From that link on Digital Banking:
We will be carrying out routine maintenance from approx. 01:00 until approx. 08:00 this Sunday 24 September, and then from approx. 12 midnight until approx. 06:00 on Monday 25 September. Our Digital, Mobile, and Telephone banking services will be unavailable during these times. We are sorry for any inconvenience that this will cause and thank you for your patience.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
From the same link (the warnings are even color coded)
In order to keep our systems up to date, we sometimes need to carry out essential maintenance. So that we don't cause you too much disruption, we do this in the early hours of the morning from 02:00 to 02:40.
When we have essential maintenance planned outside of these times, we will update the information below with the specific times and services affected. We are sorry for any disruption that this may cause for you.
Now a regular person would suggest that any downtime outside of 2:00-2:40 am is abnormal and not regularly scheduled. I guess we will see tomorrow if they warn about Oct downtime.
Also worth noting that the website has no scheduled downtime.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
"people like you"
"our anthem"
what a disgrace
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Would you rather be a "son of a bitch" or one of the "very fine people"?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I use the site regularly. I regularly get notifications about scheduled downtime. Never bothered me I would rather they keep maintaining it than the system collapses or becomes insecure.
Not trying to make a political point as I highly doubt a politician made the maintenance schedule, just a technical one that maintenance is good. If it's not for legitimate maintenance reasons then a downtime is of course bad.
That player is a shining example of a positive role model. Not like the orange stain of a man who runs the nation.
Opinion of the GOP hits all time low.
Who would have guessed repeatedly trying to steal healthcare coverage from millions and attacking pro sports while 2 states and a territory are trying to rebuild after natural disasters would result in unfavorable public opinion?
Maybe its the name calling with North Korea?
Or maybe the 21 states that are involved in election hacking?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I would have guessed healthcare, sports and natural disasters all strike much closer to home than foreign relations with North Korea.
If it wasn't for the general stench of incompetence and hatred emanating primarily from the orange squatter of the Oval Office then a war of words with the fat boy of Korea would be of little negative impact on ratings.
Except that Trump is loosing the war of words. Trump called Kim Jong Un 'rocket man', and Kim Jong Un called Trump, what was it?, 'mentally deranged' and 'a barking dog'. Aren't Americans concerned about a zinger gap?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
dotard
that one caused quite a few to reach for a dictionary or google tab. I had only ever seen it in LotR, so I'll admit NK got a chuckle out of me for using it.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
That caused me to Google-search. Quite an apt word actually
Open question aimed at Americans: at what point is it accept for a journalist to just outright say someone is talking shit? From the point of view of maintaining that whole false equivalence thing you seem to like so much in your news media, I mean.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
During an interview? Do you mean using those sorts of words and tone? Never when on the record. Being more police about it? Well, I believe Stein already did that in your little transcript. If it's not a live interview they get a more more leeway in remarks broadcast afterward/written up in the article, but they still wouldn't be able to use those words and tone.
Interviews like this intended to inform the public about the person being interviewed. So it's unnecessary and unprofessional to tell them they're full of shit, you let them demonstrate that themselves. Which Stein did.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Not literally saying they're full of shit, obviously, but saying "there is nowhere in America under Sheria law, you are making that up"/"please don't lie to me, and our viewers" shouldn't be beyond the pale.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Sadly thats been left up to our late night comedy guys (we even have the Jimmy Kimmel Test for health insurance). Actual interviewers either don't care (ratings and access > integrity) or don't comprehend that people exist who are eating up these lies no matter how much effort you put into calling them out without actually calling them out.
It was a big thing when Anderson Cooper rolled his eyes at Conway, and even the dumbest motherfuckers should know by now she is full of shit.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The point of saying these things is to create ambiguity, right? Not convince people there's literally a small town somewhere in downstate Illinios that's somehow under Sharia law. Like, if people come away from the interview thinking we'll, maaaaaybe there's not literal Sharia law, but the guy said he heard it somewhere and the interviewer didn't confront him over it so I guess there's must be something, like maybe some Muslims are try to get Sharia law, to it then that's a win for them. Mission accomplished.
That's what journalist let them get away with when they do this pseudo-impartiality thing.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Open question aimed at Americans: at what point is it accept for a journalist to just outright say someone is talking shit? From the point of view of maintaining that whole false equivalence thing you seem to like so much in your news media, I mean.
Not all interviewers here would openly call out bullshit but some would. Andrew Neil who is my favourite journalist absolutely would have called him out to his face there if that had happened here. Politely but firmly and without any doubt that it was untrue.
I don't think it is unprofessional for an interviewer to say that something is untrue so long as it is clearly and demonstrably untrue. Quite the opposite I think its them being professional and knowing what they're talking about (many journalists would be too timid to outright call something false in case they're wrong themselves).
They would for major politicians, but I think they're more likely to give the benefit of non-existent doubt to more fringe characters like UKIPers, no doubt afraid of the false accusation of """bias""" that their American counterparts are.
Also, they do go too far the other direction sometimes. Sick of hearing interviewers wasting time trying to trick a politician into leaking an announcement ahead of time or going against the public position of their party, not least because it never works. Also interrupting them when I genuinely wanted to hear what they were going to say.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Indeed there's a difference between being clear and being rude.
That is why Neil is such a good journalist, he doesn't go for the "I love the sound of my own voice" style too many go for now, instead he'll make sure his guest has enough rope to hang himself.
Actually, I think they do want people to think there's literally a small town in Illinois where Christians are being made to live under Sharia law.
Except the guy did confront him over it. But he can't make it a debate between him the interviewee. Because then he also gets challenged to prove his claim and the interviewer can't do it, the means flat out don't exist for them to do so in an interview. The candidate can always fall back on "people have told me, people have expressed this concern, etc" and the interviewer doesn't have the means or time to disprove them.Like, if people come away from the interview thinking we'll, maaaaaybe there's not literal Sharia law, but the guy said he heard it somewhere and the interviewer didn't confront him over it
And since you're objecting that "impartiality" is being taken too far, what Stein did was (or should be) enough to rebut Moore for anyone who weren't already on his side on this and if Stein made it into a debate then that just convinces those people that he's biased and taking a side and they'll dismiss his challenge with even greater prejudice in favor of their confirmation bias.
I'm not going to say that it's not an interviewer's job to show the interviewee is full of shit because sometimes that is actually what they're supposed to do. But an interviewer does need to be careful about it, set it up properly, and they need to draw the subject into making the right kind of statements for them to rebut. Stein did ask the candidate to be more specific but Moore
knew better than to give a less vague lie.
By the way, do you know what that gif was made from, Steely?
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 09-26-2017 at 11:04 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I thought the gif was from Dexter but apparently not.
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...e-drew-scanlon
I still think he looks like Dexter though.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...ined/98358288/
White guy blinking meme
And that's what I get for not refreshing my page when I pick up my phone. Rand already got it.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The burden of proof is on Moore here.
Ask 'what people? where are they talking about?', then ask why they're repeating unsubstantiated rumours if they're vague or evasive. Point is, if you lie that blatantly, then you should be made to look very foolish and made to feel very uncomfortable.The candidate can always fall back on "people have told me, people have expressed this concern, etc" and the interviewer doesn't have the means or time to disprove them.
You've already pointed out how Moore's statement was vague, and designed to leave a lot of ambiguity. Without the interviewer unpacking and discrediting his statement further you leave a lot of that ambiguity in the minds of at least some of the audience as well. I don't agree that a challenge that amount to no more than "You sure about that? That seems like a weird thing to say" is enough to rebut him in the minds of anyone who isn't die-hard MAGA.And since you're objecting that "impartiality" is being taken too far, what Stein did was (or should be) enough to rebut Moore for anyone who weren't already on his side on this and if Stein made it into a debate then that just convinces those people that he's biased and taking a side and they'll dismiss his challenge with even greater prejudice in favor of their confirmation bias.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Darn Puerto Ricans, totally brought this on themselves for not being white like the rest of his disgusting base.
America denies Puerto Rico request for waiver to bring vital fuel and supplies to island
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The burden of proof SHOULD be on Moore because he's the one making a positive claim. That doesn't mean the viewers/readers are going to read it that way, particularly not those readers you think already do or might be convinced that the ludicrous claim has any truth to it in the first place. Anyone with a lick of sense saw the way Stein made him fumble and retract his statement as Moore failing. But that's not enough for you, you think Stein needed to confront him in a way that would convince those who didn't lay the burden of proof where it should be. And Stein making the interview a debate between himself and Moore would not have done so. It would have just played into their confirmation biases.
It may not be. But going at him harder isn't going to rebut Moore to those people either, it just tells them that Stein is one of those "enemy media" spreading "fake news."[You've already pointed out how Moore's statement was vague, and designed to leave a lot of ambiguity. Without the interviewer unpacking and discrediting his statement further you leave a lot of that ambiguity in the minds of at least some of the audience as well. I don't agree that a challenge that amount to no more than "You sure about that? That seems like a weird thing to say" is enough to rebut him in the minds of anyone who isn't die-hard MAGA.
But then, I don't think there is anyone who isn't die-hard MAGA who thinks there's the least bit of ambiguity on this topic in the first place, before or after the interview.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181
Ridiculous but understandable. The C-series is frickin' awesome.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well that's a pretty big problem. How does the press get factual information to people who are grossly misinformed, when people generally read news on social media sites that already supports their biases?
It doesn't. This isn't Maoist China. You can't force people to digest your preferred information, even if it's objectively better.
Hope is the denial of reality
False binary! I'm not talking about 'forcing' people to read certain newsbut I am asking if/how there's a way to remind conservative voters that voting for a candidate because he's a Bible thumping Baptist is antithetical to our democratic foundation.
We can try and work harder to see that people in general are better educated, have more diverse experiences and backgrounds to allow them to evaluate the unfamiliar but ultimately there isn't a lot that can be done. Which is why misjudgement like this was one of the things opponents to democracy as a form of government hung their objections on.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
