RunawayFixer

In the next paragraph: "by the time of the Daubert hearing, the printer that Cybercheck had identified in its report couldn’t be located.". I suspect there never was a printer. If asked leading questions by the investigators, then the company probably fabricates evidence that corroborates the suspicions of the investigators. And the quality of fabricated evidence is probably poor because of how cheap they are. Quality takes time and skill, and skilled time costs money.

Parallel construction requires real evidence though. This company just seems to fabricate evidence to confirm police hypothesises. I think what happens is: Police ask "was this person there at that time on that day", the company conjures up a report that the person's mystical digital profile pinged a wireless printer at that place at roughly the right time, but also at a second other time for a tiny bit of credibility (but by only changing the date of the timestamp, which actually makes it more suspect). People go search for that printer, and then there never was a printer.

And given that the only thing that external parties saw, was less than a 1000 lines of code for automatic searches and none for interpretation, it might not even be automated, but just a human pasting together reports. A human pretending to be ai.

I'd call it outsourced fabrication of evidence.

I don't get how Hungary is still inside the eu. Pis in Poland lost power almost a year ago and there should be no other country shielding Hungary anymore. The eu countries should have used the time since then to clean house and remove the single veto mechanism in all eu institutions, instead ... Nothing. Orban just gets to be ever more confident that he can be as crooked, anti democratic and pro Russian as he wants without any real consequences.

On the other hand, when someone claims something is impossible/something has never happened before/something happens every single time, but you have just 1 anecdote from a credible source that contradicts that claim, then that 1 anecdote is enough to know that they are wrong.

Example: some pundit states: our government has never executed an innocent man. You just need proof that they have executed a single innocent man to show that the pundit has no credibility on the subject and that it's thus not an impossibility that other executed men were also innocent.

You claim that the Palestinian genocide didn't start until last year, while the ethnic cleansing/discrimination/... has actually been going on for decades already. That's why they mocked your date. The process intensified last year, but it was an already ongoing process.

It's not only their faulty Overton window, imo the big problem is that their "methodology" of determining bias/credibility is very poor. It's basically 1 volunteer scoring a few metrics of the site being reviewed, which has lead to some very questionable credibility scores in the past, probably caused by the bias and/or amateurism of the volunteers. When those odd scores caused enough controversy, then those scores got arbitrarily adjusted, but only those scores. In particular the owner + volunteer staff of mbfc appears to be very pro Israel, so Zionist propaganda outlets like unwatch get given high scores, while media outlets like the guardian were given the same mixed credibility rating as fox news, for no other reason than that the reviewing volunteer happened to be extremely biased.

If a biased organisation uses a weak process to assign bias ratings, then the output is going to be nonsense. After numerous controversies, they probably have corrected ratings for all large news and propaganda organizations, but smaller ones will not have caused the same controversies and since those ratings are a product of the same process, they're going to be just as faulty. We just don't know it because there have been no public controversies about those yet.

Basically you can't trust their credibility scores. If you know the site being reviewed, then you can make an assessment yourself if the rating is actually credible, in which case you also actually didn't need the bot to tell you that. And if it's a small unknown site, then there is no way to know that that credibility rating can be trusted, making the bot useless. And if people were to start trusting the bot, it would be worse than useless.

Sometimes knowledge is just an internet search away: https://www.qwant.com/?q=natural+disasters+in+europe&t=web

Or searching for specific kinds of disasters will also supply results, like fe tornadoes: https://www.qwant.com/?q=tornado+europe&t=web

How can you be so convinced of things which are so easily disproven? Why do you not try looking something up instead of just spouting the same nonsense again and again? Why do you resort to insults when it turns out that a belief you held strongly, turns out to have been a delusion? Notice how all this time I've been the one providing sources and quotes, while you just resorted to insults and doubling down when what I say doesn't align with your feelings. You'd look far less like a fool if you would accept that it's possible to be wrong about something.

I had found a good quote earlier by another American who had actually visited other places, I think now is a good time to share it:

"Americans who have never left their own little reality will tell you that American homes are actually solid... they're not... I have lived in and visited many countries. American houses are built like shit.

My cousin built a house in Europe out of brick and concrete... and it's WAY WAY WAY WAY better than the most expensive, nicest house I've ever been to in the US. I have anger issues and have punched through my walls on repeated occasions. You can't do that with brick and concrete... probably a good thing I live in the US.

This is why when a tornado comes around, entire towns are demolished.. All that would happen in other countries is some broken windows and shingles would come off the roof.

Americans pay more for their houses in terms of price, property taxes (insanely high), and repairs... to live in the lowest form of construction on this planet second to bamboo huts.

This is all due to American greed. America is a big mall where you get shit quality everywhere you go, but you think you're actually winning because you are so self-deluded and isolated. Most Americans have never been anywhere else, but yet they will defend their garbage buildings that fall apart in a couple of decades or less. Speaking from my piece of shit house that was built 20 years ago that needs all floors and walls replaced because of mold seeping into the... wood... everything... wood and cardboard. ".

I also don't get how you came to believe that there are no natural disasters in Europe. We have a stereotype of dumb arrogant Americans who are confidently incorrect, but still, what the hell man :)

"Their homes are robust, and built to last 400 years (estimated) without having to make substantial repairs." You must have missed that part, so much for reading comprehension.

The difference in building quality between houses in the usa and northern Europe really is night and day. Tornadoes which would only take off the roof from European houses, tear down entire American neighborhoods. To us, it's just shocking how bad those American buildings hold up. There are of course also Americans who chose to build to a higher standard, but they end up with smaller houses at a higher price, like we do in Europe. I don't get why this is so hard to accept for you. We pay more for a smaller house, but that house is then build to a much higher standard. It's really not a mystery.

Those are historical buildings, this discussion was about new construction.

Historically people used to use what was locally available. Most of Italy has plenty of stones, that were also easily accessible, so regular people could build out of stone. But in other regions of Europe there were no stones lying about, so cheap houses were being build out of mud + straw, more expensive ones out of brick and much more expensive ones from imported stones.

Thatched roofs will survive storms without issue. The reason why they aren't used anymore except by rich people is cost: very labor intensive to place and on top of that the thatching has to be replaced every x years. They made sense when labor was cheap and transporting heavy goods expensive.

Hmm, who to believe on this subject. You, or the constructional engineer that travelled on both sides of the pond. Tough call ;)

Relative to the cardboard houses in the usa, houses in Europe are indeed very sturdy. Our concrete houses might not be designed for hurricanes, but they would still fare way better than a house entirely build from stud walls. It's always a bit of a wonder to us that in the usa, houses are being built in a manner that will not survive the next storm. And that that is allowed. The downside of the sturdier European houses is that they take longer and cost more to build, which is also why the average house is smaller.

Here's some obversations from an American engineer travelling in Europe: https://forstconsultingllc.com/blog/european-vs-american-home-construction/