EightBitBlood
@EightBitBlood@lemmy.world
- Comment on Google's AI Sent an Armed Man to Steal a Robot Body for It to Inhabit, Then Encouraged Him to Kill Himself, Lawsuit Alleges. Google said in response that "unfortunately AI models are not perfect." 6 days ago:
Google, the point is we’re all worried that when Gemini actually places itself into a robot body that the resulting literal Terminator is what AI models think perfection is.
- Comment on The longer I'm alive, the more I feel that people make things complicated to feel important. 2 weeks ago:
then through competition they’re all driven down to a price that’s near production.
The creation of “better” products means improved production methods as well. There’s an incentive to improve processes to be more efficient if it means you can earn more profit than someone else and stay in business longer. That’s how we’ve gone from hand copying books to printing presses to free digital libraries. Better doesn’t just mean making better books, it also means better methods in making books.
you don’t seem to understand the difference between laws that prevent the creation of anti-competitive practice and regulation that increases the cost of product and decreases competitiveness.
You don’t seem to understand that both of those things are essentially the same. Regulations are just interpretations of existing laws. Without laws, there are no regulations. That’s why breaking them has legal consequences, and 3rd party agencies that enforce them.
Also, you don’t seem to understand how regulations clearly protect the cost of production at a sustainable price above exploitation within that market. I find it fascinating that on one hand you say competition drives prices to near production levels, but on the other complain that regulations increase the cost of product. Do you not see the very obvious mechanism that regulations have in making sure competition is sustainable by keeping market costs fair and safe above exploitative practices? You literally described both cause and effect as problems then complained as if they don’t clearly relate.
- Comment on Ad companies are the ones destroying civilization 2 weeks ago:
Any European country with ranked choice voting is safe from the 2 system exploit that has allowed people like Trump and Orban to take office.
I’ve already agreed that any system we design will collapse including capitalism. Regulations are what’s needed to maintain any system from collapse. This includes Anarchism.
Without rules, what’s to stop sociopaths taking what they want? The issue isn’t what system is best, it’s what can be done to prevent any system from collapsing.
The answer is regulations. Not the complete absense of them. We have an incredible amount of data and studies that consistently show how anarchistic societies based on self motivation are immediately exploited by strong men sociopaths.
The same with capitalism. The enemies of both are the same, but at least with capitalism there is a mechanism through which to maintain regulations. Self-governing communities always self corrupt, as evidenced by the US’s now entire corrupt system that was previously self-governing. It just took centuries to corrupt because of strict regulations. But in those centuries people had livelihoods.
Anarchism provides no mechanism by which this can be protected for so long by design. It’s a system that allows for maximum exploitation by those who want to exploit it. That is the double edge of not having bigger heirarchal structures - there’s no reason not to take through strength if you have it. No punishment for breaking rules as there are no general rules that society can reliably enforce.
Historically, Anarchistic societies bend the knee to the first warlord that wants to conquer them, and then only after generations of suffering feel that maybe there should be rules and a hierarchy of law to prevent such exploitation.
I’m very familiar with what Anarchism is. And you’re just focusing on the rose colored parts of it the same as you think I’m doing for Capitalism.
No system works. Period. But rules do. And unfortunately a system is needed for those rules. We just haven’t found the right one yet that can last for more than a couple hundred years.
- Comment on Ad companies are the ones destroying civilization 2 weeks ago:
Compare Europe’s surge of Far Right to the US’s. They’re handling it a lot better and passing regulations to prevent it in the future. Even getting laws passed to regulate the total use of social media by kids.
I’m not saying capitalism is perfect in Europe, I’m saying it’s a better example of how to regulate it into something sustainable.
Respectfully, the biggest flaw in anarchism imo is that it’s not a system at all. It’s basically just tribalism and immediately devolves into the rule of whoevers strongest in those tribes.
Humans are social creatures. We have literally always made societies based on expanded family dynamics and rules, as that is literally human nature. We want family and structure, and to do that we create rules that structure needs to follow for the family to survive.
Anarchism doesn’t really work for the elderly. The sick. The disabled. Anarchism doesn’t really do anything to protect the families we create as whoever is strongest can just take what they want when they want to.
Granted, Capitalism is horrible, but literally any system we create is doomed to become horrible and fucked up if we cannot regulate it from corruption. If we can’t prevent it from being taken over by strong opinionated assholes, it will also eventually devolve into tribalism.
Literally the problem that needs solving is just our own dark nature. That some of us are born without the capacity to understand our social nature, and survive exclusively through exploiting it. Those people are the sociopaths that have destroyed every society we’ve ever had, including the earliest recorded ones that were basically anarchistic.
It is within our nature to be highly social, but the few of us born without that nature only want to take from others instead of giving.
That dual nature of humanity is something that no civilization we’ve ever built has survived.
- Comment on The longer I'm alive, the more I feel that people make things complicated to feel important. 2 weeks ago:
Not true at all. In a free market competition drives the creation of better and more profitable products. Companies that can’t improve fail.
The way we reach the end state of capitalism we’re now in is exclusively and only through the removal of fair and equal trade. Deregulation is how Capitalism got this bad. What youre saying is nothing but provenly false propaganda.
It’s only without regulations can the formation of monopolies and oligopolies even happen where there is no competition and both price and quality are captured and frozen. Companies in these positions then artificially leech from the societies they’re in through corruption to survive instead of collapsing to dust naturally.
That’s 100% where the US is now. In an unregulated monopolistic billionaire playground where the best performing companies in the stock market haven’t made anything of value in over a decade, and have done nothing but raise prices on worsening products and leech value from the society theyre in in place of giving anything of value back.
- Comment on Ad companies are the ones destroying civilization 2 weeks ago:
You are 100% correct. People just want to believe that Capitalism is uniquely corrupt. When literally all of human history has seen us exploit and greedily destroy every social and economic system humans have ever engineered. Now including capitalism.
Good regulations prevent critical exploitation, which is why European capitalism is still functional and looked on positively despite still being capitalism.
Only through regulations can an economic system be maintained. US Capitalism is failing because it has been steadily deregulated for the last 40 years.
So yes, Capitalism is poison. But so is blowfish unless you cut it right. Every system we’ve ever built is also poisoned for failure unless it’s always cut down and regulated to its basics.
- Comment on The longer I'm alive, the more I feel that people make things complicated to feel important. 2 weeks ago:
The entire concept of capitalism rests on selling something for more than it’s worth. This includes your own time and physical labor.
The problem is that we all got indoctrinated to believe that capitalism is a meritocracy, instead of a snake oil selling competition.
We’re instead to believe a high paycheck means you are high in importance. But in reality, since this is capitalism, it just means your high paycheck is now a great reason to waste people’s time to feel important. Selling your time as valuable while actually wasting it as much as possible for profit.
Which is now the only thing that trickles down. Well paid, but ultimate skilless idiots all making decisions to massively waste their time and everyone else’s so they can feel their paycheck is earned.
People who want to get shit done, don’t get these kinds of jobs simple because they’re too good at finishing them. Making all the other idiots they work with look like idiots. So actual skills are seen as a detriment to holding these positions as they quickly reveal how much time is being wasted by every single Csuite whose paycheck is bigger than their abilities. (Which is from my experience damn near all of them).
Worked with Apple, Google, Sony, and more. All have the same problem at the top: idiots delegating impossible promises to people that have actual skills then making them take the fall when it inevitably goes wrong.
- Comment on Video games are losing the "attention war" to gambling, porn, and crypto, according to industry report 2 weeks ago:
PREACH!
- Comment on Price gouging 3 weeks ago:
Good point between the two! I’d prefer being in neither if there was engine failure over mountainous terrain haha.
Imo, the biggest difference between the two is that fixed wing aircraft have a lot more time available to them to correct for a case of complete engine failure. While it would still be an issue over mountainous areas, the plane would certainly have more time to glide and find a place to land imo. (Assuming it’s at a higher altitude than a helo would normally travel). Not that this would make it easier or anything. Just that the total amount of time you have to correct for an engine failure is far greater in a fixed wing craft then a helo, generally speaking.
That being said, the training you’re mentioning is excellent, and I have nothing but respect for Helo pilots. If anything, they have to be more dialed in than fixed wing pilots as there’s a lot more that can go wrong quickly. So likewise, the training needed to be a good Helo pilot far exceeds the training needed to be a good fixed wing pilot. (At least imo). To that end, I would 100% rather be in a Helo with engine failure as it’s far more likely the pilot actually knows what to do, and is trained for it too 😉
- Comment on Price gouging 3 weeks ago:
100% well said. However, imo the biggest problem is doing this when failure actually happens over any terrain that isn’t flat for several hundred yards.
Engine failure while flying through mountains doesn’t provide enough room to descend and pull back up.
So recovering from critical failure is very dependant on the enviroment the pilot is flying in. Just wanted to add that on, as Helos are imo, basically designed to enter and exit the worst environments out there, making it difficult to counter mechanical issues even with proper training.
- Comment on What does it mean? 4 weeks ago:
Guy was pissed he wasn’t as good at exploiting people as his VC friends. What a joke of a person.
- Comment on Most of the misery in the world is the direct result of too much money in too few unscrupulous hands. This is not only the cause of the vast majority of human suffering, but also of climate change, wh 1 month ago:
If we depose them, we’d have access to their wealth to tackle climate change. And it wouldn’t be for building the doomsday bunkers they are now.
Zuckerberg spent nearly $400 million for a bunker to be built in Hawaii. This was after Hawaii had fires that cost them nearly a billion in damages.
Zucks $400 million purchase could have repaired half the nation-state. It would have immediately improved ecological recovery, and restore the canopy biome that helps pull C02 from the air as a natural deterent to Climate change. He’d then have most of the population worshipping him for doing so. Likely welcoming him anywhere in the state he’d want to visit.
Instead he can now visit his bunker, needs it because the island hates him, and helped contribute to ecological collapse in building it.
The problem is that billionaires are the worst humans imaginable to have such wealth. It will always go towards cthe acceleration of climate collapse for their benefit instead of preventing it. Whether you feel they’re a contributor or not, they’re still in charge of the resources that could easily stop climate change faster than any other mechanism on the planet.
Instead they’re building bunkers with that money to run from the problems they’ve actively contributed to more than any other human on the planet.
- Comment on Bye, X: Europeans are launching their own social media platform, W 1 month ago:
Free software can’t be “purchased,” so it can’t be turned to shit 👍 Good point.
To clarify mine where needed: the purchasing of what people make is what eventually turns it to shit. (Not just that it’s made, apologies if that was confusing.)
So I completely agree GPL is fantastic and the way forward for us a civilization.
Seriously appreciate this point as a great example of what DOES work well for both creators and community.
- Comment on A Guide to the Circular Deals Underpinning the AI Boom | A web of interlinked investments raises the risk of cascading losses if AI falls short of its potential. 1 month ago:
Don’t forget how they also missed the point that “potential” returns would actually need to be the equivalent of several countries worth of GDP to actually be profitable.
Pretty much everyone is going to miss the target of creating the most profitable thing ever in all of human existence.
I too will eat my words if these bullshit models can ever be remotely profitable. Let alone more profitable than most nations.
Bloomberg is practicing journalistic malfeasance by even pretending these “potential” returns are viable. The article might as well say AI expects to make a gajillion dollars, as that would be at least more accurate than what they printed instead.
- Comment on Microsoft CEO warns that we must 'do something useful' with AI or they'll lose 'social permission' to burn electricity on it 1 month ago:
Buy my snake oil. It’s a cognitive amplifier. I just need several neighborhoods worth of electricity to make a bottle. Better find a use for this oil, otherwise I’ll get lynched!
- Microsoft CEO 2025.
- Comment on Bye, X: Europeans are launching their own social media platform, W 1 month ago:
Fair point. But I think you’re burying the promising parts of this article:
W’s data will be hosted decentrally in Europe by European companies, and the platform will adhere to strict EU data protection laws.
“We believe there is an urgent need for a new social media platform built, governed and hosted in Europe. With human verification, free speech and data privacy at its core,” she wrote.
In her LinkedIn post announcing the launch of W, Zeiter emphasized that systemic disinformation is eroding public trust and weakening democratic decision-making.
I’ve never heard an Elon say that.
And her background is solid compared to tech bros:
She earned her PhD in law at the University of Hamburg and later studied at Stanford University.
W will be legally the subsidiary of “We Don’t Have Time,” a media platform for climate action, but the team is scattered across Europe, with offices in Berlin and Paris planned, Bilanz reports.
And the whole platform is legally under a company dedicated towards climate action.
Lot of wins in this article make me think it’s far from the typical VC billionaire babysitting service.
- Comment on Bye, X: Europeans are launching their own social media platform, W 1 month ago:
Well said. I am certainly here for a reason :)
- Comment on Bye, X: Europeans are launching their own social media platform, W 1 month ago:
Oh because people did such a good job the first time?
Anything people make, no mater how good, can and has been purchased to be turned to shit and controlled by those that purchase it. In that world, which is the one we live in now, a government made and publicly used social media service is just about the only way to create a resilient and uncorruptable form of social media. Especially compared to current alternatives that are already getting corrupted.
I’m not saying what they’ll make is perfect. But it’s far better than any other option we currently have. thKnee jerk reacting to assuming it’s bad is very much the same crux billionaires used in the US to weaken the government that would otherwise regulate them.
A government is literally the best suited to creating this tech due to its public utility. Same with electricity, water, Emergency services, roads and more. Everyone uses them, so our taxes should go to making those things better.
This is a step in the right direction.
- Comment on 3 months ago:
At any given time, there’s about 400 million people playing game on the planet. Of those people, only 14% play NEW games released within 12 months.
It used to be 30% 10 years ago. Now it’s less for a variety of factors, but one of them is less people have the income and budget they used to.
You are in that 14%.
Which is great - but the games you buy as part of that 14% are based on your taste. Not if they are exceptionally good, only if they are exceptionally good to you.
So making games that are “exceptionally good” for an audience isn’t easy because your audience doesn’t even know what they want beyond a genre. I’m sure you could tell me about the games you like and prefer to play, possibly even a genre of games you love.
But if I asked you to tell me what game COULD be exceptionally good in that genre, you might not have an answer. Just other games to compare it to. And if you do have an answer, there’s no telling if it would actually be popular with a bigger audience that genre enjoys.
Making “exceptional games” isn’t a bar to be crossed that makes a game money. Rather a game is “exceptional” once it finds an audience that feels that way about it. Games that have broad appeal have broad audiences like Call of Duty who all feel that game is exceptional too. Many who play it would argue which one in the series was the most “exceptional” and wouldn’t have a great answer for what to make as a better version of that game.
People like what they play, and exceptional games are only exceptional to the audience that plays them. So it’s not so much about making something exceptional, but making something that has an audience that thinks it’s exceptional.
And finding that audience is the hard part. Especially when only 14% of people who plays games are even looking at what you’ve made.
But it’s not impossible. Just difficult these days.
- Comment on 3 months ago:
Based on what? Your opinion? Or is there a profit analysis and breakdown you want to pair with that to make a point?
- Comment on 3 months ago:
My dude, I’m very familiar with the 14% of videogame players new game devs are vying for. And every one of the games you mentioned launched at that price because they were developed by a single dev (two at most) who could profit off of the $10 - $15 dollar space that was below the smaller studios putting out games like Shadow Complex, or Mercenary Kings, or Shank 1+2 for $20.
Now all of those spaces are being crushed together. Mostly due to economic factors. Thats where the biggest problem really lies, in the fact that people just have less money to spend on all that entertainment. Just pointing out that it’s competitive at all is obvious my dude, but the direction its going in is one in where there’s less anything being made (including games) because not as many people have money to spend on anything but necessities.
That’s why AAA is now scavenging at the bottom of the totem pole, and pricing their older games at $10 or less on sale, it’s because the few people that have money find that price point appealing. So it’s now one that not just the people who made Terraria, Braid, etc compete in. The money those devs made previously in that space is now up for grabs to AAA companies that never had anything to sell at that price before.
Theres a very tried and true formula for any business, including making games, and in the last 2 years it has completely broken apart. Mostly due to the Embracer group merger failing, combined with AI, combined with economic uncertainty, combined with AAA companies stabbing indie creators in the back (Subnautica, Disco Elysium). Your game doesn’t have to be a massive hit to be successful, it just needs to have a big enough audience to be profitable. But that audience has shrunk over the years as economies have tightened, and the companies getting squeezed have been invading markets they never had a presence in before.
So it’s just desperate times more than anything. But that doesn’t mean you can’t make a living off of making games. I know dozens of small teams funded by government grants making small games you’ve never heard of to help kids in hospitals learn about their cancer. Or teach kids in underprivileged schools about resource scarcity. Making games as a business goes far beyond entertainment and the hopes of narcissists. It’s an artistic medium like any other, and as such benefits society by making the toughest parts of it more accessible.
There’s plenty of ways to run a company doing just that - and just because the world economy is in free fall doesn’t mean the entire business of making games is something for the lucky few. It’s just for anyone that wants to learn how to run a game company. Which isn’t easy, but extends far beyond the simplistic view you are portraying.
- Comment on 3 months ago:
Thanks! 🙂 Appreciate you confirming that. We actually changed the price of our latest game to $10 (from $20) because we launched last December and got buried by AAA selling for $15.
Almost every dev team we talked to this year felt the same about the $20 price. That is, it’s much better to go out at $15 or $10 as a LOT of people see indie games at that price as better than modern AAA. (All while still holding out for classic AAA that go on sale for $20.)
And that being said, I’m totally cool with losing a sale to MGSV or Witcher 3 😁 Just wish the $20 space wasn’t getting so crowded. It’s making it rough for the smaller teams to compete at that price too now.
- Comment on 3 months ago:
As an indie dev, this article is fucking stupid.
Want to know why indie games are priced at $10 to $15? Becaue AAA has been putting everything they’ve made in the last decade on Steam and it’s all going for $20 - $25.
Indies can’t launch at that price point anymore because they’re competing with AAA games from 10 years ago that have been discounted to death.
The Steam winter sale is the best example of this, where most people will buy RDR2 for $19 instead of the new mega hit indie that’s $20. So indies have been lowering their price to actually get sales. That’s why team cherry priced Silk Song at $20.
Basically, AAA is now just competing with the bottom part of the market they spent that last decade flooding.
They’re complaining about people actually choosing where to spend their money wisely because that means they might actually have to make a good product if they want to sell a game for $70.
- Comment on People who say 'the rich get richer, the lazy live for free, and the middle class pays for it all' don't realize how expensive it is to be rich and how close middle class is to being below the poverty line. 3 months ago:
People are just monkeys. Monkeys do what they see because they’re stupid and a product of their environment. Billionaires now control everything in that environment, so US monkies mostly see what those billionaires want.
FOX NEWS. Paid for by billionaires so USA Monkies want Citizens United, No child Left Behind, the Patriot act, and Trillions in the national debt for the first time in 200 years of being a nation. Bush W is now okay despite being an idiot because he’s surrounded by smart people. But smart people are definitley bad.
FACEBOOK ADS. Paid for by billionaires so USA monkies will vote against Healthcare, their own taxes, and educatiom to fight made up enemies like “libs” and “illegals”. Local elections are now won by the dumbest people imaginable that believe these enemies are real. Actual Proffesionals are now suspicious.
TWITTER. Now just owned by a billionaire so USA monkies think Trump is a genius, Fascism is good, and it’s totally okay more Americans died from COVID than anywhere else in the world, a death toll higher than all the wars America ever fought in combined. Trump is great because he punishes smart people, and people that point out his COVID bullshit, as those smart people are now your enemy.
This makes Elon wealthy. Zuckerberg Wealthy. And the Murdochs wealthy.
They covered the US in news that it was on fire and keep profiting off of selling fire extinguishers.
There is no fire. (Illegal immigrants, libs, trans, caravans, wmds in Iraq, war on drugs, war on terror, etc) But now half the country votes like there is because that keeps billionaires wealthy instead of actually taxed to benefit society. They are the problem. They know they are the problem. So they purchase as many media outlets as they can, like Bezos, to normalize their greed and it’s affects on our country. Just about to the point we don’t have one anymore.
- Comment on Adversarial Poetry as a Universal Single-Turn Jailbreak Mechanism in Large Language Models 3 months ago:
Critical of sources? Okay, in that case the US isn’t the country that banned the phrase “Tianaman square 1989” from being spoken online. Nor are they the country that will prevent you from owning a house if you say it enough.
That’s China.
And it exists to silence criticism of them killing a bunch of protestors with tanks:
Then running them over with those tanks until their bodies became a bunch of organic paste, so they could wash their remains into the sewers:
www.cnd.org/June4th/massacre.html
(NSFW pictures: mascr014.gif to see what a human body looks like after being crushed by a tank)
There’s more pictures of the dead in that last link - go ahead and be critical of them, seeing as they died fighting for the Democracy you’re now critical of.
Want to be critical? Alright, why do you think the US is the only country that’s capable of bullshit propaganda? It’s so you don’t consider Democracy as viable, rather evil and ineffecient. Something I’m sure you fully believe with absolutely zero critical thought. (Despite most of Europe being a dang good example of its effectiveness)
- Comment on People who say 'the rich get richer, the lazy live for free, and the middle class pays for it all' don't realize how expensive it is to be rich and how close middle class is to being below the poverty line. 3 months ago:
Who do you think was responsible for convincing the middle class to vote against their own best interests?
It was the people who didn’t have to pay taxes after Reagonomics. They used their money to fill television, print, and eventually social media with propaganda. Propaganda that taxes were too high (for them) despite our entire social safety net outgrowing it’s sustainability.
And this form of propaganda was SO effective, the Russians figured they would do the same. Then the Chinese. Now the Saudis. So now we have just about every country in the world that hates America purchasing every second of entertainment they can to make sure we’re always voting against our best interests to the point we just about don’t have a country.
- Comment on People who say 'the rich get richer, the lazy live for free, and the middle class pays for it all' don't realize how expensive it is to be rich and how close middle class is to being below the poverty line. 3 months ago:
You are correct! And it’s crazy how effective those high corporate tax rates were at distributing wealth to better society and create a healthy middleclass of consumers to fuel an economy and prevent it from collapsing.
Weird how everything’s turning to shit now that corporations don’t pay taxes and use all their earnings to influence government elections instead of needing to actually be accountable to them.
“Too big to fail” was actually just “too big to stop.” So now where there used to be a US government, there is a handful of billionaire cultists.
The middleclass 100% existed. Billionaires just stole it. The money that drove US spending across 3 decades is now all in 5 people’s bank accounts doing jack shit to help anyone but those 5 people.
Higher corporate taxes = a middle class. See most Nordic countries as a great example that still exists.
Thank you for making this point. A middle class is the sign of a functioning society.
- Comment on Alberto Mielgo defends the Marathon cinematic as "not AI," denies his team touched Bungie’s plagiarized material and calls the art theft incident a genuine mistake that was "blown out of proportion" 3 months ago:
The real question is how a company accidentally steals something like that for a 4th time. (This was the 4th time they’ve been caught doing this).
- Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No? 3 months ago:
The end of your previous post:
Yes, it’s better than other vanity projects, but it is still a wasteful vanity project.
The literal definition of a vanity project:
dictionary.reverso.net/…/vanity+project
project undertaken for self-satisfaction.
Each one of the examples I provided shows very clearly this yacht was NOT made for HIS self-satisfaction. Rather, it was literally made to the satisfaction of the research team that uses the yacht.
Specifically:
“His” yacht being used to better the scientific community instead of just him.
- Made quite literally for a large team of scientists as he is the second largest contributor to deep sea research on the planet. Nearly the exact opposite of being for vanity.
“His” yacht made to have the least environmental impact from noise or oil pollution.
- Made for the environment. Not Gabe. So not for vanity.
Huge efforts were made to reduce noise and vibration, thereby creating a pleasant onboard environment.
- Made for sensative aquatic life that engine noises can disturb and affect the research of. Not for Gabe. So not for vanity.
“His” yacht made to have little maintenance requirements so the crew can focus on science and research.
- Made to be easy to work on for the hundreds of crew that maintain it. Not for Gabe. So not for vanity.
Every point of my last comment was proving your statement about this being a vanity project completely and unquestionably wrong. But I guess I just understand your last sentence better than you.
You are shitting on the best deep sea scientific research vessel in existence while implying you have the moral high ground. There’s nothing immoral about scientific research just because it happens on a yacht.
You are literally using the same logic as a cop saying a person with dark skin is a criminal. This yacht clearly isn’t a vanity project. It is for Inksea, and being used to help fight climate change and the affect that has on deep sea ocean currents.
But to you this yacht is just as criminal as a dark skinned person is to a cop. No exceptions.
Please understand: the point you are making is not incorrect. But the way you are making it very much is.
I completely agree that Billionaires shouldn’t exist, and in general most yachts are unquestionably vanity projects. But this one clearly isn’t.
So if you want to make your point heard, going about it through uncompromising bigotry is just about the worst way to make it.
- Comment on They Wylin' 3 months ago:
The Ken Starr report that lead to Clinton’s impeachment begs to differ.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report
Many of the details reveal highly personal information; many are sexually explicit…Because Starr’s office allegedly leaked portions to press about sexual details that were mentioned in his report, he was criticized for using the scandal as a political maneuver and was charged for violating legal ethics by presenting information irrelevant to an investigation as evidence of legal wrongdoing.
That report is ten times the size of the 9-11 report btw.
Reading the charges now is hilarious considering Trump is guilty of the same hundreds, possibly thousands of times over.
