I don’t understand the lack of interest by journalists. What more did Williams need to do the first time he reached out to garner interest? Does ProPublica overestimate the seriousness of the militia movement? I’d think based on J6 the journalists ignoring Williams’ communications should have paid attention.
Besides the things other comments mentioned: There is a longstanding sentiment that "It can't happen here".
The wider public in America more or less blocks out the risks involved. "They're not actually going to blow up the power grid."
Hell, just look at the tech industry. Endless whining about not needing to be regulated, and what have they done? Built an enormous surveilance machine, lead by executives who preemptively kowtow to any authoritarian leader. Europe's attempt to regulate this is still angrily opposed by heaps, even on this very site.
Normalcy bias — it's an absolute killer. The same cognitive failure that has people in a fire thinking it's "just part of the show", or "just something in the kitchen", until it is too late, and panic overtakes everyone. I've never seen a story of a fire where someone in the situation said "I wasn't sure what was going on, but it didn't seem good so I left early, I'm alive because I did!".
Normalcy bias can kill us all if we aren't careful.
Thanks for writing this: things are quite askew right now for various reasons, and it was unexpectedly affirming to hear someone say it loud.
Until now I would have said this is an extreme minority view, even though it's quite obvious and aligns with the core values I've seen on this site over the last 15 years, and thus presumed were tech in general's view.
Maybe I just need to get off X, the Everything App™, 90% of my news consumption and commentary is through there.
I dropped of Twitter, and Facebook in 2014 (or around that time); and I have not missed a single important event since then.
People think they need Facebook, X, whatever to stay up to date. Not so.
I have a few online newspapers/sites I scan a few times a week, and that's it.
IMHO (and it's really just MO), Twitter, Facebook and alike are a 100% useless waste of time.
(Maybe Facebook had some use in the beginning for staying in contact with more "friends" than I could have by other means.)
I feel better for it. And as I said, I will guarantee you that won't miss anything important going on.
This people would be 100% better off. Not consuming the garbage. I tried to just follow tech peeps on X.
Now it is nonstop propaganda even just following a niche.
I made a decade long transition from dropout waiter => startup founder => exit => Google thanks to getting to soak in all the tech stuff on Twitter, without having the formal education.
It's hard to say without being reductive, but TL;DR it's turned into a very know-nothing atmosphere, to the point it certainly swamps the prior positive effects.
Good example yesterday: OP is excited about Elon newly announcing a new interest in non-regretted user-seconds.
Elon's talked about it a bunch, so some people gently correct OP.
Some other people gently point out this...isn't something you can metric.
Everyone's being polite and pointing out indirectly the excitement is irrational: it's an old idea, and not an actual metric you can optimize for
OP half-rolls-back that its a new idea, but is still excited about the implications.
Someone tells him directly "non-user-regretted-seconds" isn't a metric, he doubles down and says its standard in industry.
I reply saying it's Elon-invented, not a good or bad thing, but certainly not a traditional metric.
OP replies saying that's not true, OP saw it in use at Google a decade ago.
It's a day later and it's completely unclear to me: A) if this is an actual phrase that was used prior to Elon B) if it is a phrase, how it could be a metric and C) if OP is right that it was in use before Elon, given our time at google overlapped by 7 years and I've never, ever, heard of anyone having a metric like that (could someone have used it as a term of art in a meeting? sure! but generic "amount of time people enjoy using our thing" isn't worth noting as a distinct term, unless you actually collect info on it)
The only way I can think of to even engage is to say pretty much the above, but it's too aggro and "cares too much" for the level of current discourse, especially since the premise is we should be excited Elon cares about this.
A more factual approach, like trying to find the first instance of "unregretted user-seconds" isn't convincing. I'm not sure how you'd prove the first use was after a certain date.
Even if I try searching for refs between 2000 and 2020 only, there's ~3 pages of obviously re-dated results, i.e. referring to Elon as Twitter owner with a date of "2013"
Then, just because it wasn't on the internet at a certain date, doesn't mean it wasn't in use regularly at Google before that date.
Then, the clunky pseudo-scientific phrasing makes it impossible to debunk there wasn't another form of "unregretted user-seconds" I should be checking.
There's only 8 pages of results for "unregretted user-seconds", all tied to Elon/Twitter, but that means nothing because again, clunky phrasing means maybe there's another form I should be checking, and maybe it was a phrase that had been locked inside companies until Elon used it publicly.
So what was the point of even reading, thinking, replying about this?
As somebody who successfully avoided twitter stuff my whole life - whats the lure of this? Following some folks reading some random brainfarts is not how I imagine spending my time, and that's all I can see on this. Maybe I have just different type of personality than target audience.
Or is it so addictive like social networks seem to be?
I have left X / Twitter now, but while there it gave me good insights, to an extent. If you follow the right people, you get news without intermediate interpretation by journalists. Who the "right people" are is hard to answer, but basically, select people you trust the judgement of.
But.... I am no longer there. Too much noise and distraction drowns the sane voices. And I can't stand Musk any longer.
I went into twitter for the academic side. Transition to baky has been nice. It's often like RSS feeds but I get to interact with my peers.
I tink it totally depends what your niche is. What bugged me about Twitter is that after Musk took over it was no longer mostly RSS feed-like but all the politics came in. That all ranked higher even when not from accounts I don't follow (now I get notifications from Musk even after muting him)
> Or is it so addictive
AFAIK the ranking is simple. But since everything is open you could filter as you wish. I'm not aware of anyone doing it but I'd like to see this.
It’s sort of alluded to but I suspect journalists get a whole lot of false tips from various mentally unhealthy folk, which perhaps appear much like Williams’ in this story.
Yeah, being contacted by someone who’s on a bespoke undercover mission in right-wing militias is huge. Being contacted by someone who’s says they are is another matter.
We don't know how the initial attempts at contact were presented. I can see it being extremely difficult to get someones attention. If how seemingly technical people ask for assistance on net forums is any indication, unless has someone has the skill of a reporter in presenting information, a string of signal messages with, "contact me, I have important information on XYZ" isn't going to cut it.
Because it's just not interesting. He didn't find out anything exciting and basically nothing crazy happened. Its incredibly easy to join these organizations. Just show up. They aren't doing much of anything.
There's no shortage of street gangs, kill rappers, cartels,ethnic crime families, ransomware groups, terrorist etc that are actively killing people or committing wide scale crimes. Go join them and you could have a compelling story. Join the Nuwabian Moors and get to work on infiltrating the SuperMax.
Even corny ass biker gangs with their name on their "cut" occasionally get in shoot outs and have more interesting things going on then what is basically a middle aged version of the boy scouts.
I dont think journalists really find J6 to be important at all. Even left leaning journalists pay lip service to it but shrugs, buncha white dudes blowing off steam I think is how "everyone" sees this. As evidence, look at the election we just had.
It reminds me of how the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. Oh, that was scary, well, whatever, the dudes in jail, shrugs. Because it failed to bring the building down. For me, I was like, holy crap people are trying to blow up the WTC arent they going to....keep trying? but that's just not how people think. Super scary thing that failed == ho hum.
The amazing thing is how the right was able to essentially rewrite the history of Jan 6 over the last 4 years. Right after the incident even many Republican politicians in DC were calling for Trump's resignation and impeachment (or at least some resolution that would not allow him to run again). There was a huge amount of alarm in the immediate aftermath. But then the narrative about the events of that day slowly started to turn into "it was just a peaceful protest where a few bad apples got a bit out of hand" (that came right after the "it was antifa" stage which didn't last too long when it was clear that these folks were Trump supporters). Trump certainly minimized Jan 6 (to his benefit) and the rest of the GOP began to go along just as they've gone along with the idea that the 2020 election was "stolen" from Trump (and if they actually believe it was stolen then they can come to the conclusion that Jan 6 was justified as some of them do).
> the right was able to essentially rewrite the history of Jan 6 over the last 4 years.
so when the left literally changed wikipedia entries, what was that? not rewriting history?
to put it bluntly, it’s hard to have sympathy for your case when the left does the same. when will the left stop complaining that the right is doing things they are also doing?
when will the rest of you figure out that parties are the problem?
Thank you for saying something that has me opening my mouth and getting in trouble.
Given that I am a Lockean liberal at heart, I object to describing the entire left as doing the same thing as the right. There is still a portion of the left (admittedly shrinking) whose foundation is based on science, math, logic, and history.
However, that said, I see a lot of similarities between progressives and MAGAs in their denial of facts, shouting down others who disagree with them, and preferring conspiracies and truthiness because it feels better. Magas do carry it one step further in making up case law, inventing legal theories out of whole cloth (textualism), and making choices that degrade the function of socicity that make things better for everyone except stockholders
> When will the left stop complaining that the right is doing things they are also doing?
progressives, not the left. when the right stops being a bunch of snowflakes.
They won't as long as they get a molecule of attention.
You’re mistaking genuine concern with political hay making.
Of course the Democrats call it an insurrection - that’s what their base wants to hear and benefits them at the polls.
But look at what they do in totality - after calling him Hitler the Democratic leadership was wishing Trump a speedy recovery after the assignation attempt.
You don’t wish Hitler a “speedy recovery”.
It’s mostly political theatre. J6 was a riot, but the republic was not able to topple.
>No ancient Greek would have had any trouble in understanding what happened on the 6th or that it was a serious attempt (albeit an incompetent one) to seize power. Having a leader or a political faction move with a mob (often armed, but not always so) to try to disperse the normal civic assemblies of a Greek polis and occupy their normal meeting place was a standard maneuver to try to seize power during stasis. As Dr. Roel Konijnendijk, an ancient Greek history specialist, noted in this excellent discussion on the r/AskHistorians reddit (where he posts as Iphikrates), “In the Greek world, most attempts to seize power by force tended to take the same form: the seditious party would contrive an opportunity to gather in arms while their opponents were unarmed and off-guard, and seize control of all public spaces.”
(The link author has a PhD in ancient history)
(the "acoup" name is incidental, it stands for A Collection Of Unmitigated Pedantries)
And while yes, the Dems have flip-flopped between calling Trump Hitler and wishing him a speedy recovery, that's because they're spineless slaves to proceduralism who won't break decorum if the fate of US's democracy depends on it.
Or, pertinent to the subject at hand, how the Oklahoma City bombing was tied to the right wing militia movement and they’re still mostly seen as, well, a bunch of white dudes blowing off steam like you said. In that case, it seems like people saw that they got the perpetrators and that’s that, not considering what sort of circumstances produced them and where it might go in the future.
And WTC and OKC were (at least somewhat) successful attacks! J6 caused damage but failed. We’re really bad at taking failed attempts seriously.
A big factor in the OKC, J6, and militia movement and White nationalist violence more generally is that the law enforcement community in the US has very significant overlap with the militia and White nationalist movements, impacting how seriously they are treated by law enforcement, and how seriously they are treated by journalists who rely on experts from within the law enforcement community (both current officers and private experts that are the same people relied on as outside experts by law enforcement and are usually ex-law enforcement) for their understanding of the issues.
No, shooting. I don’t think it was a meaningfully different rate than other weeks in Capitol Hill, but firefighters failing to render first aid certainly didn’t help that one kid who was dying a couple hundred yards from a fire station. (The crowd wouldn’t let a police car through, and it turns out the firefighters wouldn’t approach until the police were there and said it was safe).
Well, that's the official story given by the police. According to the protest medics who treated the shooting victim on the scene, the cops took so much time getting ready to respond - and this was independently verified by a local journalist, using hospital intake records and police scanner timestamps - that the medics gave up on the ambulance and drove the man to the ER themselves. When the police finally showed up, they were in fact told to leave, but it was not out of some political objection to emergency services: they were simply far too late to be of any use to someone who was already in the hospital at that point.
(I live just up the street from the police station at the center of the whole thing, so I paid close attention to all this stuff while it was happening.)
> firefighters failing to render first aid certainly didn’t help that one kid who was dying a couple hundred yards from a fire station
Still not terrorism. Left-wing militias are a problem in some parts of the world. They aren’t in America.
Our domestic terrorism comes almost exclusively from radical Islam and right-wing nutjobs. (Who, somewhat hilariously, see eye to eye on more than they realise.)
I suspect you're classifying the Trump assassins as right-wing nutjobs though (they weren't Islamists), which dilutes the position somewhat. What does right-wing even mean to you if it covers people trying to gun Trump down?
> What does right-wing even mean to you if it covers people trying to gun Trump down?
Is your impression that “right-wing” should designate a hive mind within which there is no conflict?
Because that's not what right-wing (or left-wing) has ever meant. The political universe isn't divided into two teams that conflict with each other but lack internal conflict.
Alternatively, I guess you might accept divisions within the Right but think that the term right-wing is defined in terms of proximity to Trump's cult of personality, but, no, while Trump is a right-wing figure (or perhaps an opportunist leveraging a right-wing base) loyalty to Trump is not what defines someone as being ”right-wing”. In either case, being violently opposed to Trump is not inconsistent with being right-wing.
My impression is that "right" and "left" wing are fairly vague terms that don't really mean much.
But in this case jumpcrisscross is identifying political violence as an almost exclusively religious (technically muslim which seems a bit off to me, but whatever) or right-wing phenomenon - presumably including political violence against leftists and rightists as perpetrated under the banner of the right wing (although note in another comment he has clarified his position somewhat). If leftists declaring autonomy and militantly seizing a chunk of Seattle isn't terrorism to him then there are some interesting meaning-of-words questions to resolve here - like what he think "right wing" means. It might be that political violence is by definition right-wing to him.
Extremism isn't something that has been accepted as a right-wing position, historically speaking. The right wingers - like everyone - prefer to enact policy from government. Anti-government vigilantism is one of those highly ineffective strategies that nobody really lays claim to.
> ...some small business owners were intimidated by demonstrators with baseball bats, asked to pledge loyalty to the movement and choose between CHOP and the police...
Call me old school, but it sounds like there were threats of violence for political purposes. I'm not sure how an armed and ideological group can seize an area and block the police for any interesting length of time without being a terrorist group. If not political purposes, why are they doing it? If not violence, why do they need guns (there were a few shootings) and how are they holding the police off?
And you aren't really addressing the point I was challenging you on - how are you identifying 'right wing' and 'left-wing' here?
> it sounds like there were threats of violence for political purposes. I'm not sure how an armed and ideological group can seize an area and block the police for any interesting length of time without being a terrorist group.
Then every bridge protest, any strike that gets contentious and/or gang activity is terrorism. They’re not. What you describe is an attempt to consolidate power; not sow terror.
The definition of terrorism is famously ambiguous. But if we expand its definition to include Seattle then must also include armed marches and counter-protests. That still leaves us with a domestic terrorism problem that is overly concentrated amidst right-wing extremists.
> how are you identifying 'right wing' and 'left-wing' here?
Broadly, by partisan orientation. More loosely: by authoritarian and individualist manifestos versus collectivist and anti-capitalist ones. The closest we’ve had to left-wing terrorism since the ecoterrorism era is Luigi, and that’s partly because he’s almost impossible to fit on a one-dimensional metric.
you have an interesting ability to ignore things you complain about coming from your own party. did you already forget about the BLM riots? how much damage was caused there? what about antifa?
as an independent i have a different perspective, the left are the violent ones and consistently push us towards a civil war with their bigotry and inability to stop attempting forced “progress”.
Are you sure you’re responding to the right comment?
If you meant to respond to me, and not roenxi, nobody is forgetting the riots. They were a menace. But they weren’t terrorism and wouldn’t respond to antiterrorism tactics; they’re mass lawlessness. Same as Seattle. The solution is enforcing the laws on the books against flagrant rulebreakinh. That doesn’t work for terrorists.
Haha, yeah you are a real independent all right. I swear I've never heard anyone say that and then follow it with something in their own voice, it's f*cling hilarious to me - I've never met an independent, just idiots tbh.
For the record, and this is true for all humans, speaking words that you've INDEPENDENTLY thought of and come up with all on your own - they leave your mouth differently than words you've heard another say and now your just repeating... it's instantly and immediately identifiable - it's like an advertisement came on, totally different tone, incantation and inflection.
His views aren’t particularly clear, but the would-be Trump assassin does seem to have been a right-wing nutjob. I don’t see why being a right-wing nutjob would require being a Trump supporter, it just happens that most of them are at the moment.
it’s interesting to me the tactics the left employs to make themselves feel better. the entire nation near about said they dislike the lefts policies and yet some still act confused and resort to childish tactics to resolve their inner conflict.
> suspect you're classifying the Trump assassins as right-wing nutjobs
No. Of course we've had left-wing terrorism. It's just not been as prevalent, organised or present as the right-wing form. (And I'm aware of zero currently-operating left-wing militias anyone considers a threat in America.)
There were 5 shootings resulting in 3 deaths over a period of 9 days (20-29 June). CHAZ/CHOP existed for a period of 23 days (8 June - 1 July). There were 33 homicides in the entire city of Seattle in 2019. No matter how you slice it, there was definitely an increase in the murder rate around the protests, potentially much higher.
And a piece with the increase in homicides, Mayor Durkan reported that SPD had received a 525% increase in reported crimes in the area when compared to the previous June. Obviously not all of the crime was committed by protestors, but the protestors were the ones that drove out the police presence and the city tolerated the situation created by the protestors for nearly a month. Regardless of whether the situation is best described as domestic terrorism or not, it's clear that public officials were willing to tolerate violence enabled by left wing protestors "letting off steam" too.
After OKC, the FBI turned the eye of sauron upon the militias. Then 9/11 happened, and white guys in the woods were suddenly less scary than non-white guy and the eye of sauron was no longer looking at the white guys in the woods.
> We’re really bad at taking failed attempts seriously.
To that point, Osama bin Laden had multiple attempts attacking the WTC. They realized that it was going to take a lot more than a car bomb to take down those buildings and made improved plans from a car bomb. Which is just some of the data pointed to by those that are unbelieving that a truck bomb was the sole cause of OKC.
I think your comment is a direct reflection of the lack of popular coverage and discussion of January 6th. It was planned for prior to the election as a contingency. There's clear and direct evidence of that fact and there's very little awareness of that fact.
I think that your comment is a direct reflection of your desire to paint the opposing political side as dangerous in order to gain political favor and power.
It’s still not going to work. When will the left learn that changing peoples mind by lying will not work?
What’s the lie? Groups like Oath Keepers planned it. It was not spontaneous.
The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is because they were completely incompetent. But being bad at overthrowing the government doesn’t mean you didn’t try.
But it wasn't, I remember seeing people on Facebook talking about J6 before it happened. It's kind of weird to see the minimization of J6 in real time.
There were several organized groups of people among the mob who went prepared for it to go much differently and stoked the flames. I shudder to think what would have happened if they made it to the chamber before the Representatives and Senators got out.
I see another person posted a credible source, so I won’t he redundant, but I do want to respond to ask why you elected to comment asking for a source - this story is very easily googlable.
The various right-wing groups had been escalating their rhetoric and actions by that time for more than a decade without any meaningful action against it.
Even if it was a spur-of-the-moment mob action, something like that was always coming due to inaction in addressing the increased violence from the different right-wing groups.
This is in no way a statement support of terrorism but if you simply look at the facts the government showed up at these people’s homes and started shooting. In Waco they killed children by burning them alive and their defense was they didn’t know filling the building with flammable gas would set it on fire. Yes the branch Davidians were stockpiling weapons but at that point they were, to my understanding, legally allowed to own and sell guns. These were tragedies created by the US government on their own citizens.
I don't think these right wing militias are that much of a threat. They're mostly LARPers and have enough attachment to their groups to not do the radical violence. Historically the right wingers that have actually committed violence are the ones that can't even find belonging in the right wing militias.
They're essentially the US' guerilla forces that we see in other countries that cause foreign forces operating in their land to get stuck in a quagmire. They may not be undefeatable, but they'll be able to put up a helluva show enough to make the opfor to question their commitment. Probably long enough to sway public opinion as well.
He just up and joined a bunch of radical militias that he strongly disagrees with? I mean... maybe. But you'd of course be very suspicious of everything he says and his motives for coming forward.
The article's author was suspicious and skeptical too. That's why he read through the chat logs and audio recordings, and also interviewed former friends and militia members to corroborate the story. The article also explicitly calls out which of Williams' claims were uncorroborated or contradicted.
Genuinely asking: what other evidence are you looking for?
I think he actually agreed with it. Then had a change of heart or they pissed him off. I would go with the latter.
Myself.
Plus really have to be careful doing solo stuff like this. Alot of actual bad guys would say.
See I was telling a journalist etc. I am super under cover!
He might have been reaching out to journalists working for outlets that run cover for this militia movement. Based on J6 and subsequent developments in the justice system, there are media outlets cooperating with those authorities that downplay/join the militia movement.
This is an important side-light on the concept that media sources are 'grifting' and only interested in what will make them money. It's surprisingly common for media sources to turn away from stories that could be sensational and give them money, but at the expense of a cause (such as these paramilitaries) which someone at the media source supports.
In that case, the person at the media source making decisions will understand that the story is sensational and attention-getting, but will quash it because to run the story would be hurting the paramilitaries…
> Does ProPublica overestimate the seriousness of the militia movement?
Unclear. Depends on how supportive of it Trump is. He might legitimize it by pardoning the Jan. 6 attackers. Many of them thought they were acting on Trump's orders, after all. There was one platoon-sized Proud Boys unit on Jan. 6th that showed military organization and discipline. The rest were just a mob.
Having a private army of goons can be useful. That's what the SA was in the Nazi era. The SA was a big organization, 20x the size of the German army at peak. Eventually, it was put down once Hitler was firmly in power. See "Night of the Long Knives".[1] Other countries have been through this. Sometimes the goons ended up in charge, or at least as a large faction to be kept happy.
This is often seen after internal unrest that yields a large, restless, armed group. Germany got there by losing WWI, but not being crushed. Haiti is a classic example. Afghanistan seems to have gone down this road - all those former "fighters" have to be fed and kept busy.
The closest the US came was the "Bonus Army" camped out on the Mall after WWI, demanding a bonus for veterans.[2] The Bonus Army had 17,000 veteran soldiers, and some political and police support. Eventually they were forcibly dispersed.
US militias don't match any of those classic situations. They're mostly wannabees. If you encounter militia types, ask them if all their members use the same ammo. If not, they're a rabble, not an army.
Do we get to see the actual documents the original author talks about?
> US militias don't match any of those classic situations. They're mostly wannabees. If you encounter militia types, ask them if all their members use the same ammo. If not, they're a rabble, not an army.
Sure, but there's plenty of opportunity for asymmetric warfare. Several power stations have been attacked in various parts of the US over the last few years. They could be probing the power system for vulnerabilities (and there are plenty of those). Also, look at how lowish-cost drones are coming to dominate the Ukraine war.
The job of corporate media is to preserve the establishment, to perpetuate the status quo.
Sometimes, some token investigative journalism is allowed. (So long as those revelations do not challenge the status quo, natch.) Maintaining the charade of being the Forth Estate. Less so over time, as the "infotainment" biz model pioneered by USA Today transformed the industry. What kids today would call "enshitification."
FWIW, Propublica is a member of the so-called Fifth Estate, explaining why they can do what actual journalism.
I've been involved with a local militia for several years, and they absolutely do have strong connections with law enforcement (and, to a lesser extent, military) - some cops are members outright, others are not formally affiliated but provide support, training etc.
The cops I've seen in those meetings talking about how the communities they are policing are "subhuman animals" that "just need a bullet" are still in Seattle PD, as well.
They also had connections with some state legislature members, such as Matt Shea.
Ok, but so what though? Are they actively committing crimes or doing something crazy with regard to the militia? I mean we have tons of evidence of cops doing crazy shit in uniform and on the record and nothing happens.
The report identified (but didn't directly name) 1 sheriff. Assuming it’s the current sheriff, a quick google of his background + the fact that he "facilitated" the militia members FBI interview gives a pretty strong hint why mainstream media would not pick up this story.
If he does follow up with releasing incriminating files then that's not nothing. We'll see. I have hopes that he wasn't lying, I like nothing more than seeing traitors and treasonous cowards exposed to the light. I try to always stay centered and skeptical, but it would be a great reveal to expose these militia cowards skulking around the country.
Because as low as most journalist’s standard are, Williams is below that low standard. Though good enough for Pro Publica. He is an erratic, ex-con, who seems to be mentally unstable. Did you believe the puppy story?
If the journalist really verified the audio recordings I believe it. Faking so many hours of audio from multiple people is still difficult. I mean, you could do it with AI voices, but I doubt that's the case
Pro Publica is probably the most outstanding investigative journalist collective in the USA currently, unafraid to step on MAGA and militia toes despite their constant threats against journalistic freedom.
I see people proclaim the quality of Propublica journalism and thus actually read through a number of their major exposes.
I wasn’t impressed. They do the same thing the major news outlets do - craft a narrative then selectively use findings to support it.
Their expose on tax records is a good example - they calculated billionaires tax rates based not on income (as everyone thinks of) but rather total wealth to arrive at shockingly small numbers (intentionally).
Maybe they do a better job of in depth articles but the overall quality isn’t that impressive.
