ltxrtquq

Which is weird, because the gaming industry is full of low effort, hyper monetized slop that sells extremely well.

public keys

I'm not too sure how cryptography works, but I'm pretty sure it's fine if other people have your public key. I'm reasonably sure it's actually required in a system with public and private keys.

https://www.diceemporium.com/product/12-sided-1-4-spotted-28mm/

Something like this?

https://www.thediceshoponline.com/dodecadice-triple-d4-layer-rainbow-12-sided-spot-d4-dice

Or this?

https://eu.nobleknight.com/P/2147622485/20mm-d4-12-Sided-Metal-Dice-w-Black

Or this if you want it in metal with numbers?

The best apocalypse is the one you already have. There's no need to go out get a new apocalypse when your old one is dooming people just fine, that's how you start a climate apocalypse.

It's just like Rush Limbaugh said: if there is consent on [all sides], it's perfectly fine, whatever it is.

There's no real need for me to bring up the dead conservative talking head here, but I still laugh to myself sometimes when I remember how mockingly he got it exactly right, and maybe someone else could use a laugh too.

"The possible possibility" -> "The possibility" As someone else said, it's just redundant here.

The first meaning of possibility relates to chance/probability whereas the second relates to ability/capability/feasibility

This is simply untrue, possibility doesn't relate to probability except in a very binary yes/no, something is possible.

“It’s not necessarily necessary for you to wear a tie to the meeting, they might not care.” -> It's not always necessary...

"The maybe necessity" -> The necessity of blank is still being debated

"It’s maybe not necessary" -> it may not be necessary

The second one would depend on the context, you could change things around or describe the uncertainty in other ways. The third one I think you're just getting too stuck on a particular order for these words you want to use.

They're probably out "not being political" and are ignorant to most curent events.

That's the worst part: they do talk about Palestine. Just in the context of whoever they're covering. It's a little comforting to know you don't really bother engaging with anything people actually say to you, though.

Starting around 38:30 in the podcast

Dan Friesen: So the argument is that the CIA was trying to recruit these hijackers and make them into informants. And that is a theory. It is not established. It is not proven. But they start to just treat it as if they have proven it.

Mark Rossini: You have the CIA then following one man and then two men all over the planet and then eventually even to America, right? Landing in Los Angeles, California, and you don't tell the FBI.

Tucker Carlson: But why would the CIA want to hide the highly relevant and potentially dangerous fact that two known al-Qaeda terrorists had just landed in California? According to a recently released court filing, former White House counterterrorism star Richard Clark told government investigators that the quote: "CIA was running a false flag operation to recruit the hijackers."

Richard Clark: When Cofer Black became the head of the counterterrorism center at CIA, he was aghast that they had no sources in Al-Qaeda. So he told me, I'm going to try to get sources in Al-Qaeda. I can understand them possibly saying we need to develop sources inside Al-Qaeda. When we do that, we can't tell anybody about it.

Dan Friesen: So it's important to pay attention to the way that information is used by people like Tucker and notice the little tweaks that they make in order to push their narratives. In this case, Tucker is setting up his clip of Richard Clark, and he says that Clark revealed that the CIA was engaged in a false flag to recruit these hijackers.

Then he plays the clip of Clark that does not say that. But instead is Clark saying that he could understand the intelligence folks trying to secretly turn the future hijackers into informants. He wasn't saying that the CIA was doing this, but he understood how it was possible.

Yeah, one of the conspiracy theorists' main tricks is equating proving that something is possible with proving that it's true. Richard Clark saying that it's possible that the CIA was trying to recruit the hijackers as informants is not the same thing as him saying that is what happened. But Tucker knows that to his audience, it is the same.

I don't know man, maybe you need to work on your media literacy a little more. Or maybe just as a rule, you shouldn't be taking anything Tucker Carlson says seriously.

Alright, cool. So what did Tucker Carlson say that you thought was so interesting?

And I guess follow up question: was it all just government propaganda? Because I doubt he ever debunked any propaganda about Palestine.

What are you talking about? Why would something be government propaganda just because you can't find mentions of Gaza or Palestine? It's a podcast mostly about Alex Jones, not a news agency. Are you always like this?

1092: Tucker, The Man And His 9/11 Documentary

The guys at Knowledge Fight went over the first part of the documentary, and my takeaway was there's nothing new, the primary person being interviewed is a well known liar, and there's a lot dishonest claims being made and not a lot of evidence being given.

So what exactly do you think is so interesting about Tucker Carlson's series? What new things did you learn about 9/11?