The clips are edited together, though. That was my first thought when watching the video. There are a lot of cuts. I get that it might just be for time, to show only the most relevant stuff. But it may also be to make it look worse than it is. Without the full conversation, we can't know.
I think that's a big part of what needs to happen. Make these changes at the state and local level, and eventually we might see some diversity at those levels. Then we'll be able to have a conversation on the national level. Like the original comment here says, Democrats and Republicans have no incentive to push for this because they benefit from the First-Past-the-Post voting we currently have.
I don't think it's discounting the research because of intuition. It's discounting the research because, while there is a statistically significant difference, the commenter above is arguing that it is not practically significant.
I haven't had a doorbell ring or knock at the door by UPS in probably 3-4 years. I get that they're too busy to wait for everyone to come to the door, but you'd think they could at least knock.
I have Flux on a 1 hour shift, so I don't notice the colors changing as it happens, but it absolutely makes a huge difference. Disabling it at 10pm after a few hours of 'flux-ed' viewing feels like staring directly into the sun.
I was thinking about this the other day. In the pre-social network days, it was obnoxious to blast your political opinions out to your friends and family. You had to create or forward an email, and very few people did. Mostly grandparents. Now it seems that everyone can and will share their political views through a social network. Is it just that it's easier, or is there something else about the platform that invites that type of sharing?
He had him post the challenge to his website. The text of the challenge contains the string "BackdoorPoCTwitter". By including the challenge in his website, he included the string in a software project (the code for his website). This won the challenge for @Sc00bzT, who was the one who told him to make the change to his website.
Is plausible deniability something you want in your communication? Just curious, as this is something I haven't heard before. It seems like non-repudiation would be what you want in your comms.
Even with those things, most phishing is a matter of trying to get one out of thousands to respond. So a few people may notice the change, but that doesn't help the hundreds who may not.
