When I saw the cryptic 1 sentence tweet that he wasn't going to be there, the first thing that came to mind was that he was telling his supporters indirectly that they could do whatever they wanted since he wouldn't be in harms way.
So perhaps it is a huge stretch to some, but we need to remember it is also not a stretch at all to many, especially given the recent events. Therein lies the danger.
> the first thing that came to mind was that he was telling his supporters indirectly that they could do whatever they wanted since he wouldn't be in harms way
Wow, it would have never occurred to me to read it like this, but then I am hopeless at teasing out hidden meanings from what people say. To me, this is just so consistent with the overall picture of him that's been consistently painted in the media, and which he only verifies by his own behavior — that of a stubborn, spoilt, petulant child — that I can't but take his words at face value, i.e. that he's informing the world that he won't show up because of spite.
I am also amused that there seems to be a non-negligible amount of people who apparently care whether he will or will not attend the ceremony. To a foreigner like me, it just sounds so insignificant and puny.
A symbolic gesture signaling approval of the peaceful transition of power for arguably the most powerful political apparatus on earth is quite significant to a lot of Americans. It is probably considerably less interesting to people watching from the outside.
This is the same type of conspiracies that the right is accused of having. Was there anyway that he could have announced he was boycotting the inauguration and it wouldn't be taken this way by some?
> This is the same type of conspiracies that the right is accused of having. Was there anyway that he could have announced he was boycotting the inauguration and it wouldn't be taken this way by some?
Yes. He could have accepted the results of the election and not promoted conspiracies.
He could specifically say there will be a transition to a Biden administration, not just a "new" one, which Capitol storming types have decided means a Trump-Flynn administration, after ousting the traitor Pence. They are continuing to have these fever dreams.
I've been browsing thedonald.win today to see how his supporters are reacting to recent events, and that is one of the ways some users interpreted his tweet. Other than that, a ton of crazy theories. They literally take any two-three words from his tweets and make it mean whatever they want it to mean. To give you an example, in one of the recent tweets he put words "GIANT VOICE" in caps and they interpreted it as a reference to a military communication system with the same name. From that other people started theorizing how Trump will use the military system to circumvent the "big tech censorship" and deliver some dirty secrets about his "enemies"
So, looking from that perspective any tweet of any person could be taken down because some conspiracy theorist interpreted it in a particular way. And in their heads, this ban only gives them more "proof" that they are right.
>from discord: "While there is no evidence of the server being used to organize the Jan 6 riots, Discord decided to ban the entire server today due to its overt connection to an online forum used to incite violence and plan an armed insurrection in the United States"
> "So, looking from that perspective any tweet of any person could be taken down because some conspiracy theorist interpreted it in a particular way."
And yet only Trump attracts this sort of lunatic following. Let's be honest, he does speak in a particular way and avoids statements with clear interpretations. And arguably he actively plays with the occult crowd's obsession with hidden meanings and symbolism.
Fact is, his communications do have severe, real consequences and he fails to recognize that. It is therefore completely irrelevant how something could possibly interpreted otherwise. Human communication doesn't work like that. There is context, state and prediction, which cannot be ignored.
I think that's important to contextualize: these people are insane and are acting on these tweets. The Q people dissect these tweets twisting them to confirm their conspiracy beliefs.
They thought that Trump's tweet about transition meant that he would fire Pence and that's the transition, applying numerology.
At this point no matter what he says it's dangerous because of the thousands (millions?) of deranged psychopathic terrorists he has created who read them and act violently no matter what he says.
While I agree with your emotions, the use of the word "insane" might be counterproductive. As a group, we're mostly optimistic, trying to find the best interpretation of actions.
"Insane" implies that these people are not in control of themselves or their actions. That's not what is going on: they are fully in control and are CHOOSING to feed themselves with conspiracy theories... hoping to undo the 2020 election.
I don't know what word to use to describe them. Conspirators might be more accurate and helpful.
Ex:
> I think that's important to contextualize: these people are conspirators and are acting on these tweets. The Q people dissect these tweets twisting them to confirm their conspiracy beliefs.
By and large, these people are NOT suffering from any mental illness. They'll be going to work on Monday, and will probably take off this weekend, maybe go to Church on Sunday. They are choosing to participate in the conspiracy.
Are they really in control? That word is too coarse I think for the situation. HN talks all the time about the power of social media, the studies showing quick radicalization, etc. That implies some level of manipulation e.g. not 100% free will.
None of us are subject to 100% free will. I'm influencing your opinion of the situation right now. My words have some degree of power over you.
That doesn't mean I'm responsible for your actions or your words. We draw the line at individual responsibility for a reason. Its not perfect, but the buck stops at your own actions.
------
I'm sure you trust in a fair number of leaders. I don't know who your role models are, but if they started calling for violent insurrection, it would be your choice whether to follow them down that path of degeneracy.
Sometimes it makes sense to keep things simple. These people are insane even if they are able to manage certain aspects of life. Call a spade a spade and let things fall where they will.
Simple is better. But "better" is also better. I'm not trying to make things more complex, we need to simplify our message if we want to change opinions at this time.
I'm settling on "brainwashed" for now. "Insane" colloquially removes the sense of responsibility and even has a positive connotation at times. Brainwashed captures the precise situation best.
Brainwashed individuals are still responsible for their actions. But we recognize the outside influence upon their actions. We can use the word brainwashed to recognize that these individuals still deserve punishment, but also recognize that there's a greater-source of influence we also must dismantle.
---------
The dude who has 10,000 edits on Wikipedia is "insane". A runner who completes 4:40 mile run is "insane". The mob who stormed the Capitol are BRAINWASHED.
Okay, so the solution to calm these crazy people down is for twitter to ban Trump and then post his tweets that supposedly call for violence on their blog, so the Streisand effect will kick in and even more people will see it? I think that at this point you have to ask yourself whether twitter's goal is actually stopping the violence and not provoking it.
Its about stopping the messages Trump would have sent next two weeks. You know, when the attacks on the inauguration are planned (The 17th is also popping up as another attack date, but I dunno if that has any actual symbolism going on...)
Planned attack? No, I'm afraid I don't know anything about that.
The latest video that Trump posted there was that the protestors will be prosecuted and that he basically concedes and will transition power over to Biden. At no point, including his latest tweets on the @POTUS account that were deleted within minutes, have I seen anything that would suggest that he's planning any kind of "attack". And in fact, I see it the opposite way. If my reading of the situation is correct, he's trying to control the damage and calm down his base precisely so nothing like this will happen, because he believes that there is still future for him, as the tweet in question suggest. It could very well be that he was the only person that was keeping his supporters from starting the actual uprising and not whatever the Capitol thing was. And now it might be gone.
Obviously that's my opinion, but if you actually don't want any violence to happen, you better hope that I'm wrong about this.
Parlor / thedonald.win are planning it. The question is whether or not the president will take advantage of those groups and try to coordinate them better.
Without a head, those groups ability to coordinate an attack would be hampered.
Google and Apple are banning parlor and other apps too, cutting off cell phone traffic.
Trump's critics are always over-analyzing what he says trying to look for secret incitements of violence and nazi dog whistles and conspiracies when reality is much simpler - he's just a sore loser who isn't attending out of spite.
I saw the tweet as acknowledgement that Biden will be president. I have never once thought the Trump would attend Biden's inauguration as that doesn't seem in character for him. I think that Twitter does themself a disfavor by using such weak evidence of Trump's violations of the terms of service.
Agreed on this one. I was with a company, since the beginning, that ended up blowing up.
In the middle of its growth, I had to move, and ended up becoming a remote engineer.
Since the acquisition, all my colleagues (who all started at the same "level" as me) have greatly surpassed me in terms of title, responsibility, and salary because "they were there".
I'm not upset or anything, and in fact happy we all won in our own ways, but just echoing the idea that being nearby matters for career advancement!
Do you have a plan for when the anonaddy.com domain is added to the blacklisted emails? For example, I know on some websites will just straight up reject addresses from Mailinator or Sharklasers. Is there a way to prevent this from happening to you as well?
As I mentioned in another comment the only true solution to that problem is to use your own domain name. I will also be adding more generic domains to use in the future for users to choose from.
I know this is kind of a disparaging comment, but I would really like to hear their response to it. There have been numerous good services similar to them in the past and all have been placed on spam listings and blocked by most major services. Mixnet solutions have worked for over 30 years, they aren't particularly novel, what is novel is having an email service that allows reasonable privacy whilst not ending up on a spam listing.
I'll do my best to prevent spam being sent by the service and therefore avoid being placed on a blacklist in the first place. I know it may be difficult to avoid landing on any blacklists but the server does currently have some reasonably strict anti-spam measures in place and I'm constantly looking for ways to reduce any spam to a bare minimum.
All forwarding addresses (recipients) on the site must be verified in order to receive forwarded emails.
You summed up perfectly my experience with WeWork and co-working spaces in general. You have to pay for the month, but I was only using it 2-3x a week -- I mean part of a WFH job is to get back your commute time! Those few visits felt pretty empty. I also made no friends from the events, as it seemed people had friends already.
At the end I just opt'd to save my $400 monthly payment and go back to coffee shops, and have some extra cash.
Why do people like WeWork? Here in Singapore, a hot-desk at WeWork is $400+ USD a mont. Am I crazy, or is $400 a month a lot of money for a hot-desk with decent internet?
Or is it one of those things where all their money is in the big rentals, and the hot-desks are just for show?
FWIW, I've been using WeWork for the last six months to do both contract work and studying.
As someone who has worked remotely for the last five years, I like having the option of working away from home, as I can get a bit cabin feverish. The location I work at is quite lively and friendly.
Also, the fact that everyone around me is working has the psychological effect to encourage me not to slack off. I'll usually go to my WeWork location in the morning and work straight till the evening where I stop. Previously, when working exclusively at home, the work hours was particularly murky and inconsistent.
To add, in my city WeWork usually gets prime real estate locations, so they can be easy to commute to, especially if you live in the city. And they have enough security mechanisms set up (i.e. not located on the ground floor, numerous security cameras, people at the front) where I can go to the washroom or go for a lunch break without taking my stuff. In contrast, when I used to go to the library/Starbucks to take a break from working at home, I'd always stress about finding a table/outlet a have to take my stuff anytime I took a break.
No doubt $400/month isn't nothing, but for me, the efficiency and QOL gains has been well worth it.
Here in Stockholm hot desks are €450 and fixed desks are €550. Their hot desk proposition is pretty bad but for fixed desks they are pretty close to the market rate for central Stockholm if you want to rent 1-4 spaces, either in an own office or just desks. Their list prices for offices are a bit high but I know they can be negotiated.
Sure, you can rent for much less in the suburbs, but for companies who want an office which is central and easy to commute to the price is pretty close to market rate.
$400 for a month is close to $20 per day or $2.25 an hour(4 weeks*5 weekdays). If the environment WeWork gives provides a boost in your productivity, helps you network with other like-minded individuals, increases your brand exposure, provided extra amenities, decreases the cost in comparison to your current environment, etc. Then it may be worth it.
For me it ended up not being worth it because I don't go in every day. In my case, the point of me WFH is so that I could get my commute time back, not just spend it going to a "different" office. With that said, I found myself only going in about 2x a week, which made it not worth it for me.
Fwiw I use and am actually quite impressed with Quickbooks Self-Employed version, and I've never had a problem with 1099 management. They keep tax estimates for you in the upper-right corner so you always know around how much you will need to pay, and you can pay the quarterly taxes online through them via. eftps. While they don't auto-save for you, I'd argue you should be responsible enough to do this yourself. They were a bit buggy when they first released, but their support was pretty good to me and they have fixed all issues I've reported.
That being said, I'm not sure what this product can do for me over what I'm using now.
Actually, I just looked at their FAQ and they don't track expenses or anything... things you can do with Quickbooks.
Now I'm not trying to down this company, but just am pointing out to others that a mature version of this product already exists (minus the auto-save) and that I can't identify "why" I should switch over to Painless.
It's really the automation part that we drilled down on. To be honest, we love QBSE and don't consider them competition as much as we see them as a compliment to what we do. Tracking your tax obligation is great, but we take it a step further and just automate the cash that should be transferred out of your every day account and into one that you're less tempted to spend from. For a large portion of our 1099 peers, we see that the savings aspect is either A) hard, or B) a process that, if automated, could free up time to actually focus on work rather than having to actively (and manually) manage your taxes.
