I had a feeling it was mostly bad reporting. I appreciate you confirming it.
I had a feeling it was mostly bad reporting. I appreciate you confirming it.
Who is researching this topic without losing sleep, and who reports on this crap in such a blasé manner lol.
It copies the alexrainbird video’s font style making this such a good parody lol
I was surprised to see Robert Evans as a rolling stone writer. I love his podcasts. Article was a great read.
Speculation, but also no shit Sherlock if it is true, if a chihuahua bites you you can punt it across the room. You can’t do the same with a stocky pitbull.
Imagine being this vocally stupid
You cannot separate Zionism from the formation of the state of Israel and how the history of the conflict has been shaped since.
In order to obtain a more holistic perspective of the conflict people need to know about Zionism, it’s history, and how it currently affects Israeli leadership.
There are still people alive on both sides that lived through Zionist conflicts with the British Mandate and the Nakba.
peer reviewed properly
Is the important bit here. The timeline from that Wikipedia article shows it was published in 2005 and work disproving it’s claim came around in 2006.
If a scientists work is retracted it really kills any more funding they receive. They use examples like the DRBG one as what not to be.
I know someone in this field and sent him this article. He said the “NIST isn’t being transparent” claim isn’t true
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=927303 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/NIST.IR.8309.pdf https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934458
He also responded with “of course the NSA would try and mess with it, but if it’s peer reviewed properly I don’t see how they would be successful”
What instance? How do I avoid such horrors on my daily feed?
Imagine wanting something to change and then voting for a right-wing explicitly stated Conservative Party.