16449 pts · July 30, 2012
I saw that daily beast article. It said the admin asked for a list of GS-15s, which are high ranking officials, station chiefs, and the like. Field operatives (best I can tell from a Google search) are GS-10s -12s. Thanks for the other link on operatives, that plus any confirmation on list of operatives in home will be enough to convince me.
To be clear, by "they were asking for" I had meant the Trump administration requested a list of GS-15 level employees in intelligence. The article posits it was to select a new Director of National Intelligence.
I think it's worth noting that the article specifies that they were asking for a list of GS-15 level employees, the highest in the pay scales. Not someting I'm too familiar with but a google search tells me that field operatives are in the GS 10-12 range and GS-15 seems to be more senior officers, station chiefs, that kind of thing. If this is the list, it would not have had the list of undercover field operatives. There are so many reasons to not vote Trump, but this one feels like grasping.
That source shows that he had a call with Putin on 7/31/2019, ostensibly to discuss the wildfires in Siberia and trade between US and Russia. While what is accused in the twitter sounds on-brand for Trump, are there any sources regarding Trump's request on 8/3, the unusual rate of death or capture of US agents, and the list of US informants being found at Mar-A-Lago? Is there crossover with the dead/captured spies and the names on the list? I'll google when I can, but starting point would help
They probably increased it to 75 because someone ordered it once and they had to make it
Yes, but sharing the weight with 'can' is James' statement that she definitively will.
If he doesn't post the bond then the state can seize some of his assets and sell them to pay his fine. He can still appeal, and if he wins the fine would need to be returned to him. I highly doubt Laticia James is going to do nothing, she's already stated she fully intends to seize assets once the deadline passes if he has neither paid the fine nor posted the bond.
It's not necessarily possible to infer just from that. Marketing mail (at least the ones I receive) are from very local businesses and are likely cheaper to deliver as well. Note, I have no idea at all if the original assertion is true, just that the table in the article isn't enough to infer the counter.
That bad boy has a seconds hand too. He's got more hands than I do.
It's meant to be more of a thought experiment, like the trolley problem. In this case can you (and how can you) know something happened if there are no direct observations of something happened. Philosophy is very abstract, so ideas are expressed in overly simplistic concrete terms. Obviously a tree still makes a noise, but how do you prove it, what even constitutes an acceptable level of proof, etc. You then apply the answers to increasingly more complex and abstract concepts.
yeah yeah, the time knife. We've all seen it.
A friend of mine once got arrested for insurance fraud. She was innocent (I was there with her when her stolen car was wrecked) but if you read the indictment and only the indictment you would swear she was guilty beyond any and all doubt. Case was dismissed by judge pretrial. My point has always been that an indictment alone can be misleading. I have been very forthcoming about the fact I have not read this indictment, and have no intention to. How you can claim I'm disingenuous is beyond me.
Again, I'm making no judgement on whether this particular case is strong or not. I have very little information on it, I have not and have no intention on reading the indictment (I will loosely follow the trial.) I am only saying that every indictment will be made as if the case is strong and is not an indication by itself of the strength of the case.
The indictment is going to be written by the prosecutor, you're getting one side of an argument. It will always be written as if the evidence has been proven and draws the conclusion. The defenses job is to poke holes in it, discredit the evidence, or even have it eliminated before trial. Every indictment will read like this.
Note, I am not saying that the criminal charges are untrue (they are likely very true but the trial will determine that) nor that the charges aren't serious. Merely commenting on the fact that indictments will always sound damning.
Haven't been following too close as part of a personal decision to not give Trump that much air time in my brain (outside of the big news that's important to know) but indictments always read that way. It's a list of (alleged) criminal activities that need to be proven and defended in court. No matter how innocent or guilty an indictment will sound very damning. The question is whether or not the proof exists to validate those claims, which the lawyer is claiming is not (hence weak).
Well said. It sounds like that was an add-on to what I said, but in case I wasn't clear I meant only to say that intelligent people will often not put in the work you reference because of a level of arrogance (earned or not) that they can't fall victim to something like the Dunning-Kruger effect, ironically making them more susceptible than someone less intelligent, but aware of it.
And sadly not even in the good way. In my defense though, we are in a thread that opened with "Do people not look shit up before doing something they’re not sure about?" and about unearned confidence.
and the like and you realize how little you knew previously. You become less confident because there's an understanding of how much can impact and influence and that it's generally impossible to be certain. As you become an expert you become confident again, but never as much as initially. Your understanding contributes to the dunning-kruger because intelligent people often think they can't be victim to it, but sadly often are.
This is a misunderstanding of the dunning-kruger effect. It relates to confidence of a specific topic, not intelligence as a whole. The idea is that you start with no knowledge and no confidence. As you gain rudimentary knowledge (think 101 level) you get a surface deep level of knowledge and it seems simple. "Generally,as x does a, y changes as such." This simplicity gives a false sense of confidence. As you learn more, you learn about the nuance, the exceptions, offsetting minor influences>
I saw that daily beast article. It said the admin asked for a list of GS-15s, which are high ranking officials, station chiefs, and the like. Field operatives (best I can tell from a Google search) are GS-10s -12s. Thanks for the other link on operatives, that plus any confirmation on list of operatives in home will be enough to convince me.
To be clear, by "they were asking for" I had meant the Trump administration requested a list of GS-15 level employees in intelligence. The article posits it was to select a new Director of National Intelligence.
I think it's worth noting that the article specifies that they were asking for a list of GS-15 level employees, the highest in the pay scales. Not someting I'm too familiar with but a google search tells me that field operatives are in the GS 10-12 range and GS-15 seems to be more senior officers, station chiefs, that kind of thing. If this is the list, it would not have had the list of undercover field operatives. There are so many reasons to not vote Trump, but this one feels like grasping.
That source shows that he had a call with Putin on 7/31/2019, ostensibly to discuss the wildfires in Siberia and trade between US and Russia. While what is accused in the twitter sounds on-brand for Trump, are there any sources regarding Trump's request on 8/3, the unusual rate of death or capture of US agents, and the list of US informants being found at Mar-A-Lago? Is there crossover with the dead/captured spies and the names on the list? I'll google when I can, but starting point would help
They probably increased it to 75 because someone ordered it once and they had to make it
Yes, but sharing the weight with 'can' is James' statement that she definitively will.
If he doesn't post the bond then the state can seize some of his assets and sell them to pay his fine. He can still appeal, and if he wins the fine would need to be returned to him. I highly doubt Laticia James is going to do nothing, she's already stated she fully intends to seize assets once the deadline passes if he has neither paid the fine nor posted the bond.
It's not necessarily possible to infer just from that. Marketing mail (at least the ones I receive) are from very local businesses and are likely cheaper to deliver as well. Note, I have no idea at all if the original assertion is true, just that the table in the article isn't enough to infer the counter.
That bad boy has a seconds hand too. He's got more hands than I do.
It's meant to be more of a thought experiment, like the trolley problem. In this case can you (and how can you) know something happened if there are no direct observations of something happened. Philosophy is very abstract, so ideas are expressed in overly simplistic concrete terms. Obviously a tree still makes a noise, but how do you prove it, what even constitutes an acceptable level of proof, etc. You then apply the answers to increasingly more complex and abstract concepts.
yeah yeah, the time knife. We've all seen it.
A friend of mine once got arrested for insurance fraud. She was innocent (I was there with her when her stolen car was wrecked) but if you read the indictment and only the indictment you would swear she was guilty beyond any and all doubt. Case was dismissed by judge pretrial. My point has always been that an indictment alone can be misleading. I have been very forthcoming about the fact I have not read this indictment, and have no intention to. How you can claim I'm disingenuous is beyond me.
Again, I'm making no judgement on whether this particular case is strong or not. I have very little information on it, I have not and have no intention on reading the indictment (I will loosely follow the trial.) I am only saying that every indictment will be made as if the case is strong and is not an indication by itself of the strength of the case.
The indictment is going to be written by the prosecutor, you're getting one side of an argument. It will always be written as if the evidence has been proven and draws the conclusion. The defenses job is to poke holes in it, discredit the evidence, or even have it eliminated before trial. Every indictment will read like this.
Note, I am not saying that the criminal charges are untrue (they are likely very true but the trial will determine that) nor that the charges aren't serious. Merely commenting on the fact that indictments will always sound damning.
Haven't been following too close as part of a personal decision to not give Trump that much air time in my brain (outside of the big news that's important to know) but indictments always read that way. It's a list of (alleged) criminal activities that need to be proven and defended in court. No matter how innocent or guilty an indictment will sound very damning. The question is whether or not the proof exists to validate those claims, which the lawyer is claiming is not (hence weak).
Well said. It sounds like that was an add-on to what I said, but in case I wasn't clear I meant only to say that intelligent people will often not put in the work you reference because of a level of arrogance (earned or not) that they can't fall victim to something like the Dunning-Kruger effect, ironically making them more susceptible than someone less intelligent, but aware of it.
And sadly not even in the good way. In my defense though, we are in a thread that opened with "Do people not look shit up before doing something they’re not sure about?" and about unearned confidence.
and the like and you realize how little you knew previously. You become less confident because there's an understanding of how much can impact and influence and that it's generally impossible to be certain. As you become an expert you become confident again, but never as much as initially. Your understanding contributes to the dunning-kruger because intelligent people often think they can't be victim to it, but sadly often are.
This is a misunderstanding of the dunning-kruger effect. It relates to confidence of a specific topic, not intelligence as a whole. The idea is that you start with no knowledge and no confidence. As you gain rudimentary knowledge (think 101 level) you get a surface deep level of knowledge and it seems simple. "Generally,as x does a, y changes as such." This simplicity gives a false sense of confidence. As you learn more, you learn about the nuance, the exceptions, offsetting minor influences>