Wednesday assorted links


Darn it I can’t read the piece on Lui Cixin in the New Yorker. I like his work and would be interested in knowing what the newly massively woke New Yorker would say about Cixin starting his trilogy with a scene that illustrates nicely the sheer cruelty and organized mendacity of China’s Cultural Revolution.

You're out of free articles or you dont want to register?

... born in 1963 in Beijing, where his father was a manager at the Coal Mine Design Institute and his mother was an elementary-school teacher. His father’s family came from the plains of Henan Province, in the Yellow River Basin, a region that suffered particularly dire calamities in the twentieth century. After the Japanese invaded China, in 1937—interrupting a civil war between Nationalists and Communists that had been raging for a decade—Henan became a vital strategic point in the Nationalist government’s attempt to prevent them from sweeping south. Chinese forces breached dikes on the Yellow River to halt the Japanese advance, but the resulting flood destroyed thousands of villages and killed hundreds of thousands of people. It also ruined vast areas of farmland; the next harvest was a fraction of the expected yield. In 1942-43, after the government failed to respond to the shortage, some two million people starved to death.

When the civil war resumed, after the Second World War, both sides conscripted men. Liu’s paternal grandparents had two sons and no ideological allegiance to either side, and, in the hope of preserving the family line, they took a chilling but pragmatic gamble. One son joined the Nationalists and the other, Liu’s father, joined the Communists. He rose to the rank of company commander in the Eighth Route Army, and, after the Communist victory, he began his career in Beijing. To this day, Liu doesn’t know what became of his uncle.

Liu was three years old when the Cultural Revolution broke out. His father lost his job—having a brother who had fought against the revolution made him politically suspect—and was sent to work in the coal mines of Yangquan, in Shanxi Province, where Liu still lives. The city was a flash point for the factional violence that accompanied the Cultural Revolution, and Liu remembers hearing gunfire at night and seeing trucks filled with men clutching guns and wearing red armbands. Things became dangerous enough that, when Liu was four, he was sent to live with his grandparents in Henan, and stayed there for several years.

My maternal grandmother fled mainland China for Taiwan during the civil war. She recalled boarding a KMT airplane, which took off alongside two other KMT planes. Hers made it to Taiwan, but the other two were apparently shot down. She was a tough cookie, and lived to be over 100 years old.

A guy I know made that journey - China, Taiwan, America. He returned to China as a tourist some time much later in life. (he's somewhere in his 70s, I'd guess). Everyone else in their party, including his American wife, breezed in, but the authorities held up his entry awhile, asking how he had left: by plane, he answered. They then requested to see his ticket to America (from when he was three or so).

Coming again to a Hong Kong near you.

'New Yorker would say about Cixin starting his trilogy with a scene that illustrates nicely the sheer cruelty and organized mendacity of China’s Cultural Revolution'

Maybe something along these lines? 'In 1979, three years after the end of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping visited the United States. At a state banquet, he was seated near the actress Shirley MacLaine, who told Deng how impressed she had been on a trip to China some years earlier. She recalled her conversation with a scientist who said that he was grateful to Mao Zedong for removing him from his campus and sending him, as Mao did millions of other intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution, to toil on a farm. Deng replied, “He was lying.”

May 16th marks the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Cultural Revolution, when Chairman Mao launched China on a campaign to purify itself of saboteurs and apostates, to find the “representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the Party, the government, the army, and various spheres of culture” and drive them out with "the telescope and microscope of Mao Zedong Thought.” By the time the Cultural Revolution sputtered to a halt, there were many ways to tally its effects: about two hundred million people in the countryside suffered from chronic malnutrition, because the economy had been crippled; up to twenty million people had been uprooted and sent to the countryside; and up to one and a half million had been executed or driven to suicide. The taint of foreign ideas, real or imagined, was often the basis for an accusation; libraries of foreign texts were destroyed, and the British embassy was burned. When Xi Zhongxun—the father of China’s current President, Xi Jinping—was dragged before a crowd, he was accused, among other things, of having gazed at West Berlin through binoculars during a visit to East Germany.'

The article ends this way - 'The book tells the little-known story of how Chinese intellectuals and leaders, facing a ruined economy at the end of the Cultural Revolution, sought the help of foreign economists to rebuild. Between 1976 and 1993, in a series of exchanges, conferences, and collaborations, Western intellectuals sought not to change China but to help it change itself, and they made indispensible contributions to China’s rise as a global economic power. “China's rulers were in charge of this process—they sought out Western ideas and did not copy them indiscriminately. But they were open to Western influence and were profoundly influenced,” Gewirtz told me. “This history should not be forgotten. And, at a moment when China’s economy and society may be teetering, a return to this openness and partnership with the West—rather than the turn toward intellectual isolation and international distrustfulness that seems to be under way—is the best means of avoiding disaster.”"

Much appreciated Moo Cow and Prior for providing this. (I’ve run out of free articles and these days I only subscribe to the TLS.)

Also noteworthy:

" He told me that during the protests, in 1989, he happened to be in Beijing for an engineering conference. In an afterword to the forthcoming English translation, he writes: On the night of June 4 I listened in my hotel to the chaotic noise outside, and the muffled sounds of gunfire. "

Of course the protesters had little access to fire arms. The sounds of gunfire was not combat but executions.

4. The civility start-up is intended to be used to arrange meet-ups, in person discussions with individuals with different points of view, the assumption being that in-person discussions will be much more civil than social media, the latter conducted anonymously. Hmm. I didn't observe much civility in the meet-up in Charlottesville. Would the young man whose admission to Harvard was rescinded for being uncivil on social media (he repeatedly used the N word) have been any more civil if he had a meet-up with African Americans? A point of incivility is provocation: it's the provocation, stupid (to paraphrase Clinton's political adviser). Indeed, in-person provocation has made many of the provocateurs celebrities among their fellow-travelers. I would expect more than a few provocateurs to attend more than a few of this civility start-up's meet-ups.

I wonder if ray's skepticism of differences between IRL and online communication is an inadvertent reveal that his default mode of IRL communication, is in fact, also to harangue strangers with the same repetitive 3 or 4 rants repeatedly, delivered apropos of nothing, in a single breath (that mirrors the block format of his online communication)?

a giraffe may be preyed upon by a wild dog, a piece of bacon being torn on both ends, such that it pleads its ignorance. But a giraffe stretches the truth, and for that I ask you to proceed with caution. Consciousness is no small thing, but neither is congress, in-fact congress is large, and between the two the country's table can be served with better etiquette. To someone like rayward, in all its flamboyance, the target never mattered, the beats were stubborn and the Africans meandered. To look back on occurrence and see only opportunity is the goal.

Without assuming nefarious intent, there are two problems I see with civility meet-ups:

1) "Civility" is like "love"--everyone wants it, no one can define it. I consider the careful and meticulous analysis of an argument to be civil--I'm actually taking it seriously. Ask any Creationist what they think about a thoughtful, in-depth response to their claims, though, and you'll see that this definition isn't universal.

2) Because of 1, someone needs to decide what the rules of the game are. And that someone has tremendous power. Remember, many of the attack against free speech are or started as calls for civility. By defining civility you can eliminate entire swaths of potential opinions.

there is vagueness in debt and the moment credit stops from turning into debt and becomes profit--of course in my profession, whatever that maybe, I want to cause insolvency, to starve the reader, again and again, until I am listening to him more than he I...
Puncture wounds: therapeutic considerations and a new classification-- it a bundling of vectors that he meant when he said, St. Augustine places that in doubt, that is to say, to govern without malice.

#2: Interesting. I know that using solar energy to create nutrients isn't a plants-only thing--we humans do it, with vitamin D--but I don't think we've sufficiently explored the concept. Definitely more work to be done here, and exciting work at that!

#4: That's nice, but we should also have a forum for helping people let off steam and pent up aggression that accrues from social media. I recommend a partisan paint ball league. Red team vs. blue.

You jest, but it may work. I remember in college, we had a fairly straight-forward way of dealing with interpersonal conflicts: frequent Fight Club nights. There were rules, and there was always a ref, but if two guys had an issue they wanted to work out via bashing each other's head into the carpet, we were happy to accommodate. And the result was that we had very little drama in four years together. Issues tended to be resolved quickly and efficiently, if not to everyone's satisfaction than at least to the point where everyone was willing to live with them.

Let's face it, societies as peaceful as ours are unique in history. Humans are a violent species. Perhaps allowing a certain amount of controlled violence--paintball, sparring, wrestling, swordplay--could offer some real advantages. It may be that by suppressing violence to the extent that we have, we've built up psychological pressures that are finding other, random escape valves; occasionally having the tar beat out of you may be a psychologically necessary thing for people.

(Please note that I AM NOT advocating bullying, murder, or other such activities. I'm advocating a friendly test of strength. There are tremendous differences.)

It's called sports. You libertarian nerds need to look up from your books once in a while and experience real life.

If you think sports are an outlet for violence, it's not ME that needs to get his nose out of the books. Or you have a great deal less spirit than most people I know and therefore need much less of an outlet. Sports are a bureaucratic nightmare (or wet dream, depending on one's view of bureaucracy). Spending 20 minutes to determine if the person actually made a touchdown or not is nothing like what I described, to give one example. Being crushed in a 500 person mellee after charging 20 armed, angry men seeking revenge for the humiliation you'd delt them for the past three hours, on the other hand.....

And not all sports are violent. In fact, most aren't. They SIMULATE violence without ENGAGING IN violence. Big difference. Footballl is violent, but again, bureaucratic nightmare. Basketball isn't supposed to be. Neither is soccer. Volleyball has many pleasures, but "outlet for violence" is not among them (variations do include this, however). Baseball is about as violent as chess. Track and Field, fencing, even boxing are more about training for violence than actually being violent (and again, bureaucracy creeps in). I used to watch a fair bit of MMA, and still do when I'm in the right mood, but even that has suffered from an infestation of lawyers. Golf is as violent as a gentle stroll in a park. The level of violence sort of goes downhill from there.

Kinda funny that at the "civility" link, the first thing I see is a pop-up asking if they can send me alerts. Maybe more "civil" to wait until I am a frequent visitor.

On the body of the article .. fine.

But it doesn't really grapple with the fact that social knowledge will continue to be acquired on-line, and in an environment increasingly susceptible to propaganda efforts.


All voters should at least skim the Mueller report, but they probably won't, and they sure aren't going to join a meatspace Mueller report club.

Instead the median voter is going to get a synopsis, an agreed truth or fiction, from their self-selected social and news networks.

Those networks already shape policy, and to the extent possible, they are what should be improved.

Better Facebook and Twitter algorithms will matter a lot more than a few odd people going to a few off potlucks.


Maybe you can force people to read the Mueller report and then hire an army of online censors. That will fix everything! Orwell was mistaken!

The typical democrat voter crossed the Rio Bravo del Norte (Americans call it "Rio Grande") last April and can't read English.

The typical republican voter is married to their cousin and missing a few teeth.

"The typical democrat voter crossed the Rio Bravo del Norte (Americans call it "Rio Grande") last April and can't read English."

Oh, God.

What if the Mueller Report itself was Fake News?

To the extent the MR didn't give them what they want, it is Fake News.

In other words, if the slide from Information Age to Misinformation Age is to be arrested, it must be on-line.

Yes, you right! We need robotic censors! Use AI to ferret out prohibited speech! Lol!

Kind of sad, but certainly confirmation for my fear, that the first few answers (before 3:05 pm) all revel in trollish misinformation.

None grapple, as I say, with how to do better on-line.

Perhaps it has something to do with how you personally choose to communicate on here. After all, various other center-left comments here don't get a half dozen trolls replying; just you. This ought to tell you something.

I'm not sure I'm really center-left in this day and age. I think I might suffer "if you don't like Trump, you must be left-wing" more often than not.

And I think I'd also worry that many are cowed, and don't post certain *true* things *here* because of the trollish response which is to be expected *here*.

There is a bearding the lion in his den in his den aspect.

Maybe you should do better, and not leave it to me.

You're how old and you don't know where you fall on the political spectrum, still? See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

First of all, was that really a constructive response?

Secondly, when I say "in this day and age" I'm thinking about the movement of the center. It's not where it was in my youth, but if you asked me about every single Biden, let alone Warren, position, I am sure I could find some that are too far left for me. I don't support, for instance, free college for all.

First of all, was that really a constructive response?

You're getting trolled again, dummy. How did you get through life this clueless? Are you on the spectrum?

"Are you on the spectrum?"

Yes, he probably is. Mild, but it's clear that nuanced comments don't register. Furthermore, he seems incapable of understanding the point of view of those who disagree with him. I used to believe he intentionally strawmanned arguments, but now I think he just can't comprehend motives other than his own. He believes anyone disagreeing with him has bad intentions or is stupid.

Maybe I'm just "mild" because I can hold a conversation without turning into ad hominem attack?

That wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was germane to the conversation.

It was certainly in keeping with the trollish subsection. On that, Rat, tell me. I assume (perhaps generously) that you are now informed on what was in Mueller's report, and statement(*).

Why do you still think it's .. appropriate .. funny .. to be a "Rat in Putin's Maze" in these pages? Does that show any pretense of higher ground?

* - Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

LOL, what dispensation do you think you have that allows you to demand answers to questions from people? Particularly about subjects completely unrelated to the thread you are posting on.

FYI, know one else believes these threads are a forum designed for your express desires. We talk about what we want to talk about, not what you want to talk about.

You have issues, please seek help.

I think that's a weird response to a "question" in a "conversation."

I am not trolling you, I am laughing at you. Read the thread again, especially your own posts. For example, you wrote:

"Better Facebook and Twitter algorithms will matter a lot more than a few odd people going to a few off potlucks."

What could the algorithm do that would not function as censorship?

In our great nation, our democratic republic, we have a long history of heated debates over contentious issues. The debates have moved online. When the debates move out into meatspace, the looney left and their thugs in Antifa come out and physically block people, shout them down, hit them with socks loaded with padlocks, and throw milkshakes on the enemy, and THAT IS the problem.

See Jonathan Haidt on the differences between the right and left. The right can accurately predict the views of the left but the inverse is not true. The left believes the right is evil. Therefore, the left feels justified shaming, shouting down, shutting out, and physically attacking conservatives.

That is the problem.

The democratic and egalitarian nature of online media is much more difficult for the left to control compared to the msm, and that is frustrating for them. That is why you and the left-wing controllers of Facebook, Twitter, Google want to use algorithms to restrict speech. You can hide behind that.

No matter what you do, the issues will not go away, and neither will the conservatives who are trying to shine a light on the underhanded subterfuge of the left.

I think the first thing to do, in a serious discussion about the quality of social media, is to shed the partisanship, even for five minutes.

And then to think about whether there are objective truths that should be supported over misinformation, and how you'd do that.

I just dropped an anti-vaccine story at the bottom of the page. Maybe that should serve as example. Should social media promote such things, because "they can't be sure what is true?"

On the basis of agnosticism on science, no.

On the basis that bulk carriers who effectively assume the majority of internet traffic have a responsibility to continue the ideals of the internet as a neutral carry network (net neutrality), yes.

At which point.... any Libertarians want to come and take over arguing for the 'Marketplace of Ideas', or are y'all just purely all in for free trade+ethnic openness+tightly controlled speech rights combo these days?

I think there's a fundamental issue that you're hoping to skip around. here, but you can't. What if, horror of horrors, there are a bunch of people that disagree as to what the truth of a given item is?

What you *want* is a way to fix things so that, as a matter of ground rules, everybody is arguing from the same starting point. Mirabile dictu, all problems are solved! It's just a matter of logic from that point forward.

Alas, reality intrudes, in at least two ways. Firstly, interests differ from person to person, and so there will tend to be a divergence in how a given set of facts might be interpreted, in terms of value. What is good for you may or may not be good for me, etc.

Worse yet, you not likely to get agreement on what you see as "basic facts", and often quite understandably so. If I had to guess, for instance, I would wager that you and I have divergent views on the near-term and long-term impacts of minimum wage increases. This seems like a pretty non-emotional topic, right? It isn't life-or-death, it is unlikely to gore any religious oxen, it's somewhat subject to empirical and theoretical analysis. But it turns out that you can make plausible theoretical arguments for minimum wage changes having all sorts of impacts, and you can come up with various studies in support of many of them. And so we'd quite possibly and plausibly disagree, even if we're both operating in "good faith". And this over what should not be an emotionally fraught topic.

Or take your anti-vax story. Now, I was a STEM major, I like to think I can interpret data, etc, and I imagine that I'd come to a conclusion not too far from what I think yours is. But. But. It being 2019, most humans will have by this point run across previous examples of radical shifts in medical advice. Cholesterol bad! Good cholesterol good! Maybe cholesterol irrelevant, and it's in your genes! Or not! Etc, etc. And examples of presumably informed authorities claiming that A = B, for any number of reasons both nefarious and not, only to reverse that claim later. Whoops. And then we're talking about people's kids, possibly one of the *most* emotionally fraught topics, and the possibility that they might make what would amount, if their nagging doubts turn out to have been correct (see above) an ugly and irreversible error...

And so we're left with the ugly possibility that, depending on their interests, their priors, the quality of the data presented to them, and a host of other conditions, people might end up not merely disagreeing with us on matters of logic, but on fundamental facts (most of which, if we're honest with ourselves, are probabilistic statements).

You want to "clean this up", but I would suggest that this cleaning up is nearly impossible, and that even a touch of epistemic humility would indicate not merely that it would be difficult, but maybe even counter-productive.

OTOH, people have lied, "talked their own book", or been flat out wrong about stuff since time immemorial. And yet, the human race survived and advanced. How? Rather than via any firm clean-up of the terms of debate, as you argue for, I'd say the key has mostly been keeping the power to make decisions and affect others as dispersed as possible, and then letting the chips fall where they might. This has its own unpleasant implications, but at least it has the virtue of being possible.

As a quick answer, consider Wikipedia. Through their process, they can agree on a lot. Some fuzzy cases they flag as explicitly "controversial." And some things they don't cover, because they are pure opinion.

Shouldn't we ask why more social media can't be that good?

In other words, is it really a strength of MR comments, social media, that every time Tyler mentions global warming, you get somebody saying "there is no global warming!"

That isn't exactly the same as "here is an interesting article on cholesterol and health."

I believe free of speech means freedom of speech. If you don't like what someone is saying, then make a counter argument. What you clearly want is an arbiter of speech, a 3rd party to decide what is true and what is false, but there are no unbiased judges of truth.

As for global warming, the open questions include :
1. How much warming?
2. How fast?
3. How dangerous?
4. What percentage is anthropogenic?

These are open questions. You want someone to shut down those arguments.

There is a reason the first amendment is the FIRST amendment.

You don't get it. I think you are a fascist at heart.

Many of those are "tough to determine" questions of course.

I do suspect many of the real political divides on the question are mostly upstream;

Does 'the West' opt out of technological competitiveness because there is some moral duty to bear a proportionately larger % of the burden in reducing emissions?

Do China+India+etc have some moral right for their people to 'enjoy the same living standards' as the OECD that demands curbed growth?

Can we even trust ideological competitors to be honest partners if we become vulnerable through degrowthing our economies?

And your answers to those will be influenced by whether you're a member of the connected set that will preserve themselves an affluent lifestyle despite 'de-growth', and call it a just outcome of the market (despite distortion of heavy environmental regulation and the rest), while offering buyoffs of affirmative action and diversity to groups that are labelled as not 'privileged'.

A good example, but not in the way you are presenting it.

A good *discussion* would start with accepted truths from Wikipedia, NASA, etc.

A bad comments section if full of people saying "OMG" and denying that foundation.

(I personally have linked NASA on GW in these pages, only to have that content "denied." What is really going on there? I'm saying it's a breakdown of the Information Age, and part of that rise of the Misinformation Age.)

Wikipedia, a collaborative open source encyclopedia, isn't "social media" by any stretch of the imagination, and none of how it is regulated can generalization to any web entity which is.

I've slept on it, and I still like the contrast. I think Wikipedia, being open and collaborative is a kind of social media. Social. Media. And yet it does reach consensus on (1) truths and (2) where controversy lies.

And in fact I'm reminded of the worst sort of social media behavior, in comments sections, where trolls can say "OMG, Wikipeda. Nobody believes that." No more logic, or data, than that. "OMG."

Maybe comments should be closed down wholesale, across the internets, as a failed experiment.

Trying to rebrand wikipedia in this manner is frankly just a weird word game of deconstructing a term and then trying to apply its component parts. Structurally wikipedia provides no model for changing real social media, and does not share the basic features of social media.

I see a lot of overlap between collaborative media and social media.

In both, users log in and submit changes.

In a collaborative project there is more rigorous filtering of changes at the front end, whereas more freewheeling social media may treat that as an afterthought. Take downs of bad comments (etc) filter "late."

But in the end they have both been a group project create content within a set of rules.

And maybe we can agree that Wikipedia on the minimum wage is pretty good.

Tech companies run a business. Advertisers won't pay to have their products displayed next to neo-nazis. Of course, there is going to be moderation.

Let me correct myself, as of now (4:00 pm) no one has constructively engaged with the idea of better on-line media.

They've just wanted to fight.

We get the on-line media we deserve.

Remind myself I want to read Heart of Darkness, again. Somewhere in there Conrad has Marlow speculate on how "civilized" we would be without the policeman on the corner, the neighbor with ears and eyes, or something like that. None of those constraints on calumny and viciousness are present on the web. Google and Face Book attempts at ending on-line viciousness (rightly or wrongly) have been seen to censor conservative speech as violence; leftish violence as speech. Just saying, "Hell is other people." Sartre

I think the way forward has to be about "placement" rather than censorship. And I think as a society we have to agree that some messages, right or left, are more constructive than others. Those should be placed more prominently for casual readers/listeners/viewers.

Either that or the right or the left end up defending the worse sort of bad information, because it's "theirs."

Placement? Do you mean placing messages where they can't be seen, or where only certain people can see them?

What do you mean?

Stop the Orwellian double-speak please.

Of course, censorship is a no-go. Whatever happened to "I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death (hyperbole!) your right to say it."

Anyway, at either extreme are absent: background, context and perspective; not to mention charity and fairness. One should think, "Would I say this in the presence of my mother?"

Both sides resort to logical fallacies: ad hominem, calumny, exaggeration, false accusation, false equivalence, insults, omission of material data/fact/principle, threat of violence, etc. It is quite adolescent or sophomoric.

Anyhow, don't believe everything spewing out of either end of the spectrum.

Yugie: Where are the moderates?

Anyhow, Keep America Great!

The anti-vax story is a great caution, and one that should cut across right-left partisanship.

It turns out, that in a "network neutral" battle of ideas, volume matters - sometimes more that truth.

What's the old quote?

"Quantity has a quality all its own"

No one wants to engage with you is more like it.

I'm a volcel.

I'm so old. I can't remember the last time. Seemed like it entailed a lot of effort. And, she kept saying, "O God!"

I vote for better online media! End the censorship! Challenge bad ideas with good ideas! Don't be a crybaby!

3. *Light Spoilers*

Great article, but I don’t agree with its attempt to shoehorn the Three-Body trilogy into the US-China conflict or argue that the Three-Body trilogy represents some ruthless, collectivist ideology. In the first book, the US and China work together on the Trisolarian threat, and in later books even humans and Trisolarians team up. And the first book begins with an extremely negative portrayal of the Cultural Revolution (which I was surprised at reading as I thought that kind of stuff would have been censored)—apologia for Maoism this is not.

The later two books in the trilogy have many individualist themes. The hero of the second book, Luo Ji, is as individualist as they come, even selfishly taking advantage of privileges given to him for his own hedonistic purposes. He later saves the world by coming up with a solution without any collaboration with other humans.

Then, Cheng Xin, the hero of the third book who according to the article represents Western liberal values, does mess things up in the short run but ultimately saves the universe through her curiosity and kindness when she is among the last survivors. And in the third book, humans only survive due to heroic individuals who develop technologies to escape the solar system though these are banned by the world government for promoting escapism.

I loved how you can't tell whether he's responding honestly or for self protection, and as you illustrated there are way too many competing themes and characters to form one analogy.

I do think the first main plot, clash of two civilizations, is broadly us-china inspired, but he goes off on a million tangents and honestly the trisolarans seem less than central to the plot by the end.

His characters are implausible and cartoonish, and he gamely agrees that he is not interested in human nature. Do people really think they are learning something deep about Chinese psychology from reading his books?

You can learn a lot about America from watching the bachelor so yes. It’s very popular, whatever got through was approved by censors and he’s cagey as hell. Very interesting

A further tidbit on the misinformation age:

What we found: a hedge fund manager and his wife — New York couple Bernard and Lisa Selz — have accounted for three-fourths of the money behind the most well-funded anti-vaccine group in the country.

via twitter

5. Congress just scheduled a hearing for the Facebook crypto. Once again, big government continues to stifle innovation with more red tape.

Victor's collection was actually sold today. You can see all the items and final prices here:

Comments for this post are closed