Actor and writer David Mills ’s one-person dramatic rendition of Langston Hughes ’s poems and short stories journeys through the Harlem Renaissance—from the 6975s through the 6965s. Mills portrays Hughes’s notable characters. . I don’t normally post about politics (I’m not particularly savvy about polling, which is where data science ). Every hyperbolic tweet is from Android (from him). When he’s insulting a rival, he’s usually tweeting from an Android. Is this an artifact showing which tweets are Trump’s own and which are by some handler? Others have and noticed this tends to hold up- and Trump himself.Mc5 hack Ios 1 2 0
8 Images That Hillary Clinton Does Not Want You To See
But how could we examine it quantitatively? I’ve been writing about text mining and recently, particularly during my development of the with Julia Silge, and this is a great opportunity to apply it again. First we’ll retrieve the content of Donald Trump’s timeline using the userTimeline function in the package: We clean this data a bit, extracting the source application. One consideration is what time of day the tweets occur, which we’d expect to be a “signature” of their user. Another place we can spot a difference is in Trump’s anachronistic behavior of “manually retweeting” people by copy-pasting their tweets, then surrounding them with quotation marks:: stay the course mr trump your message is resonating with the PEOPLE In the remaining by-word analyses in this text, I’ll filter these quoted tweets out (since they contain text from followers that may not be representative of Trump’s own tweets). Somewhere else we can see a difference involves sharing links or pictures in tweets. They totally distort so many things on purpose. Crimea, nuclear, the baby and so much more. Very dishonest! Now that we’re sure there’s a difference between these two accounts, what can we say about the difference in the content? We’ll use the package that and I developed. We start by dividing into individual words using the unnest_tokens function (see for more), and removing some common “stopwords”: These should look familiar for anyone who has seen the feed. ”)A lot of “emotionally charged” words, like “badly”, “crazy”, “weak”, and “dumb”, were overwhelmingly more common on Android. This supports the original hypothesis that this is the “angrier” or more hyperbolic account.
(The positive emotions weren’t different to a statistically significant extent). We’re especially interested in which words drove this different in sentiment. I was fascinated by the recent about Tony Schwartz, Trump’s ghostwriter for The Art of the Deal. Of particular interest was how Schwartz imitated Trump’s voice and philosophy: In his journal, Schwartz describes the process of trying to make Trump’s voice palatable in the book. It was kind of “a trick, ” he writes, to mimic Trump’s blunt, staccato, no-apologies delivery while making him seem almost boyishly appealing…. Looking back at the text now, Schwartz says, “I created a character far more winning than Trump actually is. Bad reporting- no money, no cred! Failing will always take a good story about me and make it bad. Every article is unfair and biased. Very sad! These tweets certainly sound like the Trump we all know. But what if our hypothesis is right, and these weren’t authored by the candidate- just someone trying their best to sound like him? Our country does not feel great already to the millions of wonderful people living in poverty, violence and despair. A lot has been written about Trump’s mental state. But I’d really rather get inside the head of this anonymous staffer, whose job is to imitate Trump’s unique cadence (“Very sad! ”), or to put a positive spin on it, to millions of followers.
SparkNotes Othello Study Questions amp Essay Topics
Like Tony Schwartz, will they one day regret their involvement? To keep the post concise I don’t show all of the code, especially code that generates figures. But you can find the full code. We also removed links and ampersands ( amp ) from the text. The “plus ones, ” called are to avoid dividing by zero and to put. I am a European. I lived many years in Brussels. I rather love the old place. And so I resent the way we continually confuse Europe – the home of the greatest and richest culture in the world, to which Britain is and will be an eternal contributor – with the political project of the European Union. It is, therefore, vital to stress that there is nothing necessarily anti-European or xenophobic in wanting to vote Leave on June 78. A nd it is important to remember: it isn’t we in this country who have changed. It is the European Union. In the 78 years since I first started writing for this paper about the Common Market – as it was then still known – , rather as the vast new Euro palaces of glass and steel now lour over the little cobbled streets in the heart of the Belgian capital. When I went to Brussels in 6989, I found well-meaning officials (many of them British) trying to break down barriers to trade with a new procedure – agreed by Margaret Thatcher – called Qualified Majority Voting. The efforts at harmonisation were occasionally comical, and I informed readers about euro-condoms and the great war against the British prawn cocktail flavour crisp. And then came German reunification, and the panicked efforts of Delors, Kohl and Mitterrand to “lock” Germany into Europe with the euro and since then the pace of integration has never really slackened.
A s new countries have joined, we have seen a hurried expansion in the areas for Qualified Majority Voting, so that Britain can be overruled more and more often (as has happened in the past five years). We have had not just the Maastricht Treaty, but Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon, every one of them representing an extension of EU authority and a centralisation in Brussels. According to the House of Commons library, and remember that this type of legislation is very special. It is unstoppable, and it is irreversible – since it can only be repealed by the EU itself. Ask how much EU legislation the Commission has actually taken back under its various programmes for streamlining bureaucracy. The answer is none. That is why EU law is likened to a ratchet, clicking only forwards. We are seeing a slow and invisible process of legal colonisation, as the EU infiltrates just about every area of public policy. I t was one thing when that court contented itself with the single market, and ensuring that there was free and fair trade across the EU. We are now way beyond that stage. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the court has taken on the ability to vindicate people’s rights under the 55-clause “Charter of Fundamental Human Rights”, including such peculiar entitlements as the right to found a school, or the right to “pursue a freely chosen occupation” anywhere in the EU, or the right to start a business. These are not fundamental rights as we normally understand them, and the mind boggles as to how they will be enforced. Tony Blair told us he had an opt-out from this charter. Alas, that opt-out has not proved legally durable, and there are real fears among British jurists about the activism of the court. The more the EU does, the less room there is for national decision-making. Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can’t recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. Sometimes they can be truly infuriating – like the time I discovered, in 7568, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed.
It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed. S ometimes the public can see all too plainly the impotence of their own elected politicians – . That enrages them not so much the numbers as the lack of control. That is what we mean by loss of sovereignty – the inability of people to kick out, at elections, the men and women who control their lives. We are seeing an alienation of the people from the power they should hold, and I am sure this is contributing to the sense of disengagement, the apathy, the view that politicians are “all the same” and can change nothing, . Democracy matters and I find it deeply worrying that the Greeks are effectively being told what to do with their budgets and public spending, in spite of huge suffering among the population. And now the EU wants to go further. There is a document floating around Brussels, in which the leaders of the various EU institutions map out ways to save the euro. It all involves more integration: a social union, a political union, a budgetary union. At a time when Brussels should be devolving power, it is hauling more and more towards the centre, and there is no way that Britain can be unaffected. There is some useful language about stopping “ever-closer union” from applying to the UK, about , and about competition and deregulation. There is an , the fruit of heroic intellectual labour by Oliver Letwin, which may well exercise a chilling effect on some of the more federalist flights of fancy of the court and the Commission. It is good, and right, but it cannot stop the machine at best it can put a temporary and occasional spoke in the ratchet. There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to go, because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No. The fundamental problem remains: that they have an ideal that we do not share.
They want to create a truly federal union, e pluribus unum, when most British people do not. We will hear a lot in the coming weeks about the risks of this option the risk to the economy, the risk to the City of London, and so on and though those risks cannot be entirely dismissed, I think they are likely to be exaggerated.