Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

raptitude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 741 posts

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#641

Post by Lascaille »

vorpalhex wrote: post #293
sumtechguy wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a good method, another is actually studying the methods of advertising. The methods they have now are not much better than what they had 50 years ago. The only big differences are volume, intrusiveness, and rate. All of those have increased tremendously in the past few years. But learn about anchoring, A/B choice, timed choice, and so on. Helps quite a bit. So being conscious that most forms of video media ar…

I agree with most of your points but I strongly disagree here: > The methods they have now are not much better than what they had 50 years ago. The methods are much, much more refined and quite a bit better. You are being sold to and you may not realize it. Everything you interact with on social media (including reddit) has a good chance of being part of an advertising funnel. Even reviews and unboxings are usually a…

>The methods are much, much more refined and quite a bit better. You are being sold to and you may not realize it. Everything you interact with on social media (including reddit) has a good chance of being part of an advertising funnel. Even reviews and unboxings are usually advertisements.

100% concur with this. Conventional advertising may have not changed much but conventional advertising is now a much smaller proportion of marketing than it ever was.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#642

Post by Jaruzel »

Smoosh wrote: post #519
ishjoh wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a point of encouragement don't let some random internet bully discourage you from using a perfectly fine word like smart or from diminishing your self image. For all we know you're the smartest person in the world.

But appliances like toasters are "smart" these days, so perhaps it's no longer an apt adjective to use.

Talkie Toaster would disagree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRq_SAuQDec

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#643

Post by robertlagrant »

qiskit wrote: post #412
robertlagrant wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would you pay for something that has ads? It would be like paying facebook for a facebook account. Or paying to go to live sports when everything has ads on it.

It's why I stopped watching football, baseball, basketball, etc. Used to be a huge sports addict. Such an incredible waste of time looking back. Now, I only watch ad free highlights, if that. But peak level of lunacy are the ad-ridden movie trailers on youtube. I can't believe people are actually watching ads in order to watch an ad...

Well, don't forget that people stayed in cinemas for ages after Marvel movies finished to see a teaser trailer for another Marvel movie.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#644

Post by hutzlibu »

QuercusMax wrote: post #634
Auracle wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a pretty biased interpretation.

Care to elaborate? Seems pretty accurate to me.

It basically oversimplifies "right" to selfish ideology and "left" to ideology of "greater good".

For once I would argue, it is for the greater good, if "selfish" individual rights are increased - and apart from that, I think using the left right spectrum is not very helpful for anything, but dividing society into tribal thinking.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#645

Post by amanaplanacanal »

ufmace wrote: post #575
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Progressive wing of the Democrats Actually the Supreme Court that decided Roe vs Wade was mostly appointed by republicans.

Who were almost certainly appointed long before any of those issues were of a concern to anyone. Exactly what are you attempting to prove by that statement?

You blamed it on the progressive wing of the democrats. It was the state of Texas that appealed to the Supreme Court. Not sure who you think the “progressive wing of the democrats” exactly were.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#646

Post by mellavora »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #115
macksd wrote: post #4

I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…

Yeah. Those people who spend a few million dollars on a 30-second-long ad during the Super Bowl? They aren't stupid. They aren't mistaken. It really is worth it to them. But... if the commercials can do that to your kids, what about the programming ? If ads have the effect that you have observed, does programming that is full of sex and violence have no effect? The one mitigating factor I can see is the direction of…

further, if the programming has no effect, then why are you watching it? Obviously it has some impact on you...

The relationship between TV viewing and violence/aggression is just as scientifically established as the link between smoking and lung cancer. And we've known about it since the 70s.

See the official position of the AACAP, for one source (there are many sources, this is just from a quick google)

https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Fam...

Hundreds of studies of the effects of TV violence on children and teenagers have found that children may:

    become "immune" or numb to the horror of violence
    begin to accept violence as a way to solve problems
    imitate the violence they observe on television; and
    identify with certain characters, victims and/or victimizers
Extensive viewing of television violence by children causes greater aggressiveness

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#647

Post by strictlybiznes »

thrashh wrote: post #485
mastazi wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Economist seems to hide their agenda I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre"), they openly endorse candidates in many elections worldwide, they often include sentences in articles such as "this paper believes that..." etc. I don't agree with some of their points, but by making them explicit they also make them…

Yeah the Economist is pretty well known to be neoliberal. Which is fine… I subscribe and it’s a pretty good source if you understand that.

Neocon*

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#648

Post by mvdwoord »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #501
macksd wrote: post #4

I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…

There’s a documentary, Consuming Kids, showing how psychologists work with child focus groups to iterate on maximizing the impact of TV commercials targeting young audiences. Immoral doesn’t even begin to describe this phenomenon.

Interesting bit in "The Corporation" iirc about a phony research on how to make kids nag more efficiently which was presented as neutral research for parents about raising kids.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#650

Post by spywaregorilla »

ufmace wrote: post #574
spywaregorilla wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Living in a Democracy requires us to consider the opinions of our fellow citizens and try our best to accommodate them, rather than steamrolling them. The majority of americans believe in abortion by a non trivial margin. The reason it's not guaranteed is precisely because the united states is not a democracy, but a democratic republic, giving significantly more political power to some voters based on where they li…

> The majority of americans believe in abortion by a non trivial margin. That great, then you should have no trouble passing an actual Constitutional Amendment recognizing that right in a way that can't be interpreted away. I'll just sit here and wait while you go and do that. > The reason it's not guaranteed is precisely because the united states is not a democracy, but a democratic republic, giving significantly mo…

> That great, then you should have no trouble passing an actual Constitutional Amendment recognizing that right in a way that can't be interpreted away. I'll just sit here and wait while you go and do that.

Would be easy in a democracy

Ergo the solution is rural voters count for much more than urban voters.

> Naturally, the more rural states with smaller populations were concerned that their opinions and needs would be steamrolled by the more populous states

What happened to respecting the wishes of fellow citizens? Why are these specific citizens more important because they live in a different plot of land?

> Now, making those states' concerns appear rather prescient, quite a lot of modern urban progressives seem to want to renege on that promise, primarily because they think they can get away with it, and they hate those people anyways.

Maybe its because the concept of losing a national election with millions more votes than the other side is bullshit? There are many divides in beliefs between people in the country. Geographical ones seem like the least interesting.

Post reply on HN