Dan Lipka Web Log

 "White House logs from Jan. 6 show 7-hour gap in Trump calls" is the basic story. Seems pretty important who the President was talking to during an attack on the capitol (while they were trying to certify a newly elected President). Let's see who is covering this on their webpage. Washington Post - 2nd Story (after Ukraine) Fox News - Literally nowhere on the home page (there was an article on the politics page, it was the 14th article listed New York Times - There is nothing Brietbart.com - There is nothing The Guardian - 2nd major story (after Ukraine) Boston Globe - 4th story Yahoo news - Nothing National Review - Nothing AP News - 3rd article Newsmax - Nothing (although there was an article on him hitting a hole-in-one USA Today - 2nd article I'm just saying it takes a lot of effort to read all the news, from all the sources, and it is amazing how a "well-informed" person, who reads the news from one source, could still be missing out on a lot.

 Racism in the Criminal Justice System exists. Why not implement some simple solutions: The defendant is never shown to the judge to the jury. They can be in the room (hidden) or attend virtually. Their face, attitude, clothing, or demeanor are completely irrelevant and should not be part of the trial. If the case specifically has to do with the size of a person, a similarly sized person can be brought it. Note that the defendant being hidden isn't an option that they can choose to hide or not, it is mandatory. The lawyers should never see the jury, either during selection or during the proceedings. Questions can be asked during the jury selection process, but they can't actually see the person. This will also stop lawyers from trying to specifically manipulate a juror based on their reactions to what it said during the trial. I'm not sure if the jury should be able to see the face of the people who take the stand. Obviously, if a defendant's sister is a witness and tak

After the initial lockdowns from COVID, states had very different strategies to manage the risks of increased infections vs risks to the economy vs risks to mental health. Two years later, we can look back at the states and see if there were significant changes in infections and deaths from COVID. Of course, the data is flawed, as cases don't include people who didn't want to get tested and states did have differences on which deaths counted as "COVID deaths", etc.  I choose to look at the four big states, based on size and politics. Two very liberal states and two very conservatives states. Before, I go on, it is worth noting that nobody knew at the time exactly what COVID was and what the future would hold. Nobody knows what the next variant will be or how it will impact people. However, with the miracle of retrospect, we can see who was right based on the reality that actually occurred. Based on the charts below, it doesn't seem like the conservative states had

Yesterday's post was a little depressing, but the real depressing thing is that over the past 1,000 years [with the exception of weapons of mass destruction] life has gotten better for almost the entire human population. Extreme poverty and food insecurity are way down, medicine is doing amazing things, there is literally access to almost all the information in the history of the world at our fingertips, people have quality-of-life items that would be inconceivable 100 years ago (air conditioners, dish washers, laundry machines, phones, internet), we can communicate or travel easily to anywhere in the world, there are fewer and fewer dangerous jobs, child labor, slavery, etc. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone in the world, but on average, people are much, much better off. And we put it all at risk with two very specific and avoidable things: war and destroying our environment. As for war, 99% of people are against it, and it only serves the elites, as they are literally

I didn't live through the real nuclear scares of the cold war. In my lifetime, I haven't actually been scared of dying in a war or the end of days. The idea of a "mutual assured destruction" seemed to prevent the major militaries of the world from fighting each other (at least fighting directly). But "mutual assured destruction" only works if those in charge are either thinking rationally, morally, or selfishly. Personally, I think the "selfishly" one is the most important, as leaders of countries have the most to lose (power, money, prestige, etc.). But if there was an autocratic head of a nuclear power, who has nothing to lose (perhaps, he is dying of something else), than there is very little standing in the way of the end of civilization. And I am not overexerting, there are 8 (maybe 9) countries in the world that have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every major city in the world (with the resulting radiation affected every person on earth).