Snooker. His name was Snooker.

Lego batman had already gotten very close.

You can, but do you hunt?

Unless you provide pensions.

rolling curdling

My friend bought a red car specifically so it could be seen by Tesla’s cameras.

They used air bunnies. S’all good.

if your motives are uncertain with regards to established procedure,

In Snowden and Manning’s cases it is clear established procedure is inadequate. There is no uncertainty.

If you support one vigilante, there is reasonable suspicion you’ll support another.

Or you can (attempt to) change the system so that vigilantism is not required.

You fuck one goat, and you’re marked as a goatfucker. Doesn’t matter how many walls and docks you build, and it doesn’t matter how sexy the goat was.

Tulsi didn’t fuck a goat. She was arguing that no-one should be getting fucked.

doesn’t change the fact that …

Proceeds to give an opinion

if the sheriff supports a vigilante, they’re an unreliable sheriff.

The sheriff wants a lawful process to exist, not vigilantism

“We have got to address why Snowden did things the way that he did them,” she said. “You hear the same thing from Chelsea Manning, how there is not an actual channel for whistleblowers like them to bring forward information that exposes egregious abuses of our constitutional rights and liberties, period. There was not a channel for that to happen in a real way, and that’s why they ended up taking the path that they did, and suffering the consequences.”

Which David Bowie?

you are signaling to your superiors that you may well allow the next breach, even if it isn’t justified.

This is your opinion. Not fact.

There’s a reason vigilantism is illegal. Sure, sometimes the result might be justified, but the method has no accountability.

Tulsi has moved into the seat of accountability. The sheriff can’t be a vigilante.

Especially given her shady history with Russia

Clinton has been in more shady Russian deals than Tulsi. Her accusations are pure projection.

She very heavily implied it was for bioweapons. Why else would having laboratories be justification for war?

No, she called for an immediate ceasefire at the laboratories as they could spread dangerous pathogens. The World Health Organization made a similar call. Are they all Russian assets too?

She 100% supports letting Russia bulldoze Ukraine.

[Citation needed]

She’s only anti-war where war is against Russia’s interests.

[Citation needed]

It sounds like you are regurgitating propaganda without having confirmed any details yourself.

Agree with all of that. What annoys me is when properties of the normal distribution are used as “facts” about human intelligence.

I’m sure there are more people with 200+ IQ than with <0.

Reread my original statement and see if you still disagree

You should look up exactly what was said, not what others insinuate.

she started saying the US was behind terrorist attacks in Syria

Well, the United States was propping up radical elements with Syria’s anti-Assad rebels. Fighters posed as Free Syrian Army “moderate rebels” to obtain U.S. weapons before promptly defecting to al-Nusra.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/id-take-tulsis-record-in-syria-over-the-cias/

she accused the US of helping Ukraine develop bioweapons

No, she said there are 25 to 30 American-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine. This is true, and public knowledge.

She served in the Army and is now very anti war. War hawks on all sides have a vested interest in painting her as a Russian Asset.

even after 11 years?

Yep. Is Snowden allowed back into the US? No? Then he is still an embarrassment.

he has valuable information on how the US reacts

Nothing that he wouldn’t have already given up 11 years ago. He can’t provide anything new.

It’s pretty obvious that a rock can’t have an IQ of anything but zero.

This is repeating the same confusion.

Calculating values from the normal distribution tells you nothing about the tail properties of human intelligence.

do you honesty believe that Putin would allow him to live as long as he has in Russia without some form of cooperation? I mean, the guy outlived the “thorn in Americans side” trope about five years ago.

No, I think the NSA are still embarrassed.

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that he’s selling strategic processes and how Americans think for his safety.

How many relevant strategic secrets do you think Snowden has after 11 years out of the game. Remember all his documents were passed to journalists. He retained none.

So tipping is for charity? Why should the wait staff get priority over the Tibetan koala sanctuary (or any other charity of your choice)?

There are many more people in the world who deserve greater care than 1st world plate carriers.

I’d like to hear your explanation how an IQ of above 200 is possible and what that would actually mean.

It means that the mean and standard distribution have been calibrated to a population, but that the population kurtosis is significantly non-normal

Its only possible if there are about 10x more humans.

Incorrect. It’s also possible if human intelligence isn’t normally distributed.

With a population of around 80 billion, the smartest one person would have a z score of roughly 6.6 and an IQ of roughly 200. This is calculated from a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, which is how it’s defined.

Only if intelligence of the human population is normally distributed.

So, as I’ve been saying, you just put everyone’s test scores in order from worst to best,

No you don’t. You have invented this unnecessary step.

calculate the z score of the person you’re interested in, multiply by the SD (15) and add the mean.

No, because the “person” and the z score have no link.

It is also the case that for populations over 80 billion, you can have negative IQ scores, using the same logic that was used for a person with an IQ of >=200.

If a rock has zero intelligence, how can something score lower? Negative intelligence is impossible.