Official BBO Hijacked Thread Thread

[y66]

Tyler Cowen appears to be working on his biography. So far he has posted about his formative years in which he taught chess at age 14 and how to use economics to improve arguments to high school debate teams at age 19. Interesting fellow.

 

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/03/my-economics-in-argumentation-seminars-job.html

[y66]

Stumbled on this today while reading about Richard Hamming:

 

With World War II still ongoing, Hamming left Louisville in April 1945 to work on the Manhattan Project at the Los Alamos Laboratory, in Hans Bethe's division, programming the IBM calculating machines that computed the solution to equations provided by the project's physicists. His wife Wanda soon followed, taking a job at Los Alamos as a human computer, working for Bethe and Edward Teller. Hamming later recalled that:

 

Shortly before the first field test (you realize that no small scale experiment can be done—either you have a critical mass or you do not), a man asked me to check some arithmetic he had done, and I agreed, thinking to fob it off on some subordinate. When I asked what it was, he said, "It is the probability that the test bomb will ignite the whole atmosphere." I decided I would check it myself! The next day when he came for the answers I remarked to him, "The arithmetic was apparently correct but I do not know about the formulas for the capture cross sections for oxygen and nitrogen—after all, there could be no experiments at the needed energy levels." He replied, like a physicist talking to a mathematician, that he wanted me to check the arithmetic not the physics, and left. I said to myself, "What have you done, Hamming, you are involved in risking all of life that is known in the Universe, and you do not know much of an essential part?" I was pacing up and down the corridor when a friend asked me what was bothering me. I told him. His reply was, "Never mind, Hamming, no one will ever blame you."

[pilowsky]

Stumbled on this today while reading about Richard Hamming:

 

With World War II still ongoing, Hamming left Louisville in April 1945 to work on the Manhattan Project at the Los Alamos Laboratory, in Hans Bethe's division, programming the IBM calculating machines that computed the solution to equations provided by the project's physicists. His wife Wanda soon followed, taking a job at Los Alamos as a human computer, working for Bethe and Edward Teller. Hamming later recalled that:

 

 

 

So, does this mean that sometimes, if you lose all hope, you can't find it again?

[y66]

So, does this mean that sometimes, if you lose all hope, you can't find it again?

I suspect Ford assumed certain boundary conditions apply.

[johnu]

With World War II still ongoing, Hamming left Louisville in April 1945 to work on the Manhattan Project at the Los Alamos Laboratory, in Hans Bethe's division, programming the IBM calculating machines that computed the solution to equations provided by the project's physicists. His wife Wanda soon followed, taking a job at Los Alamos as a human computer, working for Bethe and Edward Teller.

 

For a contract bridge angle, Hans Bethe's son, Henry Bethe, was a well known bridge expert in NYC who was an ACBL Grand Life Master.

[y66]

For a contract bridge angle, Hans Bethe's son, Henry Bethe, was a well known bridge expert in NYC who was an ACBL Grand Life Master.

I enjoyed Henry's comments on bridgewinners over the years. I've used his son Paul's lin2pbn.py python program for reading lin files. From the looks of it, he is a very talented programmer.

[pilowsky]

I enjoyed Henry's comments on bridgewinners over the years. I've used his son Paul's lin2pbn.py python program for reading lin files. From the looks of it, he is a very talented programmer.

 

Speaking of six degrees of separation - he said hijacking the hijacked thread - I just learned that Anderson Cooper is a descendant of Cornelius Vanderbilt.

[y66]

Let’s say that you are on the dark web looking for material nonpublic information about public companies, as one does on the dark web. You encounter a guy. He tells you that his name is “MillionaireMike” and he has a hot tip about a company. “This is from my buddy on the inside,” he tells you. You are intrigued. You arrange a small test trade. It works; things look promising. “Okay,” you say, “I will trade on your inside information, and we’ll split the profits.” MillionaireMike comes to you with a can’t-miss tip. “This is totally 100% illegal inside information,” he assures you. You make the trade. It pays off handsomely. You are rich. You send him his share of the profits (in Bitcoin, because this is the dark web and you are doing crimes). You are a satisfied customer.

 

Later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation contacts you. “Uh-oh,” you think, because you are sure you have been doing big crimes on the dark web. But what the FBI says surprises you. “We believe you have been the victim of a crime,” they say. “You see,” they explain, “when you thought you were getting illegal material nonpublic information on the dark web, you weren’t. The guy who gave you that information didn’t have a secret illegal source inside the company, and his name wasn’t really MillionaireMike. Instead he was an engineer at SpaceX, and he was doing good fundamental research based on public information, becoming informed enough about companies that he was able to predict their stock-price moves without illegal tips. When he shared his predictions with you, sure, you were getting correct stock predictions that made you rich, but you were nonetheless defrauded, because you were hoping to get illegally rich, and you only got legally rich. You had a right not just to correct stock tips based on good research, but also to real, illegal, material nonpublic information. So we’ve arrested him.”

 

I don’t know, man. I don’t know. Here is a truly hilarious Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice case against James Roland Jones. From the SEC:

 

The Securities and Exchange Commission [Thursday] charged James Roland Jones of Redondo Beach, California, with perpetrating a fraudulent scheme to sell what he called “insider tips” on the dark web. The dark web allows users to access the internet anonymously and, as such, has often been used to host websites and marketplaces that support or promote illegal activity. This is the SEC’s first enforcement action involving alleged securities violations on the dark web.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that, in late 2016 and 2017, Jones accessed various dark web marketplaces, including a website claiming to be an insider trading forum, in search of material, nonpublic information to use for his own securities trading. According to the complaint, in order to gain access to the insider trading forum, Jones lied about possessing material, nonpublic information. By doing so, Jones allegedly gained access to the insider trading forum for a short period, but was unsuccessful in obtaining valuable material, nonpublic information. The complaint further alleges that Jones subsequently devised a scheme to sell purported insider tips to others on the dark web. The SEC alleges that, in the spring of 2017, Jones offered and sold on one of the dark web marketplaces various purported “insider tips” that he falsely described as material, nonpublic information from the insider trading forum or corporate insiders. According to the complaint, several users paying in bitcoin purchased these tips and ultimately traded based on the information Jones provided.

 

The Justice Department press release says “Spacex Engineer Pleads Guilty To Insider Trading.” Did he? He “pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud,” which is in fact the crime you would plead guilty to if you were pleading guilty to insider trading. But that’s because “insider trading” is not its own crime; it is analyzed as a species of securities fraud. This is also a species of securities fraud. But it surely is not insider trading? He … had no … inside information? Like, that is the whole point?

 

It’s a weird species of securities fraud. Here is how the SEC complaint explains it:

 

Jones’s false claims were material. The dark web marketplace users found Jones’s misrepresentations significant enough to pay a fixed amount for the tips or to share their trading profits with Jones. A reasonable investor would also consider the fact that the Jones was not actually providing them with MNPI [material nonpublic information] important in deciding whether to invest in the securities that were the subject of Jones’s purported tips.

Yes! A reasonable insider trader would consider it important, in planning his crime, to know whether he was in fact getting material nonpublic information! The SEC sticks up for reasonable insider traders! It is important for the integrity of the market that people who buy inside information on the dark web actually receive their inside information! I don’t know!

 

I sort of assume that what happened here is that the FBI was trawling the dark web for insider traders, and they found this guy, and they saw him bragging about all his insider trading, and they were like “aha, an insider trader, let’s arrest him,” and they did, and he was like “actually I was making it up, I had no inside information, I’m innocent.” They were momentarily stymied, but they had already filled out all the paperwork; what were they going to do, not arrest him? Then they realized that fake insider trading is just as illegal — is in fact the exact same crime — as real insider trading. It is (so the theory goes) a “scheme to defraud” innocent traders to trade on inside information, and it is certainly a scheme to defraud insider traders to give them fake inside information. The FBI’s work was not wasted. They didn’t even need to change the paperwork.

 

I am perhaps being too generous to Jones. Sometimes he did what I said at the beginning: He made good stock recommendations based on public research and just pretended that they were based on illegal tips:

 

For example, in early 2017, Jones made contact with an individual on the dark web marketplace who had expressed interest in Jones’s purported insider information. After an initial feeling-out process, and a small “test” trade, Jones offered the individual a “tip” that paid off handsomely for both Jones and the individual. Jones had researched a publicly-traded clothing company, and believed that the stock would not follow the overall dip in retail sales in early 2017, because of the overwhelming popularity of the company’s products. In March 2017, Jones then lied to the individual about having MNPI related to the company, accessed the individual’s brokerage account (with the individual’s permission), and purchased shares of the company. Jones’s gamble paid off, and he received approximately $20,000 in Bitcoin from the individual for his purported MNPI.

Sometimes he did more obvious fraud though:

 

In the spring of 2017, Jones listed “insider tips” for sale on one of the dark web marketplaces. Given that Jones did not have access to MNPI, his tips were merely guesses based upon Jones’s own research and speculation. Jones recognized that people would not pay him for his own stock tips, so he falsely described them as MNPI obtained from the ITF and/or corporate insiders.

Jones’s “tips” were typically general predictions that a stock would go up or down, and Jones would sometimes sell tips for the same stock in both directions. In the event his false tips did not pan out, Jones offered to give the next tip for free if the disappointed purchaser would leave a good review for Jones on the dark web site.

 

He definitely swindled people, but they definitely deserved to be swindled. Or here is this:

 

In late 2016, Jones came across a wiki-page in one of the dark web marketplaces that listed various website addresses on the dark web, including a website for an insider trading forum (“ITF”). The listing described the ITF as an anonymous forum where participants exchanged MNPI about various publicly-traded companies. The ITF’s subtitle was: “The community for exchanging Insider Information about the (sic) Publicly Traded Companies.”

The ITF rules state that its main goal is to create “a long-term and well-selected community of gentlemen who confidently exchange insider information about publicly-traded companies.” The ITF rules further state that in the U.S. and many other countries insider trading is illegal, and that the security and the anonymity of its members is the highest priority.

 

To gain access to the ITF, users were required to demonstrate that they possessed MNPI. The ITF’s moderators would determine if the insider information was genuine and, if so, grant access to the forum.

 

Jones attempted to gain access to the ITF by lying to ITF moderators and members by guessing certain earnings metrics on various issuers before earnings releases. The first few times he guessed, Jones’s predictions were incorrect. After each incorrect guess, Jones created a new email account and tried again. On his third attempt, Jones correctly guessed the upcoming earnings per share for a home building company. Jones misrepresented to ITF’s moderators that his information came from a friend who worked at the company, and the moderators granted Jones access to the ITF.

 

He pleaded guilty, but if I were him I would have vigorously protested my innocence.[1] “No no no, you’ve got it all wrong,” I’d say. “I am a hero. I infiltrated the dark web insider trading forum to reform it, to turn it into a law-abiding stock picks website. My dream was for the ITF to become a long-term and well-selected community of gentlemen who confidently exchange ideas and due diligence about publicly traded companies to hone their research skills and make money without ever violating the law. I knew that I’d face resistance if I just came in saying that, so I started with a little white lie. But I made the insider trading forum better, in the sense that it did a bit less insider trading after I came along. Where’s the harm in that?”

 

[1] It goes without saying that this is not legal advice! In general it is not a defense to criminal charges to say “well sure I did a crime, but I only did it to criminals, so that doesn’t count.”

[Winstonm]

In U.S. politics, the horror risk right now is not Joe Manchin and his resistance to filibuster reform and workarounds - the true horror would be Joe Manchin switching parties.

[y66]

What can we learn from cats?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/t-magazine/ai-weiwei-cats.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20210414&instance_id=29210&nl=the-morning&regi_id=59211987&segment_id=55537&te=1&user_id=2d8b72dd84a9ff194896ed87b2d9c72a

[Winstonm]

What can we learn from cats?

 

https://www.nytimes....896ed87b2d9c72a

 

Daylight

I must wait for the sunrise

I must think of a new life

And I mustn't give in

When the dawn comes,

tonight will be a memory too

And a new day will begin

[y66]

Macavity: The Mystery Cat

 

by T. S. Eliot

 

Macavity’s a Mystery Cat: he’s called the Hidden Paw—

For he’s the master criminal who can defy the Law.

He’s the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squad’s despair:

For when they reach the scene of crime—Macavity’s not there!

 

Macavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity,

He’s broken every human law, he breaks the law of gravity.

His powers of levitation would make a fakir stare,

And when you reach the scene of crime—Macavity’s not there!

You may seek him in the basement, you may look up in the air—

But I tell you once and once again, Macavity’s not there!

 

Macavity’s a ginger cat, he’s very tall and thin;

You would know him if you saw him, for his eyes are sunken in.

His brow is deeply lined with thought, his head is highly domed;

His coat is dusty from neglect, his whiskers are uncombed.

He sways his head from side to side, with movements like a snake;

And when you think he’s half asleep, he’s always wide awake.

 

Macavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity,

For he’s a fiend in feline shape, a monster of depravity.

You may meet him in a by-street, you may see him in the square—

But when a crime’s discovered, then Macavity’s not there!

 

He’s outwardly respectable. (They say he cheats at cards.)

And his footprints are not found in any file of Scotland Yard’s.

And when the larder’s looted, or the jewel-case is rifled,

Or when the milk is missing, or another Peke’s been stifled,

Or the greenhouse glass is broken, and the trellis past repair—

Ay, there’s the wonder of the thing! Macavity’s not there!

 

And when the Foreign Office find a Treaty’s gone astray,

Or the Admiralty lose some plans and drawings by the way,

There may be a scrap of paper in the hall or on the stair—

But it’s useless to investigate—Macavity’s not there!

And when the loss has been disclosed, the Secret Service say:

‘It must have been Macavity!’—but he’s a mile away.

You’ll be sure to find him resting, or a-licking of his thumbs;

Or engaged in doing complicated long division sums.

 

Macavity, Macavity, there’s no one like Macavity,

There never was a Cat of such deceitfulness and suavity.

He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:

At whatever time the deed took place—MACAVITY WASN’T THERE!

And they say that all the Cats whose wicked deeds are widely known

(I might mention Mungojerrie, I might mention Griddlebone)

Are nothing more than agents for the Cat who all the time

Just controls their operations: the Napoleon of Crime!

[shyams]

A friend recently stated on our classmates WhatsApp group that his son is more intelligent (IQ) than three other kids combined.

 

Another person retorted that --- assuming the other 3 kids have at least average IQ --- it is impossible for 'boy-wonder' to have a 300+ IQ i.e. my friend's remarks are full of hot air. To which my friend (who I have known to be very intelligent) responded "LOL, you don't ADD IQs, you only ADD standard deviations". Apparently his son has an IQ of 149 (more than 3 SD above average). So he set about convincing others that he won the argument.

 

Does that sound right to you all? Please opine :)

 

PS: I post out of curiosity; I was not the one who challenged the friend's assertions or subsequent logic.

[Zelandakh]

Does that sound right to you all? Please opine :)

He is right but he is also wrong. It is correct that it is wrong to say that someone with an IQ of 150 is twice as intelligent as a person of 75 IQ but he is wrong about the standard deviations. IQ uses an ordinal scale based on an assumed underlying normal distribution. In particular, the mean is set to 100 and the standard deviation to 15. There are a number of reasons why a concept such as "twice as intelligent" just does not make much sense. IQ encompasses a range of factors and has correlations with many different areas of life. The exact relationship varies and there are always many other factors involved so that IQ alone is often of questionable value. But quite aside from that, mathematically it only makes sense to say that A is twice B if they are measured on a zeroed scale. Since IQ is not such a scale, you simply cannot use it as the basis for such a statement. What you can do, and what is often done, is to convert the IQ to a percentage and say that the person is in the top (bottom) X percentile of the population. This arguably sound more impressive too - 149 is in the top 0.1% while average (100) is obviously the 50th percentile. Most of all though, he should stop being an elitist jerk and understand that a high IQ is not automatically a plus and is associated with such matters as a low attention span, struggling in academic areas that do no interest the person and class disruption. Bottom line: if you bring your child up badly, the chances are that they will not be successful as an adult whatever their raw IQ score.

[pilowsky]

...

Bottom line: if you bring your child up badly, the chances are that they will not be successful as an adult whatever their raw IQ score.

If that's the "bottom line", then I'm sorry to hear about your upbringing.

If you would be kind enough to explain the difference between a good and bad upbringing - a problem that has baffled parents for centuries - I'm sure we'll all be interested.

When Alfred Binet introduced the IQ test, it had only one purpose - to assess the likelihood of success in high school.

If you equate the likelihood of success in High School with intelligence, then, well, you are 3 times less intelligent than the person you are talking to.

As illustrated in this example, IQ testing provides the opportunity for children to engage in pointless competitions about "intelligence" at a time in their lives when many of them are terribly concerned about how clever they are and their place in the world.

[Winstonm]

Chauvin trial verdict is in, guilty on all counts.

 

I think this is right and fair but I have no happiness about the verdict; instead, I feel sad and sickened by the whole episode and feel sorry for everyone involved. But that does not bring back George Floyd.

[johnu]

Chauvin trial verdict is in, guilty on all counts.

 

I think this is right and fair but I have no happiness about the verdict; instead, I feel sad and sickened by the whole episode and feel sorry for everyone involved. But that does not bring back George Floyd.

 

Without multiple video sources that showed exactly what happened, it's a near certainty that Chauvin would have been found not guilty. Even with conclusive video, is there anybody who didn't have doubts that Chauvin would escape justice?

[Zelandakh]

If that's the "bottom line", then I'm sorry to hear about your upbringing.

Sorry, what? Are you trolling here or just being unbelievably obnoxious?

 

If you equate the likelihood of success in High School with intelligence, then, well, you are 3 times less intelligent than the person you are talking to.

I was talking to shyams. While I value shyam's intelligent comment here on BBF, I would like to hear your justification for the above statement. Or was it just a continuation of the previous rubbish?

[y66]

Was very happy to see this statement from my County Board which was emailed to the whole county today.

 

Arlington County Board Statement on the Derek Chauvin Verdict

 

The Arlington County Board commends the Minneapolis jurors for returning a guilty verdict in the Derek Chauvin murder trial and joins others around the nation in relief. The shocking video of George Floyd’s death at the hands of Chauvin while other officers stood by and failed to intervene, showed the disregard for and devaluing of Black lives that is too common. The Board hopes that today’s verdict is a step forward in dismantling the systemic racism that pervades life throughout our nation.

 

We know that Arlington is not exempt from this racism and its impacts, and we renew our commitment to addressing those inequities and creating a culture of caring and respect. We are proud to live in a vibrant, diverse and inclusive community that champions human and civil rights, and while we know there is more work to be done, we are inspired by the efforts of Arlington community members and leaders who strengthen us as a whole.

[thepossum]

A friend recently stated on our classmates WhatsApp group that his son is more intelligent (IQ) than three other kids combined.

 

.....

 

Please opine :)

 

 

I avoid any organisation/group whose members pride themselves in being in the top percentile/fraction of a percentile of anything

 

Other than that a rhetorical statement to the effect that X is worth more than/better than the rest of them combined is a not unreasonable statement in itself

 

But following on what Zel said, I am curious as what we can use as our baseline standard for zero intelligence :) - and before anyone embarks on political insults or slanging matches I'm thinking along the lines of rocks/bricks

 

On the broader subject of attempts to select/predict based on various measures I'm too tired to even think - but it was almost unnecessary to even consider and explain the high correlation between IQ and various selection processes/tests

 

But in case its not obvious from my comments, while I know different types of tests are useful for various reasons I have an intense dislike of people making a big thing about any of them. But at one time of my life I think I was in the top fraction of a percentile of something :)

 

As Zelandakh said (and I cant remember what I studied about it all), from recollection IQ was restricted to children, it was age relative and was not intended at concepts of merit which people have unfortunately tacked on. For people to brag about their IQ is a meaningless thing. Although I would have liked to take one of the variants for adults such as WAIS to see how my aging brain stacks up these days :) I am currently reading about someone I had previously never heard of and her record for many years as having the highest recorded IQ until IQ tests started to be challenged as reliable measures. I must admit though, despite my disdain, that for a few minutes of my life I did check a few high IQ societies but some of them had much too broad selection criteria, and some seemed ridiculously impossible/unfeasible and I didn't fancy my chances :)

[y66]

Fun read: Tyler Cowen in conversation with Shadi Bartsch

[y66]

From Margaret Renkl at NYT:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/opinion/cicadas-brood-x-2021.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

 

NASHVILLE — Deep beneath the spring-warmed soil, a great thrumming force is beginning to stir. Trillions strong, these insects have been living in the dark since George W. Bush’s first term as president. Now they are ready for the light. They are climbing out of the darkness, out of their own skins and into the trees. They are here to sing a love song. Their only purpose among the green leaves is love.

 

Well, it’s not singing so much as vibrating. And not love so much as sex. Their only purpose among us is to mate.

 

There are more than 3,000 species of cicadas worldwide, and they can be divided into roughly two groups. Annual cicadas surface every summer, much later in the year than the cicadas emerging now. The song of annual cicadas is an undulation, a pulsating chant that rises in waves as one cicada begins and others join in, and join in, and join in before falling off gradually, one after another. The song of annual cicadas is the sound of summer itself.

 

Periodic cicadas emerge in cycles — every 13 years or every 17 — and they are generally smaller than their annual cousins. Grouped according to their emergence in a particular area, each brood of periodic cicadas is identified by a Roman numeral. Brood X includes three species with synchronized life spans. It is one of the largest and most widespread of the cicada broods.

 

For the past 17 years, these insects have lived as nymphs deep beneath the soil, drinking sap from tree roots. For the past week, they have been emerging in much of the eastern South — Georgia, East Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia — and they will arrive soon in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest. Look for them when the soil eight inches deep reaches a temperature of 64 degrees. (If you’re in Brood X’s range, you can be part of a citizen-science project that tracks their emergence.)

 

After a year of weather calamities and pandemic shutdowns, people are already muttering about the apocalypse, but this, mercifully, is a natural occurrence, not a biblical plague. Cicadas are not locusts. They don’t even belong to the same order of insects as locusts. Cicadas don’t strip fields of every grain of rice or wheat, as swarming locusts do. Cicadas don’t sting, and they don’t bite. The strawlike appendage they have instead of a mouth works only for inserting into tree bark. Cicadas don’t even hurt the trees. (Not the mature trees, at any rate; saplings should be protected with cheesecloth before the cicadas emerge.)

 

The life cycle of the cicada is unique among insects. A nymph tunnels up from deep in the soil, climbs onto a tree trunk or a plant stem — or anything else it can reach that offers a bit of vertical clearance — and then commences to shed its exoskeleton as dramatically and beautifully as any butterfly emerging from a chrysalis. The new adult appears white, almost translucent, but its armor hardens and darkens as the hours pass. Its eyes turn red. Its intricate wings unfurl.

 

And then it takes to the treetops, where the males begin to sing and the females have their choice of suitors. After they mate, the female deposits her eggs into slits she makes in the bark of tender shoots. When the eggs hatch, the nymphs drop to the ground and burrow into the soil, beginning their lives in the dark. The adults live four to six weeks before they, too, fall to the ground, returning to the earth for a new purpose.

 

Owing to their mind-numbing numbers — up to 1.5 million per acre — periodic cicadas are louder than summer cicadas, less like a chorus and more like a fire hose blasted directly into your ear canal. At the height of the emergence, the sound appears to come from everywhere and nowhere at once, vibrating in the bones of your ears and in the fillings of your teeth. The sound can feel like a form of madness.

 

The relentless buzzing, the red eyes — perhaps they explain why so many of the headlines about this phenomenon default to negative metaphors. It’s an “invasion,” according to ABC News, an “infestation,” according to CBS.

 

It’s no such thing.

 

The most destructive species the earth has ever known likely emerged some 315,000 years ago, and we have not stopped roaming and eating and pillaging for one minute since. Cicadas, by contrast, benefit the ecosystems into which they emerge, a boon to hungry birds and reptiles and a huge range of mammals. Fish eat them when they fall into streams and lakes. After cicadas die, they decompose and feed the very trees that hosted their brief days in the sun.

 

Nashville is not in Brood X’s range, but I have lived through two emergences of Brood XIX, a periodic cicada on the 13-year schedule, and I’m jealous of all of you whose skies will soon be blurred by wings and whose trees will be filled with song. At a time when wildlife is being threatened by human activity from every side, your baby birds and possums and lizards and snakes and turtles will grow strong, fed on the cicadas’ bounty. Your hawks and owls and foxes will live this year because their prey has become bountiful, too. And you will be surrounded by reminders that the darkest tunnels always bend, in time, toward the light. That resurrection is always, always at hand.

[y66]

You call that a crack?

 

Story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/us/mississippi-bridge-crack-memphis.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-uh-lastthismonth-alpha-01&block=more_in_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=417907488&impression_id=b8312412-b5ad-11eb-bced-2984d7aa3509&index=5&pgtype=Article&pool=pool%2F6f6007c7-e76e-4ea2-b6a9-8e533e17975a&region=footer&req_id=544385442&surface=more-in-us-news&variant=7_bandit-all-surfaces-uh-lastthismonth-alpha-01

[Winstonm]

You call that a crack?

 

Story here: https://www.nytimes....smonth-alpha-01

 

[shyams]

The latest exposé of how the BBC deceived Princess Diana appears to have rocked the foundation of the institution.

* I don't recall any member of the Royal family ever use such pointed language to criticise anyone -- words like "deceitful" and "incompetence" are powerful and potent, and probably unprecedented.

* It is also highly unusual for a member of the Royal family to directly address the cameras instead of issuing a written statement (

).

 

I fear the end is nigh for the BBC. It might take many years, but it does feel like the dismantling of this global institution is highly probably.

 

I would like to thank Lord Dyson and his team for the report.It is welcome that the BBC accepts Lord Dyson’s findings in full - which are extremely concerning - that BBC employees:

- lied and used fake documents to obtain the interview with my mother;

- made lurid and false claims about the Royal Family which played on her fears and fuelled paranoia;

- displayed woeful incompetence when investigating complaints and concerns about the programme; and

- were evasive in their reporting to the media and covered up what they knew from their internal investigation.

 

It is my view that the deceitful way the interview was obtained substantially influenced what my mother said.

 

The interview was a major contribution to making my parents’ relationship worse and has since hurt countless others. It brings indescribable sadness to know that the BBC’s failures contributed significantly to her fear, paranoia and isolation that I remember from those final years with her.

 

But what saddens me most, is that if the BBC had properly investigated the complaints and concerns first raised in 1995, my mother would have known that she had been deceived. She was failed not just by a rogue reporter, but by leaders at the BBC who looked the other way rather than asking the tough questions.

 

It is my firm view that this Panorama programme [bashir's interview of Princess Diana] holds no legitimacy and should never be aired again. It effectively established a false narrative which, for over a quarter of a century, has been commercialised by the BBC and others.

 

This settled narrative now needs to be addressed by the BBC and anyone else who has written or intends to write about these events. In an era of fake news, public service broadcasting and a free press have never been more important.

 

These failings, identified by investigative journalists, not only let my mother down, and my family down; they let the public down too.