Apparently, the Chinese really love the Donald.

      http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..onald.html

      Chinese people are impressed that he is extremely rich, he loves things splendid and magnificent, and he loves to show off,” Yin Hao, who has close to one million Sina Weibo followers, told Reuters.

      Besides his success in business?an important value for Chinese?Trump is popular for his contempt for political correctness and his tendency to defy traditional liberal western views, which many Chinese consider elitist, according to Shanghai-based political commentator Chen Jibing.

      “In China, realists hold a deep-rooted belief that the rule of the jungle means the strong prey on the weak,” Chen told Reuters. “For them, the world is not split into right and wrong, good or evil, it is only success or failure, the powerful and the weak.”

      1. The Con Man should open a Trump University in China and bilk those stupid motherfuckers then.

        1. Yes Shreek, you are a racist. But it is good to know you are just as racist against the Chinese as you are against black people. You are an equal opportunity racialist.

        2. Butt: We all knew that you hated white, black, and brown people. Now you hate Asians too?

          Wow, I guess lefties really are racist about everyone.

        3. Palin’s Buttplug|11.9.17 @ 9:48AM|#
          “The Con Man should open a Trump University”

          Why would Obo do such a thing turd?

    4. How many Mandarin characters will Twitter allow the premier to use in a post?

      1. Twitter is allowing double the characters from 140 to 280, so we will get double the TDS from the media.

    5. Confucius say: Man who sit on toilet, high on pot.

  2. President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet tomorrow in Vietnam.

    Again?!?

    1. “Open your eyes, people! What POSSIBLE reason could Trump have to meet Putin, unless he’s working for him?” – The Last 10 Months

    2. Viet-goddam-Nam!

      Now get me a beer bitch!

  3. President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet tomorrow in Vietnam.

    Get ready because the United States is about to totally own Russia. And Vietnam if President Trump gets on a roll.

    1. What kind of Vietnam? Fine porcelain?

      1. ^ thread winner

  4. According to Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, the social networking platform was designed to exploit “a vulnerability in human psychology.”

    The Parker v Zuckerberg debates of 2020 will be epic…

    ally boring.

    1. Sounds like the “freemium” game apps that function like Skinner boxes.

  5. Facebook “probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”

    Yeah, it won’t be a thing in five years.

    1. I’m just waiting for Friendster to come back. Technology is cyclical, you know.

      1. +1 Beeper King

      2. Exactly why I keep my MySpace page updated.

      3. I don’t care as long as it works on my VIC-20.

      4. Geocities for life bitches!

  6. According to Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, the social networking platform was designed to exploit “a vulnerability in human psychology.” Facebook “probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”

    Adding this one to the “water is wet” file.

    Anecdotally, my kid is 13, and she and all her friends have no interest whatsoever in Facebook.

    1. Probably because all her friends’ parents are on it.

        1. Next thing you know, she’ll quit smoking pot, just out of spite.

          1. Real Talk – if she ever gets into pot, her mom and i are gonna bogart her whole stash.

            1. X don’t be cruel! My pops is always offering me some, I think he afraid I’m paying too much or that I have sketchy contacts — but that stuff ends in high school.

      1. That is certainly a major factor.

    2. I have a Facebook account. I went to the user account page one day and typed in a plausible, but random, email contact address. Then I changed my password by turning my head away and drummed my fingers on the keyboard. This was about 10 years, before the double entry password kicked in. Yeah, that double entry password thingy is my fault.

  7. A self-driving bus crashed yesterday in Las Vegas just two hours after it was launched into service.

    The drunk hen party in the back distracted the AI.

    1. “drunk hen party”

      Seriously, is nobody going to make a SIV joke? Sometimes I wonder why I even bother lurking here anymore.

      1. With SIV, it’s not a joke.

        1. “With SIV, it’s not a joke.”

          SIV *is* the joke.

      2. We’re cosmotarians, remember? We don’t make fun of certain individuals’ penchant for sexual deviancy with fowl. It wouldn’t be proper.

        1. I believe that only applies with migratory species. Native avian philandering is fair game.

          1. Oh, my bad. I misremembered the talking points from the last Georgetown cocktail party.

        2. Its all cocks in the hen house, I see.

    2. The bus didn’t crash. It was hit by a truck.

      1. Now Reason is fake news.

      2. Why would there be a drunk hen party on a truck? Use your head.

  8. President Donald Trump is in Beijing today for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

    Finally, someone who can appreciate a good wall.

    1. Other than Berliners.

    2. I wonder when Trump will visit Mexico and see their southern wall with Guatemala?

      1. What wall might that be?

        1. Its a wall of Mexican army, fences, border crossing stations, rivers, and bridge checkpoints.
          Mexico’s southern border

          Mexican troops guarding border

          NYT new Mexican border checkpoints

          I know the lefties love to act like Mexico has open borders but that is not true.

        2. “Erick Z??iga, mayor of the western Guatemalan municipality of Ayutla, better known as Tec?n Um?n, bordering Mexico, said the state of Chiapas has already begun construction of the barrier….”
          IPS news covers current Mexican border

        3. Washington Office on Latin America’s report on Mexico’s southern border.
          WOLA report

  9. Russians. I should’ve known. Anti-Semite, slippery Cossack sluts.

  10. Facebook “probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”

    Let the lawsuits begin.

    1. I was about to say that it will take nanoseconds before the lawyers who ganged up on the tobacco companies because one of their employees referred to a cigarette as a “nicotine delivery system” will cite Parker’s comment as a “smoking gun admission” and bring a class action lawsuit against Facebook for “lying to the American people” about potential “brain damage,” with the states and feds then joining in to recover the Medicaid “losses” that allegedly resulted from Facebook’s lie.

      Face it. Like Microsoft in the 1990s, Facebook has gotten too big for its britches, and the State has to show it who’s boss.

      1. Plus that little thing where it helped elect Trump.

      2. Facebook is the State. Don’t hold your breath waiting for self-inflicted law suits.

        1. Yeah, Facebook is far too useful (and willing) as a surveillance tool for the feds to want to hurt it.

          1. Haha. That is so true Citizen. So true.

            The USSR, Nazi Germany, etc would have given their left nut to have a way for people to voluntarily give the state so much personal info.

            1. Hitler was way ahead of them.

          2. +1 Prism

        2. Mark Zuckerberg put out some feelers to see if he was a viable presidential candidate. I think he got his hand burned. He quickly backed away. Creds for that. He’s not stupid Jewish billionaire like Tom Steyer.

    2. “God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”

      God should be subpoenaed by Congress to tell us what Xe knows.

  11. President Donald Trump is in Beijing today for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

    “Mr. Ching, forget all that stuff I said to the American rubes about China during the election”.

    1. The Commie knows everything that Trump said about China was true.

      It’s just polite for Trump not to rub it in Xi’s face in person.

    2. That was Obama to Putin.

    3. Sadly, Reason’s commenting system does not support Chinese characters. I say, “Grass Dirt Horse”.

    4. Hey, turd! You lost, loser.

  12. regulators in the United Arab Emirates ask UAE banks for information about Saudi citizens detained in the investigation, a possible prelude to freezing their accounts.”

    “I learned it from watching the U.S., OK?!”

    1. Time to chop off those hands.

  13. President Donald Trump is in Beijing today for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

    What I want to know is, how badly did Trump flub Xi Jinping’s name?

    “How the hell do you pronounce that? Exxi? How stupid!”

    1. “Fortune Cookie Man” or something like that.

      1. Commie bastard is a better pronunciation.

    2. Its pronounced “she” “gin” “ping”.

      1. Some new type of girly cocktail? In Taiwan it’s called a “Winnie”, but many who try it say, “Pooh”.

        1. Its a red cocktail that kills you if you speak ill of the regime.

    3. I just thought that the Chinese President didn’t want to identify as male or female.

  14. A self-driving bus crashed yesterday in Las Vegas just two hours after it was launched into service.

    Jesus Christ, the jokes practically write themselves. It’s truly remarkable, the extent to which real-world events make some of these guys at Reason look like complete fools.

    1. The driverless crr boosters? Yeah, I’ve calling BS on that for years. Ain’t gonna happen, not in any sort of widespread way they can imagine.

      1. I’m glad to know it’s not just me and John who think it’s a lot of hype that won’t go very far.

        I work in robotics, and managing a fleet of vehicles indoors in a pretty controlled environment is tricky enough. Controlling one car is a reasonable problem. A whole fleet on the streets that actually exist is going to be tough. Probably not impossible, but when you come down to it, a lot of people who drive like to drive.

        1. lot of people who drive like to drive.

          Amen to that.

          1. One of the great failures of reason is that they do not have a single person on their staff who is a part of or understands the car culture. It would be nice if at least one person on their staff understood how important cars are to individual freedom and how central planners and tyrants forever are trying to destroy car ownership for that reason.

            1. I really don’t see this as something to get all worked up about. The writers who write about it share their opinions. *shrug*

              1. It creates an enormous blind spot in their writing.

        2. I watched a really interesting documentary on the car factory in England where they make the Mini. It, of course, has a huge number of assembly robots. In the film the German guy from BMW who is kind of the head of robotics at the factory says something to the effect of “our first rule here is that the humans and not the robots are in charge”. All of the robotic assembly is done behind metal screens and humans don’t go in there unless they shut that area of the assembly line down. Basically, they make assembly robots safe to operate around humans. But somehow they are going to create a car that navigates traffic and endless varieties of hazards and road conditions.

          1. Shhhh….you’ll upset the robots.

            1. The Robot guy was a little out there. You had the sense that he had a personal relationship with his machines in the way a cattle rancher does with his livestock.

              1. I 100% advocate a 5 foot power cord for all robots, so when they rise up to destroy us, they can only do it within 5 feet of a power socket.

                ~(o_o)~

            2. What’s the worst that could…oh, never mind.

          2. I do a lot of work on industrial robots that can be operated safely around humans. Collaborative robotics is a big thing now. But this is in a highly controlled environment with people trained on how things operate.

            1. The “controlled environment with people trained” is the key there. And even getting that far has been as I am sure you know a big lift. Robot to operate a two-ton vehicle around people who not only are not trained but often not even paying attention is a different order of magnitude.

              The other thing is that people underestimated how controlled the google experiments were. Those miles were driving in a closed area that was completely mapped and updated, in perfect weather, and a small variety of traffic conditions. They took out the most difficult variables. It was nothing more than a proof of concept. Saying those machines are ready for widespread use because of that is like saying your teenager is ready to drive in rush hour traffic because they have successfully driving in an empty mall parking lot and around your neighborhood.

        3. Plus – ain’t no programmer ever gonna figure out the Amish

          1. Or dogs or wildlife. Wait until these things start running down bunnies because they don’t know enough to try and avoid them. Yeah, that will go over well.

            1. You’re supposed to avoid them?

            2. True story: I saw a full-grown rabbit running down the Dallas North Tollway during rush hour a few days ago. In the middle of downtown Dallas.

              Those fuckers get everywhere, and God help you if you go to McKinney. It’s all rabbits, all the time. Pretty sure I saw Elmer Fudd creeping around, and that’s never a good sign.

    2. Reminds one of the story of a rescued sea otter, released back to the wild with great fanfare and celebration, to be promptly eaten by a killer whale before the well wishers left the shore.

    3. I’m surprised that it worked for that long before turning into an ISIS terrorist equivalent.

    4. I’m right along with you on the driverless cars feature. It will work, but only if every car that isn’t automated is made illegal in the United States. I see that going over well.

      Just for the record, the news story linked mentions that this driverless bus hit a semi-truck. It also states that the semi-truck driver was ‘at fault’ but somehow I suspect that he was only ‘at fault’ in the sense that he was breaking the law in the standard ways that truck drivers must break the law to get into certain area’s. Cops always look the other way for those types of maneuvers because they are necessary regardless of the law, but Mr. AI vehicle doesn’t ‘know’ that.

      Still, even that news story doesn’t care to give any particular details about how the human driver was at fault so it’s hard to really say. I find that a little bizarre, but whatever.

      1. I think it’s a colossal waste of resources, and it’s not like we’re not paying for (much if not most of) it.

      2. It’s already working, and the software gets better every year, unlike human drivers.

        1. I’ll put you in the ‘human drivers should be illegal for the children and because safety’ column.

    5. Just 2 days ago that fucking idiot Akston got a sandy vag over having his ignorance on this subject exposed, when he insisted the tech was currently ready. Funny how he is silent about this now.

    6. The bus didn’t crash. It was hit by a truck.

  15. President Donald Trump is in Beijing today for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

    They no doubt traded tips on how to shut down critics in the press.

    1. China’s communists threaten to kill press that does not cooperate. Trump just check-mates the press in xth D Chess.

      Its apples and oranges, really.

      1. Its apples and oranges, really.

        Psst. Those are both fruit and therefore kinda the same.

        1. ^this guy gets it!

        2. And one is ORANGE

          1. And Apple has a lot of factories in China, so…

            1. Y’all are on a roll today!

    2. Palin’s Buttplug|11.9.17 @ 9:11AM|#
      “President Donald Trump…”

      Yep, it’s been more than a year now since we dodged the threat of ‘President Hag”

  16. The crash follows the US House passing the Self Drive Act in September, which if passed by the Senate would exempt car manufacturers from various federal and state regulations, allowing for the eventual deployment of up to 100,000 test vehicles a year.

    Emphasis added. I’ll bite. Are these exemptions obvious, or are self-driving cars really *special*?

    1. Car and driver has a special issue that implies a lot of these exemptions have to do with seating positions and mirror placement that aren’t relevant to self driving cars.

  17. …a possible prelude to freezing their accounts.

    With the price of oil no longer $100 a barrel, the Saudis can no longer afford to look the other way on corruption?

    1. Especially when it costs them about ten bucks a barrel to produce.

    2. Everyone was corrupt. The corruption is just an excuse to get rid of the people they want to get rid of. Sort of like the 3 felonies a day plan in the USA. Make everything illegal, and they will always have dirt on you.

  18. A self-driving bus crashed yesterday in Las Vegas just two hours after it was launched into service.

    That bus doesn’t hold a candle to the light rail in Minneapolis – since we’ve installed the multi-billion $$$ glorified trolley, that fucker has whacked dozens of people.

    1. If i had to live through a MPLS winter i’d consider stepping in front of a train, too.

      1. Its colder than a wet hornet!

          1. You said that you would use “mad as a wet hornet” more.

            I tweaked it a bit.

            1. I have never read, used, or had an opinion about that phrase in my entire life.

              1. Sorry that was BUCS.

                BestUsedCarSales|11.8.17 @ 12:50PM|#
                Thank you Shep. I will start using “Mad as a wet hornet” in my day to day life.

                1. That’s from the Rand Paul thread yesterday. Shep Smith said “Mad as a wet hornet” and my life fundamentally changed.

                  1. “Mah name is Shepard Smith, and ah come from a small town full of secrets.”

                  2. Mine changed too. Evidently I confused Citizen with you on some hornet trivia.

              2. XD

  19. “President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet tomorrow”

    Who’s bringing the puppet strings?

    1. Warren Buffet. George Soros. Ron Paul.

    1. “Guys, that’s our bad. That’s on us.”

      1. Wear a helmet.

    2. 8.5 tonnes? Pfft. Mir was something like 130 tonnes.

  20. First “Dreamer” known deported under Trump arrested re-entering U.S. again, authorities say
    I guess this guy just is standing up for his right to be in the USA.
    CBS News story about dreamer illegally re-entering the USA

    1. Trying to get home.

      1. Aw, like a lost puppy.

        1. More like a puppy some asshole drove out into the country and dumped on the side of the road.

      2. He was going the wrong way to get back to his home in Mexico.

        1. He lived in the US since he was 9. His home isn’t in Mexico. Legal status doesn’t define where your home is. Home is a personal connection, not what’s on your passport. Whatever you think the law should be or how it should be enforced, that’s what he was doing.

          1. Personal connection, huh?

            So he wants to be like Americans he lives around? So he wants to assimilate? So he wants to accept American culture of rule of law? So he wants to be a law abiding US citizen?

            His personal connection is that he thinks he deserves to be in America and he does not give two shits about anyone or anything to do it. He is costing US taxpayers money because he has now violated US law rather than just being a kid who was brought into the US illegally.

            1. No, his personal connection is that it’s been his home for most of his life and all of his adult life. He is effectively, if not legally, an American. You have no idea what he gives shits about.

              I’m not making any comment on the law or how it should be used here. I’m just saying that that is his situation. It’s just fucking idiotic to claim that his home is in Mexico when he has spent all of his adult and adolescent life in the US. You think that the letter of the law should be enforced anyway? Fine. Just don’t pretend that legal status defines reality.

              1. He’s not legally an American.

                I know he does not give a shit about Americans or our culture. He proves that by flagrantly disregarding our laws.

                You are taking a position and that position is that he deserves to be here. It’s fucking idiotic to claim that his home is the USA over where he was born.

                Home is where one FEELZ it is? I guess that I feel that your home should be my home. I don’t have any legal right to your home but I FEELZ it is, so it is.

                You open border people just amaze me with your squirming to rationalize it.

                Just don’t pretend that your open border agenda defines reality. It doesn’t.

                1. I know he does not give a shit about Americans or our culture.

                  Because he broke the law?

                  Does everyone who gets a speeding ticket “not give a shit about Americans or our culture”?

                  I guess all those potheads are really anti-American traitors, right?

                  You are taking a position and that position is that he deserves to be here.

                  Jesus H. Christ, the question was where he considered his home to be, not whether he is entitled to citizenship or not. Put down the defensive outrage for just a moment.

                  Home is where one FEELZ it is?

                  Yes, for every normal human being. This has nothing to do with one’s legal status or lack thereof.

                  1. Part of American culture is rule of law. Don’t like it, vote to change the laws, ditch your representative lawmaker by voting, or get a bunch of your fellow Americans to overthrow the government and start from scratch with the Constitution. That is some American culture for ya.

                    Even those who get speeding tickets pay their tickets. The ones that don’t are just hurting themselves. The alternative to rule of law is rule of man. Rule of man involves corruption and only following rules that you agree with. The problem is that everyone gets to do that.

                    J.C. put down the leftist open border outrage. He was brought here illegally. He never became a US citizen. He was deported and then entered the US again illegally.

                    I FEELZ your home is my home and I want it. Since there is not rule of law, I will just take it.

                    1. Look. Here is a simpler example that maybe you can understand.

                      I was born in California. However, as a child I moved to Missouri, and I now regard Missouri as my “home” at least on an emotional level. So according to you, where is my “home”? California? Or Missouri?

                      Where I consider to be “home” on an emotional, personal level has absolutely nothing to do with my legal permission, or lack thereof, to reside in either California or Missouri. That is what both Zeb and I are saying.

                      You are so utterly defensive on the issue of illegal immigration that you cannot even acknowledge in illegal immigrants basic human emotions that all human beings have. That IMO is quite sad.

                    2. Look. Here is a simpler example that maybe you can understand.

                      I was born in California. However, as a child I moved to Missouri, and I now regard Missouri as my “home” at least on an emotional level. So according to you, where is my “home”? California? Or Missouri?

                      Where I consider to be “home” on an emotional, personal level has absolutely nothing to do with my legal permission, or lack thereof, to reside in either California or Missouri. That is what both Zeb and I are saying.

                      You are so utterly defensive on the issue of illegal immigration that you cannot even acknowledge in illegal immigrants basic human emotions that all human beings have. That IMO is quite sad.

                    3. And you may stop bloviating about rule of law and its central importance to American culture unless you are willing to hold American citizens to the same high standard that you hold illegal immigrants. If illegal immigrants are holding American culture in contempt by breaking the law, then so is every citizen pothead who also breaks the law.

                    4. chemjeff|11.9.17 @ 12:17PM|#
                      Look. Here is a simpler example that maybe you can understand.
                      I was born in California. However, as a child I moved to Missouri, and I now regard Missouri as my “home” at least on an emotional level. So according to you, where is my “home”? California? Or Missouri?
                      Where I consider to be “home” on an emotional, personal level has absolutely nothing to do with my legal permission, or lack thereof, to reside in either California or Missouri. That is what both Zeb and I are saying.
                      You are so utterly defensive on the issue of illegal immigration that you cannot even acknowledge in illegal immigrants basic human emotions that all human beings have. That IMO is quite sad.

                      Here’s some answers maybe you can understand.
                      Are you legally in USA? For sake of argument, I assume you’re an American. You’re home is wherever you want it to be but you’re still an American. See how that works?

                      No, you and Zeb are saying that this guys deserves to stay in the USA because he calls Commifornia home. He’s not an American. He does not like the way America is setup and he refuses to follow the rules that Americans have set up.

                    5. You’re home is wherever you want it to be but you’re still an American. See how that works?

                      Yes, I agree. Now would you agree with this statement?

                      “Juan Montes’ home is wherever he wants it to be but he’s still a Mexican.”

                    6. And incidentally, LC1789, it’s this type of emotional outburst of yours that turns a lot of people off from your point of view.

                      You don’t think illegal immigrants ought to be here? Fine, that is a perfectly defensible position.
                      You want strong border security? Fine, also perfectly defensible.
                      But you can’t stop there. You have to go on about how illegal immigrants, because of their legal status, are anti-American traitors who have no right to feel like America is their home even if they have lived here most of their lives since they were children.
                      So your little tirade seems to belie your true motivations. You don’t want strong border security because of some noble pursuit of the rule of law. You want strong border security ultimately because you want to keep those scum-sucking illegal traitors out of this place! You want to know why people keep calling you racist for your views on illegal immigration? Well this is why. It’s not about your desire to build a wall. It’s because you reveal your true motivations every time the subject comes up.

                    7. And incidentally, LC1789, it’s this type of emotional outburst of yours that turns a lot of people off from your point of view. ….

                      Who cares what emotions immigrants have. Until they are American, I couldn’t give a damn about non-Americans because the majority don’t care about the country that I love. The reason people are turned off from limiting illegal immigration is because they want illegal immigration. I want secure borders and very controlled immigration. Non-Americans cannot be traitors to America because they are not Americans, so they are the enemy already.

                      I will throw you a bone about smoking weed even though it has zero to do with illegal immigration. (1) drug prohibition is unconstitutional whereas Congress can regulation immigration and naturalization per the constitution [art I, sec 8& 9] (2) smoking weed is “legal” in most states, so people are not breaking the law.

                    8. Who cares what emotions immigrants have.

                      Yeah, it’s not like they’re actually people or anything.

                    9. Well said.

                2. I flagrantly disregard lots of laws. Nothing to do with how American I am or how much I give a shit about Americans or American culture. You know nothing about what he gives a shit about beyond the rules about crossing the border. And you are right, he does not seem to give a shit about that. Which to me is understandable, given his situation. I understand that you see it differently.

                  You are taking a position and that position is that he deserves to be here.

                  No, I’m not taking a position about what anyone deserves. I’m taking a position on where his home is. It’s where he lives and has social connections.

                  It’s fucking idiotic to claim that his home is the USA over where he was born.

                  No, your claim is idiotic. Home is where you live and have a life, not where you were born. Yes, home is exactly where one feelz it is. It is not a legally defined concept. It has to do with how people actually live. This has nothing to do with an open borders agenda. You are pretending that your closed borders agenda defines reality and you are so blinded by it that you can’t even acknowledge that sometimes the laws you prefer really do mistreat certain people. No law is without unfortunate consequences.

                  1. Zeb|11.9.17 @ 12:45PM|#
                    I flagrantly disregard lots of laws. Nothing to do with how American I am or how much I give a shit about Americans or American culture.

                    That is very Libertarian of you. It actually does have something to do with your impact on American culture whether you want to admit it or not.

                    You and I both know that you are an open border type and not a Libertarian.

                    You will continue to advocate your nonsense and try and justify said nonsense using more nonsense.

                    “No, I’m not taking a position about what anyone deserves. I’m taking a position on where his home is. It’s where he lives and has social connections.”

                    His parents are illegals and he is an illegal alien. I would bet that he has no family ties nor social connections. I would hope that they are all deported too.

                    In the military I traveled and lived all over the World. I had social connections in Italy but it was not my “home”. My home is America because some of my ancestors fought for its creation and because I value being an American.

                    Your argument is even more idiotic because you think “home” is not intertwined as a legal definition of where you have legal residence. Using your ridiculous argument, my home is your home and I want it. I FEELZ it is.

                3. You’re talking about a nine year old kid. Should he have voluntarily deported himself at age 10? 12? 18? When exactly did he begin flagrantly disregarding our laws?

            2. So essentially, what we’re saying is that if a sitting President decides to not follow the law for 8 years in the realm of immigration they essentially get a free pass and millions of people that didn’t follow immigration procedure should be allowed to stay because of that disregard for the law?

              Seems to me like that’s a recipe for one party never enforcing immigration law, ever, because why would they?

              Was it cruel of the Obama administration to do this? Absolutely. Does that make it the responsibility of the Republicans to hand out amnesty? Not so much.

              Agree or disagree on these ‘Dreamer’ types, but this isn’t the fault of the Republicans. Yet. Hold their beer though, I think they’re on a roll for pissing people off by following the law that no Democrat is interested in actually reforming.

              Basically, I would respect Democrats a lot more if they actually had a policy fix they were pushing in this arena, but they don’t. They just want to have their cake, and eat it too.

              1. They just want to have their cake, and eat it too.

                All of America wants to have their cake and eat it too. As long as we quietly let in enough illegals to mow our lawns and operate our restaurants and they don’t cause too much trouble, that is what will continue to happen. All the noise about “walls” and “dreamers” is petty theater.

              2. So essentially, what we’re saying is that if a sitting President decides to not follow the law for 8 years in the realm of immigration they essentially get a free pass and millions of people that didn’t follow immigration procedure should be allowed to stay because of that disregard for the law?

                No. All I was saying is that this guy’s home is in the US and his trying to get back is quite understandable from his perspective. A discussion of what immigration rules there should be and how they should be enforced is an entirely separate issue. Maybe it is right and good that this guy be deported. That doesn’t change the basic fact that he has been removed from the only home he really knows.

                Yes, I happen to favor more open immigration. But I’m not even getting into that here. LC1776 seems to be incapable of making any rational distinctions when the subject of immigration comes up.


                1. Yes, I happen to favor more open immigration. But I’m not even getting into that here. LC1776 seems to be incapable of making any rational distinctions when the subject of immigration comes up.

                  I think we agree here Zeb. I also agree, to a certain extent, with LC1776 but conservative types tend to lose me when they start talking about ‘physical barriers’ across nearly 2000 miles of open border.

                  That’s as ludicrous of a proposition as anything I’ve ever heard, and frankly I don’t want to pay the taxes required for the wall or the army of ICE agents that would be required to effectively patrol such a long expanse of territory.

                  I’d be more on board with higher limits on immigration with a streamlined process for deportation that doesn’t make these people languish for extended periods of time. Ultimately, as a matter of necessity, I would also have to admit that I’d need to pay the taxes to lock up foreign nationals that commit crimes in the United States as well. Sending felons back to their home country doesn’t seem to work.

                  1. BYOB: I would not care if there was a wall, if there was no welfare state and punishment for being illegal had teeth. Since, there will be a welfare state for the foreseeable future and I don’t think illegals should be killed for violating immigration law, there needs to be a better way to keep illegals out.

                    (1) actually deport them (2) Americans need to stop letting politicians be so obtuse with legal and illegal immigration (3) build a barrier to make illegal entry into the USA more difficult.

                    Do you know why illegal immigration has dropped? A wall means Americans are taking illegal immigration seriously and the illegals know the gravy train is over.

                    1. 2000 miles of fence has never done more than marginally deter people, and the cost wouldn’t be worth the marginal reduction in time it takes people to climb over and/or dig under said wall.

                      Physical barriers only work if they are manned and guarded, usually with lethal force a la East/West Berlin, and for a fence that long the cost would be absurd on a yearly basis. It would likely outweigh any potential benefits on utilitarian grounds.

                      People come up with all kinds of ways to ‘make the math work’, like gutting the TSA or some such, but realistically that isn’t going to happen. It will be a cost borne by the taxpayer for another ineffective boondoggle added to the budget without corresponding cuts, or whatever.

                      No thanks.

                2. Zeb, you are the only person making irrational decisions as you are making excuses for some one’s clearly illegal behavior. The fact that the government’s regulation of immigration and naturalization is clearly enumerated by the Constitution [Art I, sec 8 & 9]. You don’t like it, so you make excuses.

                  I am saying that one’s “home” is not as arbitrary as you would like so it fits into your narrative that this guys nor any illegal should be removed from their “home”. America is not their “home” as they were not invited.

                  1. Non-Americans cannot be traitors to America because they are not Americans, so they are the enemy already.

                    Anyone going to comment on this statement that literally all non-Americans are our enemies?

                    1. You can.

                      Name a country that has not or is not trying to undermine US interests?

                    2. I am just going to let this exceptional display of paranoia and complete and utter disassociation from reality sit here in the open.

                    3. Non-Americans trying to undermine the USA would be hilarious to you.

                    4. Your choice.

                      I think its more that you don’t believe every country out there are friends of the USA.

                      but keep on keeping on with your little fantasy that the USA has no enemies.

                  2. I am saying that one’s “home” is not as arbitrary as you would like so it fits into your narrative

                    This has nothing to do with my preferred narrative, you fucking retard. There is nothing the least bit arbitrary about calling the place where a person has lived for his entire life past early childhood his home. This guy doesn’t have a home in Mexico. If anything is arbitrary, it’s saying that one’s legal status in the US has anything to do with where home is. I have not tried to make any point about what should be or what anyone deserves here (and you are right, if I were doing that, I’d be making what you’d call an open borders argument).

                    I’m fine with disagreeing with people about immigration. But you just go full retard anytime anyone says anything that you disagree with on the subject. I should know better than to engage with you, but here we are.

                    1. Aw, Zeb the retard is upset. Your argument is all over the place.

                      Luckily, you don’t make the rules and he was deported and he will be jailed and deported again.

                    2. Zeb, I thought an even better example for your retarded position.

                      When they send this guy to prison, his “home” can be in the county where the prison is. Haha. He has social connections. Haha.

  21. The go to the original story about the “crashed” self-driving bus, you’ll learn that:

    http://bit.ly/2ykHVmc

    The Metropolitan Police Department said officers responded at 12:07 p.m. to an accident involving the shuttle and a delivery truck on the 100 block of South Sixth Street, near Fremont Street. Damage was minor, and no one was hurt, police said.

    Police briefly closed a southbound lane of South Sixth Street from Fremont Street to Carson Avenue as they investigated.

    Police determined that the shuttle came to a stop when it sensed the truck was trying to back up. However, the truck continued to back up until its tires touched the front of the shuttle.

    The truck’s driver was cited for illegal backing.

    Good to see Reason isn’t engaging in click-baity links or headlines.

    1. “Driverless bus crashes” = “truck backs into driverless bus”? Sounds truthy enough to me.

    2. Sounds like it wasn’t the fault of the driverless bus, but I wonder if a bus driver would have been able to prevent the crash just the same. I know I’ve been in plenty of situations where the other driver was being an idiot and it was only because of my desire to avoid a collision that one was avoided

      1. A bus driver could’ve at least honked, flipped the bird, and said a few choice cusses.

        1. All that’s left to do is program driverless buses with the personality of a NYC cabbie!

          1. “Ey! I drive here! Fuck joo, joo sunumbish!”

            1. “Then at 4:40 AM, June 1, 2025, Skynet was entrusted with supervising the defensive driving software…at 4:44 AM, Skynet concluded that the only way to stop bad drivers was to start a nuclear war…”

    3. Driverless cares are incapable of defensive driving. They do fine as long as no one around them makes a mistake. They are incapable of avoiding an accident when another car does something it shouldn’t. Had the bus been driven by a human, the bus would have backed up and avoided the accident or blown its horn telling the truck driver he was back there.

      Defensive driving is essential to good driving. And even under tort law, there is a doctrine called last clear chance that says that you have a duty to avoid an accident if you can even if the other person is negligent. If robotic cars can’t do that, they are not safe.

      1. Why are driverless cars incapable of defensive driving? That’s an absurd claim

        1. This accident shows that. It is not absurd, it just happened in this story.

          1. You are making a statement about the possibility of it happening at all. Not that it failed to do it now, but that it is impossible.

            Using that logic self-driving cars can’t do anything, because they didn’t exist 20 years ago.

            1. They are incapable right now. And considering the subtlety involved with doing so, they are unlikely to in the future.

            2. John didn’t make a statement about possibility he made a statement about the now, that seems pretty clear to me.

      2. Driverless cars don’t get drunk, or tired, or distracted. And they get better every year, unlike human drivers. The accident rates so far (with millions of miles driven) are similar to human drivers, but the accidents they are involved in are less serious.

        1. But the conditions they are operating in are generally less conducive to serious accidents. At some point will they be safer than human drivers? Maybe. If they are, that in no way should make up for the loss of privacy and freedom that come with their use.

          1. Argue that latter point then. I think there is validity there to argue about. You keep making technical claims though that seem unfounded.


            1. The accident rates so far (with millions of miles driven) are similar to human drivers, but the accidents they are involved in are less serious.

              Way to make the argument for the people who think autonomous driving isn’t worth the trouble. ‘Millions of miles driven’ isn’t true, it’s actually billions, but that doesn’t even hold a candle to the unknown number of miles driven by the over 200,000,000 vehicles on the road today.

              But no, continue to cite that statistic as if it actually means anything whatsoever. It’s cute, if nothing else.

    4. Obviously UPS. Or Domino’s.

    5. Why didn’t the driverless bus back up as well to avoid the backing up semi-truck? That’s a question that remains unanswered. Maybe because it ‘knew’ it had the technical right of way, and it didn’t avoid because of that ‘fact’.

      It would be reasonable for a semi-truck or delivery truck to expect that once their reverse lights are on that a human driver would also attempt to back up. This does confirm my theory that it was only ‘technically’ the human drivers fault, and it was their fault because any human would have reacted differently than the Computer driver.

      1. I bet it’s Trump’s fault somehow.

      2. The likely answer, and this may be even scarier depending on your belief system. Is that it is likely very hard to know why it didn’t react. People keep talking about these things in terms logic, but they’re not programmed in the way one thinks of traditional computer models. They are machine learned, which means they are hyper complex probability models. This is actually very similar to how human minds work in some ways, but that being said it often makes people uneasy that you can’t just point to code logic to explain why something occurred.


        1. …but that being said it often makes people uneasy that you can’t just point to code logic to explain why something occurred.

          That isn’t ‘scary’ it means that it’s a deeply flawed technology that can’t be predicted, which is ironically the one thing that would make it actually better than human drivers. Predictability.

          Major fail, if that’s the case. This technology might be one of the biggest wastes of intellectual capacity in this century. It’s the same mindset that said we’d all be in flying cars thirty years ago, which notably never happened even while there are in fact functioning flying cars that you can buy today.

          This is a creation dreamed up by central planners in urban locations, and as such it is almost certain to fail even while it’s equally certain to waste billions if not trillions of dollars on something that will ultimately not become a reality.

          What will probably become a reality is infrastructure will be bought and paid for on the backs of taxpayers, new lanes will probably be installed in urban centers, and those will exclusively be used by the ultra-wealthy and public transit. And that is a ‘best case’ scenario.

    6. Most human drivers know that a truck driver cannot see directly behind the truck and react accordingly. Probably not going to pull up behind a truck trying to make a delivery. If you can’t see the truck driver in his mirror, he can’t see you. Driverless vehicles can’t see anything so can’t react. Cops have to find fault and write tickets in every crash. This isn’t exactly a great endorsement of driverless vehicles. The accident was easily avoidable by most human drivers.

  22. I wonder if Trump will get credit for getting China to handle North Korea and end that threat to the USA?

  23. President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet tomorrow in Vietnam.

    There’s a metaphor in here somewhere, but I have no idea.

    Also, didn’t we just find out that Bill Clinton personally met Putin at his house right before the Uranium One deal? There’s nothing wrong with that, and the Uranium One deal is not that big of a deal, but by today’s standards doesn’t that make Clinton a treasonous anti-American threat to our democracy?

    1. Maybe, but he was the first black president so he’s still got that.

  24. Former Trump aide Sebastian Gorka has been hired by Fox News as a “national security strategist.”

    What the hell does Fox News need with a “national security strategist”?

    1. Maybe Trump’s outsourcing it.

    2. Because the other networks don’t have a “national security strategist”?

    3. They caught wind of rumors that MSNBC was massing troops on the border and they wanted to be ready.

      1. Because I’m horribly racist I’m picturing an advanced breed of black lesbian orcs

        1. Led by Sally Kohn for a little extra racism.

  25. http://www.catalannews.com/soc…..estigation

    Spanish teachers charged with “hate speech” for claiming that Spanish police brutality in cracking down on the Catalonian independence movement. Wow. maybe declaring “hate speech” not to be protected as free speech is a bad idea?

    It never occurs to the Antifa and BLM retards claiming hate speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment that if that ever were to be true, criticizing the police will be the first thing that is declared hate speech. I guarantee it.

  26. “Maine governor says he will not expand Medicaid despite vote”
    […]
    “In a statement, the governor said he would not implement the expansion until it was fully funded by the Maine legislature, where control is split between Republicans and Democrats.”
    https://www.reuters.com/ article/us-usa-election-maine-medicaid/ maine-governor-says-he-will-not- expand-medicaid-despite-vote-idUSKBN1D82MN

    He certainly has a point, but that makes me wonder if it isn’t just a partisan issue.

  27. President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet tomorrow in Vietnam.

    Code Word: Convefefe

    1. Damn hilarious!

  28. A self-driving bus crashed yesterday in Las Vegas just two hours after it was launched into service.

    That’s what you get for using the Asian female driver program.

  29. These adult children have the nerve to call the sitting president immature.

    And the leftist campaign to ensure a 2-term Trump presidency continues apace. Idc what any poll says.

    1. Republicans handed out ear plugs? Of course they did, those free speech haters

  30. A human driver backs his truck into a self driving bus and the media breathlessly reports it as “self driving bus crashes.” And of course the old technophobes in the comment sections gleefully go along with it

    1. Because a vehicle driven by a human could have easily backed up or pulled right to avoid the collision.
      Picture of big rig and bus collision
      Seems like a weird backup for the truck to collide with the bus, but I wasn’t here and the truck driver was ticketed for being at fault.


      1. Wong said the truck driver didn’t even see the self-driving bus, which couldn’t go in reverse.

        I see now, the Bus doesn’t have a reverse function? That’s odd.


        “Had the truck had the same sensing equipment that the shuttle has the accident would have been avoided.”

        See, if only there were no humans on the road our system would have worked! That is a tacit admission that these types don’t believe we should be on the road with their brilliant system.

        Frankly, the ‘for the children, safety’ arguments might actually win the day. I mean why not? If Libertarians are willing to give up some autonomy for an increase in perceived safety and convenience, why wouldn’t everyone else give up their right to autonomous movement?

        1. The more risk adverse and concerned with safety someone is, the less likely they are to value freedom. Accepting freedom means accepting not just responsibility but also the uncertainty and risk that comes with it. The less risk adverse someone is, the more they will value the opportunities that come with freedom and the less they will be concerned with the risk and uncertainty that necessarily come with opportunity.

          Libertarians are very foolish to embrace “safety” and reduced risk as a justification for something.

          1. No one’s making you take the self-driving bus. yet.

            1. My point is that Libertarians should not be selling something as if safety is some kind of end all be all goal in life. They seem to understand this in other areas. They happily advocate that some risk of terrorism is necessary to keep our freedom. But dangle some technology in front of them, and their jaws drop, a little drool comes out of the side of their mouth, and all that stuff about risk and the price of freedom goes out the window. Then it is all about how everyone needs to voluntarily adopt this new technology, no matter the cost to their freedom and privacy, in the name of “safety”.

            2. It’s the ‘yet’ part that gives me pause since the arguments literally write themselves for why human’s shouldn’t be allowed to drive themselves anywhere anymore. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how the government will make sure that the only way you can get to and from work is in their crony buddies rideshare vehicle.

              Because safety. Because children. Because you don’t know what’s best for you.

              I mean, sheesh, just point to a few terrorists that drove vehicles into crowds and people will beg the government to make it illegal for them to drive anywhere.

    2. Refusing to give up your privacy and autonomy for a machine that does something that you can do yourself without much effort is not being a technophobe. A world of self-driving cars would be a world where the government could at any time for whatever reason deprive you of the ability to move or how you move. In any kind of emergency, say something like the Taramov situation in Boston, government authorities will just shut down every car in the area. And of course, all of the data regarding your movements and habits will be collected and mined. Hey, went to the gun range Tuesday and visited a psychologist Wednesday? You are on the list and will get a visit from a government official for your own good.

      Why anyone would want that dystopia just because they are too lazy or stupid to drive is beyond me.

      1. John, you just mentioned great reasons why some bossy people would want more government power via technology.

    3. Hi Hugh, was wondering which sock you’d hide behind.

  31. WASHINGTON ? After a business meeting before the Miss Universe Pageant in 2013, a Russian participant offered to “send five women” to Donald Trump’s hotel room in Moscow, his longtime bodyguard told Congress this week, according to three sources who were present for the interview.

    Two of the sources said the bodyguard, Keith Schiller, viewed the offer as a joke, and immediately responded, “We don’t do that type of stuff.”
    No whores for Trump

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.