WyIted

I understand how you said it can be cracked. It's not signal being cracked so much as the users credentials. So I would agree that if you allow your credentials to get stolen you are vulnerable but there is no system that can prevent that. If your credentials get stolen you can capture the data with a Man in the middle attack and decrypt it anyway in a replay attack.

You are essentially supposed to have 2 separate Operating systems on the phone. One for secure communication and one that's less locked down than normal. Now I can't imagine that big publications don't have cyber security professionals on stand by given that if they leak information from people in vulnerable locations. Such as whistleblowers in the Iranian government, it can literally cause their sources to be killed.

You can make email more secure but nobody can crack signal not even state level actors. 

They actually are. Journalists can have access to the same stuff. I would say the government can hack more things than a civilian but as far as secure communication is concerned. I can secure my communications as well as the government can. 

There is a reason the Europeans are trying to ban cryptography. They don't like the fact we can secure communication and they can't penetrate it.

There is a myth that the government has stronger encrypted apps than what they actually do. They don't have anything stronger than signal. Open source is always going to be stronger than anything proprietary because literally millions of people are looking for exploits in open source software. 

Why don't you ask AI for an alternative to Signal for group chat that is stronger. Matthew crooks was using similar messaging apps probably to communicate with foreign adversaries and the best hackers in the world. The ones who work for the United States government are unable to crack those messaging apps to see what or who Matthew crooks was communicating with. 

The apps he used BTW are probably less secure than signal

Signal is pretty locked down. Even state level actors have not been able to penetrate it, which is why government officials have been told to use it in lieu of text messages.

That's fair but honestly journalists should have phones that are resilient to exploitation by being password protected, encrypted and enabled with remote wiped ability to protect whistle blowers who would be tracked by state level threat actors. 

I have nothing to add to anything else you said. Those seem like fair criticisms. I kind of trust them to be playing chess but the criticisms are fair

So this went off without approval from the big guy? WTF?

I assume he's an uncle tom

There is already a thread for this.

Stop creating multiple threads for the same topic

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12495-leaks

Nothing in that text hurt the United states. I wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional and really meant to be seen by the Europeans. Vance statement that he hates to bail out Europe again seems planted. That's not how people normally talk behind the scenes. Most professionals would order the attack and not mention they hated the europoors needing bailed out. Maybe they would mention it in public after but not in private. 

Essentially either waltz is a traitor who needs fired or this was intentional because they were confident in Goldbergs journalistic integrity to wait for the attack before publishing as a message to Europoors

What do you think of my plan

 If accidentally included in the texts I would change my name to Donald Trump and order nukes on television Aviv?

Also you are right. Waltz should be fired. What is he doing with Goldberg on his contact list on signal anyway?

Was he already leaking information to him prior?

No they aren't classified now it's all public knowledge the conversation happened before the actual strikes though 

Everyone in that chat made an error for not reading the included names. Walz made the biggest error by allowing an unauthorized Jew into the chat though.

I am pretty sure this conversation took hours or days not minutes and if I was in the chat after I changed my name to Donald Trump in the chat and ordered them to nuke Israel, assuming they didn't nuke Israel I would let them know they made a mistake so they would remove me, but yes as a journalist I would still report on their fuck up after the strikes occurred. 

Bro that sounds faggy as fuck. You are sus.

I guess one concern is the team is operating a bit around Trump but I think it's understood this term that Trump is really there just to be a tie breaker for warring factions of the party and to rubber stamp stuff from the various factions when they agree. The tech faction has no interest in foreign policy except when it comes to acquiring and controlling rare minerals to keep a competitive edge in Artificial intelligence.

You know what those emojis mean 

It's time to talk about it. A Jewish journalist decided to leak classified details of a chat he was accidentally included in. 

If I was in the chat I personally would have immediately informed them that they are sharing sensitive information with me but I guess Goldberg doesn't care or the leak was intentional just for funsies since nothing really incriminating was in the leaks. 

Or the leaks are fake which is also possible. Anyway the chat took place on signal which is secure and I am sure that high level politicians like this have their phones remote wiped and locked down in the event the phones are lost or stolen so the only security slip was including a journalist in the chat but it's not that insecure since the guy probably doesn't want to lose access by leaking the. Chat prior to the operation mentioned. 

Anyway thought I would start the thread to see everyone's thoughts .

👊🇺🇲🔥

If this game is taking a back seat and you are going to hold us back than I think you should role claim.

It seems like you are saying that2 is town. How could you know that? 

I have to think about this .

Bro let's get some action. I know technically the game started overnight but the work day has been over for like an hour and we have no action from you

I am sick of scum always having at least one member with a low post count and they survive deep into the game just because they are flying under the radar. 

I think that2 needs to full claim because we will be lucky to get 2 posts a dp out of them and then maybe we can get characters from some others with low post counts at the very least.

Dude I read the Wikipedia and I think you are confused. I am also slightly annoyed that you are trying to get me to narrow down my character further for some reason.

So this show has only one token black person and it's putted my character. WTF?

Just so this doesn't bite me in the ass later. By not human I mean I don't consider blacks human.

I am a male, but not human. I am actually black.

I would be happy as fuck if we started doing this. 

It's long overdue

I isolated my point to a single statement you made in attempting to support a larger point. I never disputed your conclusion or stated an opinion on it

Deep seek opinion below

The question of whether investing in the stock market (with an 8% return) is better than paying into Social Security involves trade-offs between **risk, guarantees, and ancillary benefits**. Here's a structured analysis:

### **1. Key Differences Between Social Security and Stock Market Investing**
- **Social Security**:
  - A government-managed program providing **lifetime inflation-adjusted income**, disability/survivor benefits, and longevity insurance.
  - Benefits are calculated based on lifetime earnings, not market returns.
  - Funded by a **12.4% payroll tax** (split between employer/employee; 6.2% each).
  - Progressively structured: Lower-income earners receive proportionally higher benefits relative to contributions.

- **Stock Market**:
  - Historically averages **~7–10% nominal returns** (or ~5–7% after inflation).
  - Requires self-management, exposes investors to **volatility and sequence-of-returns risk**.
  - No insurance protections (e.g., disability, survivor benefits).

---

### **2. Hypothetical Scenario: Comparing Returns**
Assume a worker earning **$50,000/year** invests their 6.2% payroll tax ($3,100/year) in the stock market at **8% nominal returns** over 30 years:
- **Future Value**:  
  Using the annuity formula:  
  `FV = $3,100 × [(1.08^30 – 1)/0.08] ≈ $351,175` (pre-tax).  
  At a 4% withdrawal rate, this provides **~$14,000/year** (pre-tax).

- **Social Security Benefits**:  
  For a $50,000 earner, benefits replace **~40% of pre-retirement income** ($20,000/year), adjusted for inflation and guaranteed for life.

**Comparison**:
- Social Security provides **higher annual income** ($20k vs. $14k) and adjusts for inflation. However:
  - Stock investments could grow further if not fully spent, allowing for wealth transfer to heirs.
  - Social Security’s value increases with longevity (e.g., living past 85).

---

### **3. Critical Considerations**
- **Risk**:  
  - Social Security is **risk-free**; stock returns are volatile. A market downturn near retirement could devastate savings.
  - Social Security includes **disability/survivor protections** (valued at ~$500k for a median earner).

- **Progressivity**:  
  - Low-income earners often receive **better "returns"** from Social Security than the stock market. High earners may fare worse.

- **Taxes and Employer Contributions**:  
  - Ignoring the employer’s 6.2% understates Social Security’s funding. If both portions are invested (12.4%), the stock portfolio would double.

- **Inflation**:  
  - An 8% **nominal** return (~5–6% real) reduces purchasing power over time, whereas Social Security is inflation-indexed.

---

### **4. When Might Stocks Be Better?**
- **High earners** with longer investment horizons and risk tolerance.
- **Shorter lifespans** (allows heirs to inherit remaining funds).
- If **additional insurance** (e.g., private disability insurance) is purchased separately.

---

### **5. When Is Social Security Better?**
- **Low/middle-income earners** (due to progressive benefits).
- **Risk-averse individuals** seeking guaranteed income.
- **Long-lived retirees** (outliving savings is mitigated).
- Those valuing **built-in insurance** (disability, spousal, survivor benefits).

---

### **Conclusion**
While the stock market *could* provide higher returns for some, Social Security’s **guaranteed, inflation-adjusted lifetime income** and **insurance protections** make it irreplaceable for most. The two systems are complementary: Social Security provides a safety net, while personal investments enhance flexibility. Forced participation in Social Security ensures societal risk-sharing, which individual investing cannot replicate.

Well my opinion is it should be privatized but that's only because I know I can make bigger returns with my money than the feds do

I am only responding to the following point

Making 8% returns is not losing your shirt, and I have no opinion on your broader argument just correcting something I see as wrong.

The stock market averages 8% a year. Warren buffet wasn't saying people can't beat the stock market as discouragement from investing. He was saying to park your money in an index fund like the S&P 500 and just let the stock market do the work for you. 

Gaining 8% a year doesn't mean you lost. 8% beats inflation.

That's what I'm doing actually. I want to post occasionally but that's it. I thought I would give some advice to improve the conversation a bit before pulling back but it looks like the advice will be ignored.

In/ 

Only because it's whiteflame first game. This doesn't mean I'm back though

It sounds like you are trying to make things less fun for me by having me look at facts. Also congrats for the nomination. It's well deserved

It may have helped me that I only read whiteflame first few votes and Danielle taught me that at LYLO the one who comes out with large posts is always scum. She told me to not even second guess that. I may have second guessed it though had I read Earth's posts

It was pretty obvious pie was town but it didn't matter if he wasn't and I wanted to give the impression my role was unlimited.

I didn't want to waste a cop on an obviously innocent person and didn't want town distracting themselves speculating he was guilty

Please show the final vote count so I can call everyone who didn't vote against whiteflame an idiot. I wasn't following the game and got my vote correct. No excuses

To avoid triggering ADOL

He calls it bestiality because apparently beastiality is the best. Beastiality triggers him.

*Approved of signing it

This is simple. It should be signed by hand but won't judges literally just ask Biden if he signed it. If he is found to be competent to answer than what he says should be taken at face value if he is not found to be competent the Pardons should be thrown out

Bro I posted a goodbye thread. That means goodbye. Putting my vote in in a minute based entirely on what a faintly recall from DP1 and DP2.

Let's see. By the way only back for today to nominate somebody for my write up

You haven't read enough if you think this. She criticizes modern society for not being meritocratic enough. I don't think she would advocate for a perfect meritocracy either as that would result in some ugly things as well. We have a right to give our property and jobs to unworthy people if we want according to Rand.

Have you read Atlas shrugged where she shows very competent people in poverty and very stupid people with control of large mega corporations?

It seems you are strawmanning her ideology TBH.

Anyone who voted or nominated mine can do a write up if they want.

This is Goodbye, but I don't want to leave you with nothing and I guess I can explain why, but if you don't care why than just skip to the advice portion of this.

The site doesn't serve me anymore. MY goals aren't aligned with the site. This is essentially a social media site. I am no longer getting anything from it. I can divert my attention to another social media or different social media sites where I can accidentally pick up knowledge in areas better suited to improving my life. 

This is just a handful of things that can help you. Use this site correctly to improve your thinking. The point of threads that you create isn't to get your point of view across or to defend a point. The purposes of engaging in a thread or engaging in one is to look at your logical process. Unfortunately people too often will look at your conclusion and argue with that instead of looking at your argument and how you made it. I would urge you to help the site and others by avoiding debating the conclusion of the creator of a thread and by helping them improve their logic whether you agree or disagree with their conclusions. When you create a thread it shouldn't be a thread about the views you are most certain about. It should be threads where you have an intuitive sense that there is something wrong with your logical process. It's occasionally fine to post what you know about if you want to educate people on a topic you are an expert in, but it shouldn't be your main focus. For example there is real weak areas on the site currently where you have a lack of expert level knowledge on foreign policy or economics. Sometimes I get in the mood where I just force myself to read through 100 studies on a topic and have made myself an expert on energy policy through this method as well as through police tactics and yet you rarely if ever see me share knowledge on these things unless I actually see somebody say anything explicitly incorrect. The reason is because I gain nothing by sharing this knowledge. 

-------------------------------------------

Now that we have discussed how you should use this site I want to share a tool with helping your thinking, more specifically in regards to building a personal philosophy that can survive even when the world changes. 

This mental trick is called "Least convenient world". Say for example that you believe that freedom of speech is inherently good. This probably comes with some parts of a world view that you aren't consciously aware of. SO how do you create a world that would make that belief extremely inconvenient. What comes to my mind is the existence of "cognito hazards" . These are essentially ideals that maybe if you thought them would result in extreme damage Maybe the thought itself could make your head explode, maybe the thought is very memable and could result in expanding indefinitely until a nuclear war happens. So then I have to ask myself, how would I have to change my view if there is a world that exists where free speech could pose an existential threat? My first instinct is that we would then have to regulate speech at some level just to ensure our continued existence.  Now this doesn't mean I have to change my beliefs but it does allow me at least to create a way to falsify my belief in free speech. It can be falsified by showing me a belief that if spread through speech is truly an existential risk.

Let's try a second belief just to see the process again and this is a very important tool to have.  I believe that warning labels on shampoo bottles are stupid and pointless. In the most inconvenient world possible we have a significant portion of the population who thinks eating shampoo is harmless and would do it for shits and giggles not thinking of the consequences. This means that a warning label could in this universe could save lives. So now I have to ask myself if perhaps there are actually people stupid enough to do this in the real world and is it a moral obligation to prevent their deaths by letting them know the risks of their behavior?

Please use this tool because a lot of you think extremely rigidly and are stuck in ideologies and if you continue without these tools to stretch you, you'll just continue to have dumb beliefs that progressively become more sophisticated and harder to get rid of.

----------------------------------

Don't take things so seriously. Your personal life is what matters. No your vote doesn't matter nothing outside of your immediate circle of influence actually matters, do not waste your time debating or getting worked up over stupid shit unless you are actually doing that to really improve your thinking skills. For a short amount of time you guys will be able to keep up with me on Discord a bit but even that time is limited, at least in it's current form. If I do more youtube videos they will likely be to try and build my credibily as an expert in cyber security and be boring to those who have no interest in that. 

I hope you gained something from this. I hope new users are encouraged to use the site correctly as outlined in my first piece of advice and if the site is useless at sharpening your thinking than hopefully you can utilize the tool I have taught you.

My votes

Users:

    ILikePie5
    Savant
    Lunatic


Other:

  
    ILikePie5 - US Governors Mafia

I will refrain from voting on the debates because I have not read them

The supreme court didn't disagree that its a good first step, they disagreed that it is a legal first step.

I honestly don't mind the money that was spent trying to make middle eastern countries gay. I think if we just triple down on that it could pay huge dividends. USAid is a way to weld soft power so I think instead of all the tranny shit we should just use it to spread Christianity. Spreading Christianity is going to be useful to the West assuming it's not a gay version of Christianity or voodoo with Christian themes like in some African countries. 

Christianity can simultaneously be used to pown the Chinese and a Islamic countries

A standing army would basically work full time where as a militia is basically treating it like a hobby

I think a national guard for the whole country could work. Just reserve troops but back then no it was just random cowboys with guns and ideally they would get together occasionally to practice military skills. 

They didn't want a standing army due to some issues with how the military was in England. It's why this was accompanied by laws against soldiers forcing random people to quarter them in their houses.

In modern times, in the nuclear age yes we do need something but it could be run by all reserve troops. Professional soldiers that have seen action who I have talked to, have told me they are miles ahead of the reserve units that have served near or with them. Personally it's a risk I'd be willing to take. 

To me freedom comes with huge risks of things like invasion or losing more wars etc. 

Its not something I would press if I was ever elected to public office just because it would be kind of fucked up to promote a policy 99% of people disagree with

I am not sure how serious it should be taken but I think this guy at least wants some feathers in his cap. Being able to say he fixed the debt I think is high on his list. 

We also was allowing America to be terrified even unfairly due to lingering cold war politics, where we felt that it was better that we get some unfair trades than that these countries suffer and end up going the way of communism.

I assume you actually support democracy. If you are correct in supporting it, I really think we can gain some value from hearing your arguments, especially since a lot of the kids on this site have some political aspirations. 

If I am being honest which I don't like to do because I support the 2nd amendment. I think there was a strong opposition to having a standing army by many of the countries founders so they wanted an armed populace not to challenge the federal government but to protect against invasion.