AggieFactFinder

Or maybe...the wrong guy bought twitter. This 2018 thread was 12 pages long in April 2022, when Musk's interest in twitter became public. 305 pages since.

There is a 287 page Elon thread for our misinformation experts to bitch about Twitter.

Friend is a lawyer. About 9 months ago, he got a call from a detective asking if he could come by and see him. "Which of my clients is it about?" Detective said he couldn't say, but needed to come by anyway, and asks if he can be at lawyer's office in 30 mins. Detective shows up with other law enforcement- I think it was a Texas Ranger. They were there not to ask about any of his clients, but him. The investigation of a murder about 45 mins away had gone cold, but prosecutors got the judge to order cell providers to identify everyone whose cell pinged a tower or towers near the scene during a several hour time frame before and after the murder. Turns out he was passing through the area on his way to a rodeo. He had nothing to hide, but said it was still unnerving as hell to be questioned in a murder case. So yes, with a court order in Texas, the cops can get that info. The murder happened in a smaller community, so I doubt there were thousands of pings to look into. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I know defense lawyers have raised the issue of whether customers have any reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their cell phone data.

after what Gould pulled before episode 7, this clip comes to mind:

When Lalo was on hold with Casa Tranquila, did it sound to anyone else like Hector's bell ringing over and over?

that was masterful.

The Daily Texan- where disgruntled people post thread after thread about how their lives are not where they think they should be, and it's because of everyone else.

what to make of this water apparently leaking into the garage right before the collapse? https://nypost.com/2021/06/30/video-shows-water-gushing-into-garage-moments-before-florida-condo-collapse/

you've got to give us a little more warning the next time that shit happens

by my count everyone not named Luka was 1-13 on 3s in the first half. Ouch.

I'd have bet on them going down too. Something's going to work out for you.

What does playoff-speak have to do with reality? It would be a crazy coincidence that home teams had the worst winning % in NBA history this season but it had nothing to do with the lack of fans. Shit attendance was the biggest factor. And that's out the window. Of course we may lose, but it's not going to have anything to do with poor regular season play in front of a high school crowd.

From an ESPN+ article today on Luka (won't link since it's paywall):

I don't know if you went to a game at the AAC this season, but if tonight is anything like I expect it to be, worrying about our home record in front of 2000 fans seems pointless to me.

Ticket prices have dropped substantially since this morning. Did the Mavs release more tickets today? I'm going Friday. The mask deal is going to be interesting. They were enforcing it like crazy against the Nets earlier this month, but that was with only a fraction of capacity and a high usher/fan ratio. It's going to be impossible to enforce with a drunk and mostly-full house. Would bet it's going to be insane in there.

Nobody who actually remembered how much resistance he got from his own party would've used that incident to try make your point. I seriously doubt any any Texas governor's executive order has been so roundly rejected by his own party. I would love to see evidence of one if you've got it.

I wonder if you could possibly have come up with a worse analogy? The Republican House voted 135-2 and the Republican Senate 30-1 to stop the executive order. I can't remember an issue in my lifetime that was more opposed by a Texas governor's own supporters.

I admit I couldn't recall which story was NPR's and which was The Daily Beast's. Both relied on statements by the non-witness aunt so our arguments should apply to both. We disagree on this being bad journalism; there wasn't any journalism beyond parroting what a non-witness said. No reference to an attempt to interview any of the many real witnesses. As far as getting publicized without them, who cares? Better to be first than accurate? NPR's clarification is pretty amusing: "This is a developing story. Some facts reported by the media may later turn out to be wrong. We will focus on reports from police officials and other authorities, credible news outlets and reporters who are at the scene, and we will update as the situation develops." Aren't you saying the only "fact" they reported (for purposes of our discussion) is that the aunt alleged something? If so, they didn't report any incorrect fact, which I suppose is your point. In that case, why the clarification? How can a fact later turn out to be wrong? To their credit, though, the second sentence seems to be an admission that relying on family members who weren't present was a bad idea.

I'm late to this, but I couldn't disagree more. I don't remember, and can't find, what the original NPR story said. I believe its story was similar to the Daily Beast. The accusations were entirely based on quotes from the aunt, who was not present when the incident occurred. The aunt said she got information from the girl's grandmother and dad- but with with no mention as to whether the grandmother or the dad themselves witnessed the event. The aunt's version was at least hearsay, and maybe double hearsay. There was no mention of an attempt to interview the grandmother or the dad to determine if the aunt made her version up. No mention of an attempt to interview any of the other people who were present. I'd agree that if a witness makes the same claims, it's absolutely newsworthy. Is it wrong to expect news organizations to do more than parrot hearsay when there are obviously better witnesses? You believe that reporting hearsay was important because of current events and the severity. I'd argue not reporting hearsay was important because of current events and the severity.

Gotta disagree with you on this show. Twice as long as it needed to be.

it's disappointing so many are unaware of our history on this issue; particularly the 1990 report. I don't know if our power system is objectively better or worse today. Supplying power for 17 million (1989) is probably different than supplying power for 30 million. I suspect there are other variables, such as the extremity and duration of cold temps. Regardless it's a shame the 1991 Leg. ignored such a problem when it was first identified (which was, by the way, during the period of regulation; a real head-scratcher since one would think regulation solves all problems). And that the other party ignored it after it took power.

we know Texas Dems would have dealt promptly with winterization recommendations from a commissioned report following an extreme winter weather event. Especially one that threatened the state's grid. Except though they did the opposite following the 1989 storm and report. Report issued in late 1990. Ann Richards sworn in and Dem Leg convened in January 1991 and did...nothing. Both parties f'ed this up. The Reps just did it more recently.

when I die in a plane crash, would y'all indulge me and let the captain unknowingly fly us into the side of a mountain? The last minute or two of this flight had to be the worst of nightmares.

got a letter from the Dallas diocese last night. I believe there are 33 schools total. 19 of those schools have had a total of 59 positives (45 students, 14 employees). The other 14 schools have not had any positives. Best news is they have found no classroom transmission thus far. Diocese has over 100 contact tracers.

Twice, the same thing has bugged the shit out of me since they started reporting. It's absurd that the county doesn't make that clear.