Exactly, they might as well just put the whole damn plane stuck right there clearly visible--it wouldn't change a thing. It all could have been a real terrorist attack--all that matters is our disproportionate response ("shock and awe") on an unrelated country to know America and the powers that be have done some horrible egregious things and don't represent the thinking of the people had they not been brainwashed by propaganda. Had the mainstream media been toting a forgive and forget peace party line rather than war mongering propaganda, nobody would want war.
There have always been too many questions about the whole thing. There have always been too many questions about every single one of these things:
- No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
- We can't see Bin Laden's Body?
- No evidence that Russia hacked the DNC and a report released by the DNI solely talking about motives displayed on social media?
-A year after Bush Junior is in the presidency we are back in Iraq where his father left off?
To me it's obvious something is up. You can get stuck on various discrepancies in evidence or not. It very well could have been a terrorist attack--that the powers that be were waiting on to counter-punch exactly as they had planned. It doesn't matter. Who actually wants us in the middle east and if we all as citizens wanted to get out, how easy would that actually be, or would the military industrial complex make that something that takes forever to happen. Wasn't Obama meant to have gotten us outa there. It hardly seems so. It seems like we're just using new more focused technology like drones to do the same with less actual boots on the ground.
If you're telling me, you think we belong over there, then you watch too much news by the mainstream media instilling fear in you. How many journalists on CNN are actually wandering around over there compared to how many report it? Exactly, it's a game of telephone with someone triggering the overall direction of their message, based on their own "biases." Perhaps that at their yearly Bilderberg group meetup they agreed to manipulate the public in order to more easily execute their plans of making the Middle East willing client states.
The ONE piece of metal with the serial number on it, and the ONE piece of metal that clearly has part of an American Airlines logo on it (and the partially ruined american flag stuck in the debris) all remind me of that Dave Chapelle sketch where the cops "sprinkle crack" on the suspect they framed.
The one outlier is the Hitachi tractor rather than a John Deere one. Merica, land of false flags and wrongful world domination!
That isn't the one piece of metal left, there are literally other photos of parts in the collection. That is just one piece of metal that they happened to post a photograph of.
There is an example of the types of phones around in 2001. So we're not going to have third party video. We're going to have shitty thirdparty security cameras(which we received footage from) or the pentagons own security cameras which they aren't going to release the footage from.
The OP was also ignoring what happens to aircraft traveling at high velocities and colliding with reinforced structures. Something like the F-4 test in 1988 is illustrative of what can happen [1] (note: only the wingtips survived, and only because they never impacted the target).
Of course, the immediate rebuttal usually offered by conspiracists is to suggest that the Pentagon was not a block of concrete, which is true, but it is still a reinforced structure with a stone façade. The design limited the travel of the 757 toward the interior rings of the building (though it still penetrated) but it was far less destructive being as 1) the 757 is a smaller aircraft than a 767 and 2) the reinforced structure of the Pentagon prohibited a substantial portion of the damage.
I'm still not sure why there are individuals who believe this to be some ridiculous conspiracy, because they're clearly retroactively applying our technological and cultural circumstances today to the attacks in 2001--completely ignoring evidence such as what you've presented of the phones available in that era. Not to mention that if the Pentagon was indeed "chock full of cameras" in 2001, they were likely monitoring exits, hallways, etc., and probably wouldn't show anything interesting: One moment, power and lights are on; next moment, everything is dark or the feed is off. A bit useless!
We need to leave the middle east immediately. It's another vietnam. It doesn't matter whether it was a false flag or not. What matters is what actions they used it to justify. That said so many things don't add up--and no, evidence doesn't add up on either side of the 911 issue--leaves no reason to trust the American government. If you do, you must need something to follow. Or you just can't believe the american government would do any wrong and lie to us.. Do you believe Russia's hacked the DNC? did you read the report they produced. There is absolutely no proof, yet US Intelligence can tell the media it happened and we all believe it. The same is true with basically everything. It's news produced by US Intelligence and the powers that be with no real evidence and you believe it. I read the report by the DNI on the Russian hacking. It covered only possible intent based on news they posted to social media and RT.com.
So yea my friend, all you doubters trust the US Government too much. 911 might not have been a false flag, what matters is what we have done since and what we continue to do. Now we're supposed to believe we have to stay in the middle east because we have to clean up our mess. More lies. They dont want us there. Americans wouldn't want us there if we weren't brainwashed by the fake threat of terrorism on the daily. We have killed hundreds of thousands in the middle east and less than 3k died in 911 and less than that in the 16 years since then in both the US and Europe. For something so big as attacking the entire Middle East for 16 years against everyone's will, I have no choice but to believe there is elite forces at work.
Anyway, the evidence of bits and bytes of wreckage matters not. It's all just too messy and not definitive enough to believe.
> So yea my friend, all you doubters trust the US Government too much.
Err? I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings. Of all the things you can complain about regarding the US government and our idiotic foreign policy decisions (most of which I agree with you regarding), the September 11th "conspiracy" is one of the more absurd. It is indisputable that aircraft impacted numerous buildings that day. It is my belief that anyone who posits otherwise is living in a world of fantasy.
Don't be so hasty to make assumptions.
> It's news produced by US Intelligence and the powers that be with no real evidence and you believe it.
Not sure where this came from as this thread is a discussion about September 11th.
You're referring to the DNI report. And yes, I read it: There's nothing in the report of interest, only speculation. So no, I don't believe the Russian narrative.
You tell others they are easily led while believing every youtube video and half baked conspiracy website you read. You're not some brave free thinker you're just someone that believes youtube videos.
Half baked conspiracy theory? You probably would have said that the CIA and NSA having the ability to listen in through cellphones, TVs, tablets, and computers was a conspiracy theory as well. WikiLeaks just proved otherwise and your response to this is? The same as it is for the 9/11 attacks... you back up what you don't know because its easier to do than face the alternative.
I've known it possible for people to easily listen in through computers since BO was released in 98. Why do you think I would expect it to be unlikely that the leading spy and security organizations in the world have the capability almost 20 years later?
I disagree. I think believing that some secret powers are causing all this bad shit is a lot easier for people to stomach than to just accept that the world is a big random and scary place.
Many great open source products have huge commercial backers--the important thing is that there is a community, which is in fact very true with Apollo.
I get what you're saying and I'm sure there is lots of truth to it--that doesn't make what's going on now the best to ever do it (i.e. the fastest way to produce the most meaningful user experiences). If it wasn't the case, we'd be doing remote procedure calls in C or whatever.
Bottom line: ur point is one that should be heard, but there's a way more value could be added in how you present it.
Dawson looks way simpler. That's clearly it's selling point. Dawson looks like what it should be for the modern javascript developer. They nailed the API whereas Serverless is more daunting. Perhaps it's time for a new contender to iterate its way to the top spot.
nanoservices isn't specific enough. serverless has great meaning to initiated web developers. i for one know exactly what they mean by that and always did, whereas nanoservices, to me at least, could mean all sorts of things.
Um ok. What's actually wrong with the product? Why is it not "well-engineered"? All the things you said could be true, yet their product is amazing. I haven't used it, but I like what I'm seeing.
So what if a smart experienced developer (their CTO) is able to get good prices on what he/she wants done through remote work? The point you're making is negativity for no reason without evidence on how it's not working, i.e. what's wrong with their product.
It doesn't take much investigation to start seeing problems, or to see major lapses in engineering from both a concrete (e.g., bugs) and a process (e.g., data loss) perspective. The data loss event that made it clear that GitLab a) never tested its backups b) didn't have a real monitoring/alarming system to inform its employees when things broke c) did not have processes enforcing clear separation between production environments and d) did not know how to configure a PostgreSQL cluster, among many other basic flaws, is just one recent example. The postmortem for that event included the accidental disclosure of a serious DoS exploit, itself the symptom of poor engineering practice (hard-deleting all content flagged as spam, making it impossible to redeem erroneously targeted content; a user could maliciously trigger such deletes with minor effort), which was live on the site until a couple of hours after that disclosure was discussed on HN. As I understand the ticket explaining this, the entire spam cleanup system was shut off until they could teach it not to hard delete anymore. Many other junior-level mistakes are regularly discovered and discussed, both on their bug tracker and elsewhere.
Other than that, GitLab is a beast to install and navigate and it requires a lot of resources. Rails is slow. The UI is weird (frequently end up not finding the repo I want due to the way the "trending" tab works). There are other issues. I'm not a GitLab contributor so I don't really have more technical detail, I just use it sometimes.
It seems like you're just assuming they're a great company with a well-engineered product because you like the corporate image they project.
I don't know of anything about them that makes either themselves or their product "amazing". It is somewhat usable, which is good; I'm not trying to besmirch the earnest efforts of people to make something that works, and indeed there are some uses for something like GitLab. That doesn't mean that GitLab is "amazing" or that their product is flawless or even good.
The most exciting thing about GitLab to me is remotely distributed teams, which I usually love seeing, but I think they've gone about it all wrong.
I didn't say it was amazing. Perhaps you are the one being reflexive.
I wrote:
"All the things you said could be true, yet their product [could be] amazing."
Grammatically, it's called "elliptical." I then immediately say: "I haven't used it, but I like what I'm seeing"--so what I meant should be quite obvious.
What value are you adding with your criticism of what--in my case--at least has a question:
"What's actually wrong with the product? Why is it not 'well-engineered'?"
My point was extremely clear--his post needed to have evidence of how their processes results in bad product. And I asked that as a question--perhaps you know? Something tells me you even do (perhaps you're a Gitlab user), yet you're choosing to take an unproductive meta route of criticizing my partial criticism with no actual goal. What do you expect to accomplish with that?
I presume you got stuck on one word ("amazing"), made up your mind and didn't read the rest. My bad, i could have been more clear. However, the essence of what I was saying was straightforward, but you chose to see the forrest instead of the trees. A common reason people take that route is because there is something else you wished to express, but didn't--perhaps you have real experience with gitlab in one way or another that resonates more with the person's viewpoint I replied to. I'm not saying he's wrong--I just would like to hear the full reasoning behind that perspective.
I'd love to hear what that actual perspective is. Gitlab is an interesting product I haven't spent much time reviewing until today. Maybe you can provide the evidence to back up the original poster's point??
You can find out if their product is amazing by creating an account and using the software. It takes ten minutes, less time than it takes for you to type up that post. The original poster shouldn't have to explain to you how good the software is when you can try it. If you haven't used it his criticisms of the product aren't going to be useful to you anyway.
I haven't used it, but I like what I'm seeing
If you're just talking about what you're seeing, you have the same vantage point as everyone else and the original poster made a number of obvious and valid criticisms - data loss is one, they are selling software and a service.
It probably is trolling on my part, but as harsh as the original poster's words were, he's got some points.
The data loss event that happened--to me--isn't enough to describe the quality of their product. I could go try it, but it's a few hours in (if not a weekend) to really get answers that someone experienced could provide in 3-5 bullet points.
I guess we have one bullet point, do we have more?
"rural campfires and urban watering holes" lol...I too have had similar experience. Basically it boils down to the media severely downplaying it and avoiding the topic. Because that's what the powers that be tell them to do. The same way US Intelligence was able to tell them, "look Russia without a doubt did it [the DNC hack]" and they repeated that without question and without proof ad nauseum, the media by and large does what they're told. It's ultimately a recipe for the sort of revolutions that took over Russia 100 years ago. People in those watering holes are getting fed up and have no outlet and feel like nobody is listening to them--cuz nobody is listening to them.
Also, older generations are less concerned. They understand technology less, so my assessment is they kinda throw in the towel. Maybe 10-20 more years of those 20-30 year olds at those watering holes and we'll be the majority of the country--at that point they'll have no choice but to hear us, because we'll be working at and running those media companies, congress as well. That's my hope. Otherwise, it means violent revolution. The state can't be trusted anymore.
