Hi Alastair.

Here's another annotation.

Hi Eric, check this out.

Hi Thomas check this out.

This is an annotation

Wait a second-- what exactly makes them "suspicious"? What she means by suspicious of course--without saying it directly-- is the idea that perhaps there were plants or some kind of dark agents that were provoking the crowd to do something other than what they would have done "naturally". But no evidence is offered for this.

She may be referring to the widely covered mention in the Jan 6 report of "unindicted co-conspirators" but Andrew McCabe former acting director and deputy director of the FBI under Trump lays it out.

“When an indictment is written, at the time the indictment is written, and signed off by the judge, there are people who need to be referred to, in the indictment, just to make it a coherent story, so it makes sense, but who the government is not prepared to charge at that time,” McCabe said. “There may be all kinds of different reasons that they’re not prepared to charge that person at that time.”

“But the one reason that does not exist is the one that [Carlson] suggested,” McCabe added. “It’s not an undercover officer, because you cannot refer to those people as unindicted co-conspirators.”

Indeed, federal case law from 1985 (United States v. Rodriguez) acknowledged that “government agents and informers cannot be conspirators.”

Also, a Department of Justice manual advises federal prosecutors not to identify unindicted co-conspirators by name without “some significant justification.”

In a 2004 paper, American University Washington College of Law Professor Ira P. Robbins argued that naming those individuals who have not been charged with a crime should be prohibited because it violates their due process rights.

I understand that's probably normally the case, but when there is such a large mob that the police literally cannot control it, then is that still the case? They can only do physically what can be done.

This simply isn't true. Its totally routine for an officer's name to be withheld pending an internal investigation. Further, how is the "media" to blame as being in "cahoots" with congress even related to this. It's actually the DC police that were in charge of the investigation.

This is simply not true, and indeed obviously false on several different levels. First, there was never a formal request made. Second, DOD defense chief Miller never forwarded any request on to the national guard as there was no request made and didn't deem it worthwhile. So... it appears that 1) a formal request wasn't made, and 2) it was Trump's own DOD chief that would have been involved in carrying it out if there was.

Regardless, let's acknowledge that it was Trump himself that was calling for a massive protest, about a claim that he himself already knew was bogus-- not someone else. So, is the fault with Trump for instigating it, or with him as commander-in-chief for not ensuring that his direct reports who he hand picked were carrying out his wishes?

I'm sorry, why are we even talking about this? Protestors are moving on the capitol when congress is in session, damn right they're going to apply maximum force.

Evidence please?

I think its a completely outmanned police force that is defending the nation's capitol from a mob. It's interesting that they admit that this is a "mob" not a peaceful gathering of citizens.

Of course we just had a bi-partisan investigation by congress... now I suppose you could argue that they were biased because they were actually the ones being attacked. But of course there was also a DOJ investigation, and an FBI investigation-- which presumably these people are suggesting were also biased. Who else are they suggesting here might be in a position to conduct such an investigation. Let's see if they propose something...

It's just not clear at all. Here's a great article about this. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-08-24/officer-killed-ashli-babbitt

I'm sorry-- where is the evidence for this?

It's not clear to me at all exactly what's going on there. Did she throw up her hands, was she jostled by the crowd? Why was she there in the first place?

Sure-- so what was the outcome of the internal affairs process?

Smart man-- I would ask for the same thing.

This guy provides no logic in defense of this statement, because to me it seems reasonable that if an angry mob is charging the most hallowed seat of our government that shots are going to be fired.

Imagine if this mob was trying to attack the white house, with the president inside-- isn't it reasonable to think I might be shot by the securty forces? Well, this is the equivalent of that. Congress was in session and there were hundreds of legislators inside.

The woman is literally trying to break down the barricaded door where the window is clearly already damaged and chairs are stacked on the other side. Only an idiot wouldn't realize that by participating in a crowd that is literally trying break into the capitol that they are putting their life at risk.

The ironic thing is that I'm sure if the partisan lens were reversed and this was "antifa" or some other such protest with a similar sized crowd, there would be no such sympathy shown.

Regardless this is really a question of the appropriate use of police force, which is tangential to the real questions here-- namely how this came to be and the role that Trump had in inciting this and then prolonging it.

Yeah except that maybe the entire building was under attack for the next couple hours?

It's a shame that she was killed in the course of the defense of the capital by the police. But can't we say that the worst thing that happened that day was the assault on the capital by 1000s of americans?

Well, to be fair, I'd say them cornering the police in the tunnel and attacking them in there is probably worse in the sense of how it escalated the event. Police were beat with aluminum bats and all other kinds of things.

Hard to say how many folks of the thousands that showed up to the protest were indeed never close to the more serious stuff. And presumably were not indicted.

But would he still be alive today if the protestors had not attacked the capitol? Most likely. So, this logic doesn't get much sympathy from me.

This in and of itself is a powerful testament to how overwhelming and out of control this violent protest was-- and also in a sense why the authorities have little or no sympathy to those involved.

Ok-- so at least here there's someone who is willing to accept what was pretty obvious to everyone. Look at this footage here. These people are storming the capitol and battering the doors down! And the hundreds of people here are all participating in this. Are they really trying to argue that they were "invited in"? Its preposterous.

I'm not sure in the documentary why they're making a distinction between "trump" supporters and others. Is this even a meaningful thing?

They've been trying to force a plea deal on him-- yes absolutely.

From an article: "According to video evidence, some of which the upstate New York filmed himself, Edward Jacob Lang hit officers with an aluminum baseball bat and protective shields, and kicked an officer that was on the ground.

Lang has been charged with 13 counts, including several felonies, but his attorneys say the defendant was a source of help that day to people who were being trampled or beaten by police officers. One individual even credits Lang for saving his life. “There was no intention to actually harm. It was more warning signs, more trying to separate two crowds, more adrenaline,” said Steven Alan Metcalf, Lang’s attorney. "This is about him jumping into a chaotic situation and doing what he can.” But also... "Nichols noted, however, that Lang’s defense attorneys haven’t even tried to use the jail’s laptops — which have long wait times and limited access. With this in mind, the judge said he isn’t prepared to modify Lang’s confinement conditions.

“How am I supposed to decide if the current policy is unworkable for you if you haven’t tried under the policy?” Nichols asked.

Nichols also said that he had to deny the motion for release because Lang has not shown any remorse for his behavior at the insurrection, where the defendant was at the front of a mob and verbally encouraging violence.

“This conduct was not in a momentary heat of passion,” Nichols said. “This was conduct over the course of a couple of hours.”

Nichols said he would be willing to review a motion to modify Lang’s confinement conditions if they find the jail’s laptop policy to be unworkable. Until then, Lang will remain behind bars. "

So, the guy beat and kicked officers who were defending the capitol. Hard to feel too sorry for the guy.

By... attacking the capitol? On a notion that somehow the vote was stolen from Trump, an allegation that has failed to win the day in any of the 60 court cases it was filed in? These people are delusional. It really shows how much Trump is at fault for all this though. These people listened to him and believed him. Its a shame, but now they are suffering the consequences of their actions.

This is really not a question. In fact, it seems that Matt was really drawn in by Trump. An article on Ayers says:

"During a July 12 hearing before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, Ayres testified that he felt as if Trump had called him to Washington that day. He said he believed that Trump would join them at the Capitol and held out hope that the 2020 presidential election results could be overturned in favor of the Republican incumbent.

“I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time,” Ayres said."

Except they did. Matt's friend from home who he traveled there with and entered the building with was clearly in the capitol for 90 minutes. In Ayers case, he showed remorse and apoligized for his actions and got a lighter sentence (probation) as a result-- presumably the same might have been offered to Matt.

This has been argued in many of the court cases. Some January 6 defendants have claimed that Capitol Police officers “invited them in” or allowed them to enter the Capitol building. This argument is based on various videos showing officers interacting with protesters in ways that some interpret as permissive. For example, some clips show officers standing by or even opening barriers as the crowd approached.

However, these claims generally have not held up in court as a defense. In many cases, footage and testimony indicate that officers were attempting to de-escalate the situation rather than actively allowing or inviting the rioters to enter. The actions of the officers were often interpreted as a response to being overwhelmed by the size and aggression of the crowd, rather than an endorsement or permission to breach the Capitol.

For instance, in the case of Jacob Chansley, also known as the “QAnon Shaman,” court documents and video evidence show officers trying to manage the situation by asking rioters to remain calm and leave the area rather than encouraging them to proceed. Similarly, the Justice Department has noted that about 140 officers were assaulted, indicating a violent breach rather than a peaceful entry sanctioned by law enforcement.

This argument is a total non-sequiter. I can't go commit a serious offense in san francisco and plead that i should get off because shoplifters get it easy. I mean I could-- but is any judge going to spend even a second considering that?

Tragic for sure. But maybe don't attack the capitol? Are the punishments extreme? Yes, but these people made an adult decision to do this.

As far as I understand they only targeted people that broke in or were clearly instigating attacks. People who were just in the general area of the capitol were not indicted.

When you read that actual transcripts of the interviews that the Jan 6 committee did of each of these individuals, the story is not that these folks rejected his claim, but that the group of the four security leaders who got together decided that the basis of the recommendation to add national guard was not warranted. So, clearly because of this decision they didn't have sufficient forces. Was that an error? In retrospect its reasonable to think so, but can we draw any further conclusions from that? Probably not without further evidence, which I am not seeing.

This really feels like an opinion piece, not a documentary. This here is the opinion of the narrator--not really an unbiased take. Another take is that this was one of the most serious assaults on one of our most central bodies of government that has ever happened.

Yep, probably unnecessary. I don't think any of us can deny that ordinary arrests in many cases have escalated completely unnecessarily. However, these people did break into one of our most sacred institutions. So, one can also say that this probably isn't unexpected given how serious of a charge this is.

Security for Roger Stone? Ok.

If they were guilty of attacking the capitol, there's nothing wrong with the speed.

She believes it but she's provided no evidence to support it, and her testimony is not in and of itself noteworthy otherwise.

The video directly shows the officers cornered in a tunnel being attacked by a mob of which she was a part. How is she possibly saying this with a straight face?

What evidence is provided to suggest that it was intentionally unsecure?

Way to flip the argument on its head. In other words: (I guess?) "You should have known a much larger violent mob was coming, and therefore you should have increased the police presence more?"

This argument is pure madness. It's arguing that the blame for the capitol being overrun isn't the actual crowd itself, or perhaps the president who urged them all to show up, but rather with those in charge of the response who failed to grasp how extreme it was going to get.

Orwellian.

The guy was involved in a violent protest and suffered a heart attack. Ok.... next. What exactly are the "troubling questions" he doesn't say.

She's citing the president? That's hardly objective.

Evidence in support of the inside job?

Evidence please?

She's not offering any evidence that they weren't.

Have never heard of "American Greatness" as a news organization. It is effectively named after MAGA, the Trump campaign slogan, and owned by Chris Buskirk, who wrote "Donald Trump vs the Leviathan" a book that is summarized as "The success of the Trump presidency will be judged in large part on his ability to reduce the size and scope of the deep state. The unelected, unaccountable permanent bureaucratic leviathan that winds itself around the body and squeezes its life out must be dismantled if Trump’s legacy is to be a permanent restoration of republican government. Fortunately, his administration is doing that. Quietly and without fanfare he is reducing oppressive regulation and reining in what has become the fourth, all-powerful branch of government. There is much yet to be done, but less than two years in, President Trump has taken steps to return power to its rightful home―the sovereign American citizen."

Maybe we can say that these folks aren't maybe the most unbiased sources in the world?

This language is tilted... And its really saying just saying these people think they had a reason to protest. But that's not in question here. Lots of people protest lots of things. Some even break into buildings. None of these things are in question. The question is the response by the president.

The crowd is pushing into this tunnel, the officers are under attack by a violent crowd.

Was he really? Seems like someone amped up on adrenaline because the building is being attacked.

Notice how the video B roll being shown here has no direct relevance to what's being claimed in the script. It is not clear who this person is and we don't see them doing anything at all that correlates to what the narrator is saying. These little anecdotes are so trivial, and also unsupported by evidence, within the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This video is propaganda. Documentaries that are trying to do a faithful job do not resort to tactics like this.

These guys are literally climbing the walls of the capitol in fatigues.

Well that's certainly true. :)

This version of events is completely unsubstantiated by the DOD IG's own internal review, which is available here.

Specifically Patel claims that the Capitol Police and Mayor Bowser declined requests for additional National Guard support before January 6. The OIG report, however, does not indicate ANY denial of support by key actors. Rather it states that the DCNG support was approved on January 5, that DCNG forces were in place at a wide range of traffic control points the morning of Jan 6, and that an additional QRF (Quick reaction force) of 40 individuals, which is what the various agencies agreed to were in place and in fact mobilized as the situation escalated on January 6.

Specifically wrt QRF team of 40 DCNG folks in riot gear, as the report outlines, it was actually McCarthy, the speaker of the house, who was the individual responsible for activating those additional personnel that day, which he finally began after a call at 2:20pm, over an hour and twenty minutes after rioters overwhelmed capitol police. There were further delays in deployment and ultimately they were deployed late enough in the day that they were not able to be effective.

Notice that many of the most important questions are not asked here. Like... what was Trump himself doing that day.

Just on prima facia evidence, they did a pretty terrible job of that. They were there to "provide security" and yet thousands of people stormed the capitol. So, are they a joke? In fact, where is the footage of any Oathkeepers actually in the front lines surrounding the capitol keeping folks from attacking the police in the first case? It looks like there are some isolated incidents of them helping after the fact-- presumably because they were concerned that their reputation might be in tatters otherwise?

Lets just look at how absolutely nuts some of these statements are. The oathkeepers were there because they thought that Trump might call them to duty if there was "antifa violence" on the day he asked all his flag waving supporters to go march down to the capitol and fight like hell to force mike pence to break his oath of office? This is absurd.

This statement is directly contradicted by numerous reports, including by reporters that were embedded with Miller on that very day. And if all that wasn't enough the DOD-- which we should be reminded is under the control of the Commander-in-chief-- directly refused an immediate quick reaction force on the morning of Jan 6. Did Trump himself refuse that, or was he in fact unreachable? Which is worse?

More importantly, why isn't this interviewer not asking these ridiculously obvious questions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/15/no-trump-did-not-order-10000-troops-secure-capitol-jan-6/

I'm sure that there are some Trump supporters who indeed wouldn't "do that". But it's pretty obvious that there are others who would-- simply because in any crowd of 10000 there is a broad diversity of people, backgrounds, philosophies and willingness to bend the rules or flat out break them. And there were thousands of known Trump supporters who entered the building illegally, and many were arrested and later emotionally apologized for it like Mr. Ayers. When crowds come together, they do things they wouldn't otherwise do. That's why they call it "mob rule". There is nothing but speculation here.

Yeah, you know, for this massive protest that I am calling where 10s of 1000s of my crazy supporters are going to show up and I'm going to urge them to march on the capitol and insist that the vice president break his oath of office and refuse to certify the election.

I've pegged this annotation to the top in order to summarize.

This documentary was produced by Epoch TV which is a conservative pro-trump media organization run by the Falun Gong. The documentary does not ask the key questions, it focuses on a narrow set of the details around Jan 6, does not focus on key questions about Trump's own involvement and his lack of response on that day. Any unbiased documentary would do that, and would serve all perspectives.

It's possible that there is a hard-hitting documentary that will come eventually that digs deeper and exposes serious questions. This is not that.

In my annotations on this documentary I address point by point the tone, individuals, arguments, logic etc related to each segment of the piece.

But my overall argument is simple, and has nothing to do with these details. Rather, it is that: 1. Trump contested the election 2. Had no evidence to back up his claims 3. In fact, he failed in all 60 lawsuits he filed to prove any wrongdoing. You would think that he chose the jurisdictions to file those lawsuits carefully enough that he would find at least ONE court favorable to reasonable claims that he made. No. It's clear that they were bogus, as every credible commenter that has reviewed them in detail has found. 4. He called at the very least the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, and asked him, on a recorded line, to "find him" 11,000 votes. Thankfully Brad upheld the law he was sworn to protect and did not. How many others did Trump do this to?<br /> 5. Despite all this, Trump still called for a massive protest on Jan 6. 6. His call to his supporters on his completely insubstantiated claims brought 10000+ of his supporters to DC. 7. Including, through Stone and Giuliani, quasi militia groups like the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys, who even apparently stockpiled guns nearby. 8. He then held a speech on Jan 6 to his supporters and urged them to march to the capitol and "fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore". Yes he also mentioned them to march "peacefully and patriotically" but mostly to "fight" at least 20 other times. 9. He also urged his Vice President to not certify the electors, in direct contradiction of his duties of office and the constitution. 10. In doing so, he cited a baseless constitutional memo by John Eastman, that his team (Giuliani and Jenna Ellis) directly coordinated with Eastman. This memo has now been completely discredited-- including by Pence himself, who to his credit refused to do it. 11. Those protestors then did that... they marched on the capitol and fought. Many of them shouted "Hang Mike Pence". 12. The Capitol police tried to hold the protestors back, but they were overwhelmed. 13. Then the protestors broke in and stormed the capitol and ran rampant through offices and so forth, looting and vandalizing it while congressional staff were barricaded on the floor. 14. People died, and over the weeks after four members of the police committed suicide because of the trauma they experienced. 15. And for nearly 3 hours during all this, Trump was completely unavailable to staff and the key members of the defense department and the administration, while he like everyone else in America presumably watched this unfold on live TV, hoping that this crisis and chaos would somehow prevent the certification of the vote. 16. If indeed Trump was as shocked and horrified as the rest of us at what was unfolding and, indeed, did not want any of this to happen, then he would have immediately implored his supporters to stand down. He did not. This is the guy who carries the nuclear football and has to be ready to defend the country on a moment's notice. He was a mile away. 17. The president's oath is simple: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It's short and simple. Trump violated that oath.

If anyone would do ANY of these things except, perhaps briefly, the first one. Then they are unfit to serve.

This "real story" of January 6 only deals with a few details around what happened at the capitol-- not with the entirety of the actual real story leading up to that day.

What he's saying here is that the prosecutors provided extensive documentation of communication between the senior leadership of the oathkeepers that clearly lays out their "intentions" and is trying to deflect that by effectively saying "you can never know the mind of a man". Which is kind of BS, because the legal threshold is simply showing that now only did you commit a crime, but you showed intent to commit that crime. And that is what they were convicted for.

Apparently there may have been a group of them that assisted an officer, great.

The argument here is that "Trump supporters are good" and "those other commie liberals called Antifa that use stealth tactics" are probably behind this is flawed in several ways. First, there are shadowy organizations working against democracy on all sides. Second, there is no actual evidence offered to support this claim. Third, it could be equally possible that some of the shadowy members of Antifa are in fact, stealth members from the "other" side working to discredit progressive causes. In fact, we simply don't know and most of this absent any evidence is just convenient speculation pure and simple.

Exactly, it is illegal to trespass in the capitol. I've been in the capitol, and you're only allowed there under very controlled circumstances, when you're with a tour, or when you have official business and an appointment with congressional staff. You have to go through security, etc. So, the protestors who broke in were trespassing and breaking the law. To argue that after the doors and windows were beaten down that they were "invited in" by security guards that were scared shitless at that point is absolute BS.

Yet another example of some random guy saying something that could easily be said by a Trump supporter as anyone else. Again, I'm sure there were law abiding citizens among them who would do no wrong. Perhaps that includes this "journalist". But obviously a bunch of them also entered the building when it was clear that doing so was illegal at that point. The evidence that it was specifically non-protestors who were plants by some other group, and I think the suggestion here is "feds" and not "proud boys" is not presented.

Well what about the thousands of other folks attacking the capitol-- aren't they all "suspicious actors" that were mutually encouraging each other to break the law?

This is a speculative claim about an unknown person and the only footage we have is that he's holding a door open at some point for some amount of time.

Remember the job of defense attorneys is to sow doubt and get their clients acquitted of the charges.... so I'm not sure the best source of evidence about these claims.

Where is the evidence for this? It may exist but this documentary does not share it.

Remeber, the jury in the court case where this was presented came to the conclusion that they did commit seditious conspiracy, with an intent to attack the capitol. Also, they were in town to provide security for Roger Stone, who helped organize the protest, and their telegram messages with eachother were part of the evidence submitted as part of the court case, where they're on record suggesting that they "invade it".

Which is his absolute right. I wish him the best of luck.

The way these guys talk about eachother as if they were some sort of special group of patriots? They broke into Congress while it was in session to try to stop the counting of the electoral votes.

The fact that they keep focusing on this guy is not helping the goals of this doc. I mean he's picking up the same crutch that other protestors were using to attack the police and holding it up while facing the police? What an idiot.

Maybe instead get the f out of there so that other people can leave too?

Again, with the music in the background and all this completely irrelevant testimony about how God inspired him to do this... this is not an objective documentary, this is a puff piece for evangelical christian right wingers.

Not sure it raises much of a question. Obviously that's going to be a very difficult identification.

Again, sure he's got tactical gear on and a face mask-- but of course maybe he's just a guy that likes to contribute to chaos and doesn't want to get caught. He could be a Proud Boy that's trying to stir the pot. He could be anyone. There's no evidence either way.

Ultimately the protestors are responsible for their own actions. If I see that the capitol is being attacked my first response isn't going to be to climb into a broken window, it's going to be to get the hell out of there and stay away so that the authorities can get things under control.

It appears that the definition of a suspicious actor is anyone encouraging others to commit crimes. But of course, the simplest explanation is just that they were protestors encouraging other protestors.

One can speculate, but unless there's hard evidence, then its just that... speculation that is convenient to the narrative, but otherwise useless.

Promised to who? Trying to find a citation for this claim. Perhaps there is none?

Sounds like he was charged, and plead guilty.

There's a story on him here. But where is the evidence that he was actually a "fed" as opposed to just a garden variety Trump supporter?

I think this is the way it works.

He may want to-- but I doubt there's any precedent for that. If he hasn't presented compelling data then it doesn't appear likely that anyone would take that request seriously.

This appears to be an unsupported assertion made by another party (Brad) who "watched a bunch of video over months" and came to that conclusion. But... where is the evidence other than some random shots of people in the crowd. None of that evidence is presented here.

Also, it's obvious but needs to be said that if indeed there were actors trying to rile up the crowd that could be the work of anyone, including Trump (incl. Roger Stone and others) who obviously wanted this protest to happen, directly incited it, and in fact was unresponsive for hours while it was happening.

I'm really not sure what the point of this story is except to really make this guy out to be a religious nut. He does not come off as a strong credible witness.

But of course the police are also dealing with people that are trying to attack them with the same things-- so maybe just... leave?

So, he went to the front, right where all the action was instead of perhaps praying from the back?

And yet, he still went.

Hellow

What role does opioid crisis play in this?

It's probably not lost on many of us that OpenAI of course is--more than any other large participants (Google, Meta, X, etc)-- not providing their leading model as an open source one. Aren't they then maintaining a "close hold" on the technology to "cement their own power"?

@caroline. Is it really homemade though?

Hi Nuno

Hi Dave!

Really?

This is such a phenomenally honorable AND KIND way of calling bullshit on 1X1=2. I wonder if anyone else appreciates this. HE COMES UP WITH A TERRENCE OPERATION AND DISPROVES THE ASSERTION BY USING THE OPERATION ITSELF!

But this is in fact what is now quite clearly possible today. Using employees as frontline moderators and enforcers of unevenly applied ToS is officially an old school brute force tactic. There are only two viable techniques now IMHO... 1) is AI assisted pre-moderation, and 2) is community driven meta-moderation (e.g. semi-random, community self-moderation).

I'm going to this in German.

The real question is here. Is it illegal, or more importantly... wrong?, to use a voice that is similar to another. Presumably the voice actress that they used for modeling purposes owns her own voice. What are her rights, etc.

Hi guys.

Test

Convert

We agree!

Because for instance, you could annotate important pieces of multimedia content for further analysis.

Like this one. :)

This works! You can click the transcript to advance the video.

Note that you can copy the transcript above with the copy icon at the top of the transcript bar.

test 2

Blah

Blah

hjhkjhjkh

hey what's going here?

Make a note here.

The stanza is printed first in faux-mediaeval lettering as a "relic of ancient Poetry" (in which þe is a form of the word the) and printed again "in modern characters".[4] The rest of the poem was written during Carroll's stay with relatives at Whitburn, near Sunderland. The story may have been partly inspired by the local Sunderland area legend of the Lambton Worm[5][6] and the tale of the Sockburn Worm.[7]

The concept of nonsense verse was not original to Carroll, who would have known of chapbooks such as The World Turned Upside Down[8] and stories such as "The Grand Panjandrum". Nonsense existed in Shakespeare's work and was well-known in the Brothers Grimm's fairytales, some of which are called lying tales or lügenmärchen.[9] Biographer Roger Lancelyn Green suggested that "Jabberwocky" was a parody of the German ballad "The Shepherd of the Giant Mountains",[10][11][12] which had been translated into English by Carroll's cousin Menella Bute Smedley in 1846.[11][13] Historian Sean B. Palmer suggests that Carroll was inspired by a section from Shakespeare's Hamlet, citing the lines: "The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead / Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets" from Act I, Scene i.[14][15]

John Tenniel reluctantly agreed to illustrate the book in 1871,[16] and his illustrations are still the defining images of the poem. The illustration of the Jabberwock may reflect the contemporary Victorian obsession with natural history and the fast-evolving sciences of palaeontology and geology. Stephen Prickett notes that in the context of Darwin and Mantell's publications and vast exhibitions of dinosaurs, such as those at the Crystal Palace from 1854, it is unsurprising that Tenniel gave the Jabberwock "the leathery wings of a pterodactyl and the long scaly neck and tail of a sauropod."[16]

test

test test

test

test test

test

sam said:

test

Do we really want to chat with chickens?

Hi Sean

This is an annootation on a chicken chat.

And here.

So I comment on this part of the prompt.

test

I can can make a comment

Here's another one.

Hey this interesting.

Test

tesat

so's this.

hey, this is cool.

Like so.

Hi guys.

Like this.

Like this.

Here.

Make a note.

ALSO COOL

Hey, this is cool

Hi Matt

Hi Ryan.

This is a load od First would be resourcefulness, an effective EA should be resourceful in finding other solutions if a problem comes up. Next would be proactiveness, we need to be a self starter to be more effective. The last characteristic would be flexible, with the wide scope of tasks, we should be more open and flexible to learn more about the client's business. What is the most important thing you've learned from your previous work experience? Patience was the most important thing I learned. Everyone has a different style of communication and to be more effective, we should not only be more considerate but also more flexible to work on the client's terms. Productivity Tools fja;ldfjdsakjfa'sf'fs da df ads fdas f asdf asd fa sdf asdf asd fad sf af asd f dsf

fd

here.

Say what you want.

Here.

Make a note.

kfglkfgl

Something else.

Say sometihng.

Like so.

Like this

Make a note.

Hi John.

dfdfgfdg

djf;djf;lkajsd

What's the back story here.

This is nuts.

Hi Sri`

Here's an inteeresting conversation.

test

Thanks to the Internet Archive, we still have a copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20221218173806/https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platforms-policy

Like so.

Make a note here.

Bjvvu

test

Like this.

This is interesting because...

Help us make this happen!

Hi Peter

Like so.

Make a link to this.

blah

Like this.

Make a note.

Turns out this is a thing... https://stamurai.com/blog/stuttering-and-singing-what-we-understand/

This bears much resemblance to Sperber and Mercier's thinking in their Argumentative Theory of Reason, that the antidote to the naturally self-dealing nature of individual reason is what we get when we reason collectively.

For how long? Please describe the role.

Add a question box (not a Y/N) after this that asks: "This job is in support of a busy executive who is the principal in two different businesses and works long hours, including often on the weekend. He’s usually up and working by 6am PT, and works through to 5pm or often later. In other words, this is not a typical “9-5" role. While you're not expected to match him hour for hour, is this something that works within your life constraints?"

Describe your technical experience and skills acquired.

Can you add another box below this? Are you familiar with any personal productivity frameworks? If so, which ones? How do you manage your time?

Please add another box after this that says "Provide a link to a file in the format of your choosing which explains how you arrived at your answer and shows your work."

Collaboration tools

Can you list the primary tools you have work experience with? We're not looking for a complete list, just the most recent modern tools you've worked with.

What is the most important thing you've learned from your previous work experience?

In your own words, what is the role of an effective executive assistant?

Her.

Here.

jdhjhdklsafhkad

test

We're succeeding. :) https://web.hypothes.is/blog/celebrating-nearly-40-million-annotations/

I think you mean "section"?

Hi!

Hey Geffen, check this out.

I think fundamentally-- WHAT exactly are we going to do there? What is our value proposition?

Review

Joe-- can you weigh in here.

Go to market

Our primary go to market pathway is within education-- which uses a specific LMS implementation that does not rely on a chrome extension.

The problem is not a post-covid problem only limited to education. We're solving a fundamental problem where people cannot collaborate / have conversations wherever they are. Our first market for this is in education.

First word of business model shoiuldn't be freemium.