I would predict that the more tied to a political platform or movement, the more misinformation. For example, when basic science about the pandemic became political (at least in the US) then misinformation about it blossomed.

My parents live in a rural red county. They got COVID (verified by at home testing) about a month ago. They were planning on just toughing it out, but I bullied them into at least contacting their primary care physician to inform them and under the assumption the PCP would report the result. The PCP requested no lab testing or anything though, and I have no idea if they reported the cases or not.

If you haven't done so yet, it's probably a good idea to check around for COVID booster and flu vaccine.

That this was ruled not entrapment isn't very surprising or notable. I found this interesting though:

>"Given the potential of online investigations to impact many more individuals than an equivalent investigation in a physical space, the nature of those impacts deserve scrutiny," the ruling said. "How the police act on the Internet may matter as much or more as where they act."

It's good to see courts acknowledge that modern times are different, and we should re-evaluate our old ideas about law to see if it makes sense to still apply them in the same manner or if they should be updated.

> "I propose designating the European Parliament as a sponsor of idiocy," Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote on Telegram.

"The jerk store called. They're running out of you!"

For clarity, the results say those two factors are the strongest indicators for the set-point of daily alertness, i.e. how alert you will eventually be. Not how quickly you get to your set-point in the morning.

In other words, happier and older people will be the more alert than unhappier younger people. How they slept, how much exercise they get and their breakfast data will direct how quickly they get there.

That's what defines matter: it interacts via gravity. Other interactions are different for every other type of particle we know about. Some particles interact through some mechanisms and others don't, but they all interact through gravity.

Meanwhile, modifcations have been blanket ruled out, not individually. Dark matter has been measured in so many different ways, we have been able to say that no modified theory of gravity could explain all of those measurements.

Not true. Dark matter is just defined as matter that we can't see but otherwise behaves like matter, and that fixes all of the various measurements. Meanwhile, modified gravity doesn't. You can make a modification that tries to explain one measurement, but then it fails to fix a separate measurement, and often make problems worse, like the proverbial floorboard that gets hammered down on one end and the other end pops back up.

And that's not my opinion, that's what the actual publications routinely find.

If you're arguing for a modified theory of gravity, lots of people have tried that, and lots of various measurements have set forth extremely good evidence that modified theories of gravity can't fix the problems. Meanwhile dark matter can.

Oh. "Sources on Snopes containing misinformation" sounded like you were saying Snopes contains misinformation.

What I wrote is exactly what my top comment was trying to say. Find false stories (through Snopes), search Reddit for (people spreading those) false stores (for various reasons, which is what the paper is about... what are the reasons they shared them)

What? No. It started with Snopes, found ones labeled false, chose ones provably false (according to the researcher's statements elsewhere in this thread), then it searched for people who were sharing the misinformation.

Right there.

>We started with stories marked as false by a popular fact checker, Snopes, and identified people who posted those stories on Reddit.

Which is perfectly in line with your quoted portions.

I've found when there's not enough information Snopes is very good at pointing out there's not enough information. It sounds like you disagree with that?

Do you not trust the OP who said "the specific stories in the study were not borderline—they were provably wrong"?

A lot of the comments in here need to read at least the Abstract. Seems many are assuming an order of operations that is backwards from what this study actually did.

This study did not see a story and then go to Snopes to find out if the story was true or not. This study started with false stories and then found those who were sharing those false stories. As one of the authors have already said in these comments, "the specific stories in the study were not borderline—they were provably wrong."

> not really enough information is provided for many of the descriptions to actually determine the validity of the story

You're saying you think Snopes is wrong to label at least some of those stories as fact-checked to be found false?

It is certainly true that it's far more likely to be a Christian doing something like this, but ultimately they're the same thing.

Radical Islam isn't liberal, or moderate.

I think the comment you just replied to was agreeing with you, assuming your initial comment was sarcastic (but on reddit it's hard to know).

North Carolina also, or somewhere else?

And good for you on reporting them.

That's not the part I found unclear. I meant the difference between "immunity agreement" and "granted immunity".

I'm not sure I understand the difference.

Given DePape is a QAnon believer and promoter, his specific goals could be anything up to and including QAnon's ultimate goals: Trump and his supporters performing a coordinated US-centric (but worldwide) takeover of political and military power, rounding up and executing all that he feels oppose him, and installing him as the ultimate despot/autocrat/dictator. Presumably the answers DePape would have demanded "the truth" of from Pelosi involved the Q beliefs that she is part of a secret cabal that tortures children and extracts their "adrenochrome" to be consumed in their satanic orgies.

"Ex-officer" is ambiguous. Were they a former officer, who then committed a crime, or did they commit the crime as an officer, and afterwards get fired.

In addition to being ambiguous, news standards did not use the "ex-" modifier regularly. They used it for certain groups like (ex-)officers and (ex-)military who committed an act while in that role, and were later fired, but not for other groups like, say, truckdrivers. In other words, even if a truckdriver was later fired, the headlines would still refer to them as "truck driver who did X" and not "ex-truck driver."

Emphasis mine:

>The FBI affidavit filed with the complaint said: “DePape stated that he was going to hold Nancy hostage and talk to her. If Nancy were to tell DePape the ‘truth,’ he would let her go, and if she ‘lied,’ he was going to break ‘her kneecaps.’”

>“DePape was certain that Nancy would not have told the ‘truth,’” the FBI affidavit said.

>The affidavit further stated DePape told police that Nancy Pelosi was the “leader of the pack” of lies promoted by the Democratic Party. DePape told police that other members of Congress would see that there are consequences to their actions when Pelosi, with broken kneecaps, would get “wheeled into” the House chamber, according to the affidavit.

Top google result for the definition of "terrorism" is: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Other than the "especially against civilians" portion, the rest of that sounds exactly like what DePape's own words are describing.