I'm a couple years into that range and I'm not dead yet! Only 90% of a quarter-century to go!

Secret service killed one of them and they scattered like roaches.

You can't expect the police to shoot their own. Capitol security are the ones that opened the gates to let people in. Biden said it best, if the majority of these people were black there wouldn't any talk of pardons or calling it a peaceful protest.

Just want to nitpick that some capitol security opened some gates to let some people in. Other barriers were overrun relatively violently. This IMO lead to quite a lot of confusion/obfuscation over whether this was a riot or a "peaceful tour of the capitol"

You could take a sabbatical or they could be retired.

They have just made vague comments like "national security risk."

I suppose that'll lose them the case with the public but have no impact on the outcome of the case proper.

Past that point.

But I mostly agree. It's not a hopeful situation. If AI takes over it won't take over because it fought it war with humans and won. AI will take over because people want it to take over.

They haven't accepted Covid vaccinations, immigration, the election of Joe Biden, ... . The world has a long history of people determining their fate and not accepting things. It's just one political group that has embraced quitting and despair - they are laughable.

Who could possibly be miserable amidst disease and authoritarianism?

The question reveals the problem, a victim outlook. You have no responsibility or agency, and your feelings justify it. It's not only bs, it's unhealthy and self-defeating. The outcome is predictable.

Is using millions of copyrighted works to train your AI a valid exemption? Asking for a few billionaire friends.

The details matter when talking about legalities. A group of cops investigating a gang that happens to have a lot of italian members is different than having a group of cops that investigates italians.

> Unless otherwise noted, none of the militia members mentioned in this story responded to requests for comment

This is a serious story but this made me burst out laughing. Sorry, the PR agent for these heavily armed militias was unable to return my request for comments.

It’s just good journalism to give everyone in a story a chance to defend their position, even if those opportunities are often not taken up.

I have seen journalists give 24 hr to defend your position. Many times it’s zero time.

Well they have to strike some compromise between readers expecting timely news and story subjects responding to accusations, especially when they’re competing against the Joe Rogans of the world with no professional ethics whatsoever.

24 hours is reasonable. At the very least you can say “I will provide a response but it will take 7 days” and they can note that in the article and update later.

No time is usually reserved for breaking news. No outlet is going to hold a story on today’s building fire because the fireworks factory owner deserves 24 hours to respond.

In the recent case between the actress and the film director for ‘ it ends with us’ one of the sides gave the other a few hours to respond on the last working day of the year.

Assuming the email released is genuine, ProPublica itself recently sent a request for comment to someone by email with the line "Our deadline is in one hour".

I think that's bad journalism

It is. Sometimes the writer will add "didn't respond before press time" to give a little more context, but most readers won't grasp what that could really mean (like the reporter might have contacted them 15 mins before press time)

Do you have any examples of stories where one of the subjects was contacted, wanted to respond, but didn't have enough time?

Here's a current story. No idea of this news source but it is widespread. CNN is in a defamation lawsuit directly related to not waiting for a response to straighten out facts.

https://freebeacon.com/media/navy-veteran-suing-cnn-for-defa...

(To the tune of 1b in dmgs and it doesn't look good for CNN)

The confusion comes from thinking these are organized groups with a solid chain of command, author seems wildly uninformed.

Most are loose gatherings of people who like shooting guns where people come and go week to week.

The one who seems confused is you, the section in the article talks about members themselves not some imaginary PR person.

Wapo and the New York Times definitely play with kid gloves on when dealing with the insane shit republicans get away it.