Don’t believe everything you read
x-surface.tumblr.com
Don’t believe everything you read
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: Don’t believe everything you read
#2You get what you pay for. When a site's only revenue source is ads paying a couple of bucks per thousand impressions, this is the inevitable result.
Re: Don’t believe everything you read
#3I like the site that said "but we ran a prominent disclaimer at the end of the article!", as if that made up for a lede and a series of breathless grafs reporting the contents of an anonymous mail as fact.
Re: Don’t believe everything you read
#4In summary, author blames gaming sites for lack of journalistic integrity at the same time he fails to notice he is a liar and a snark.
Re: Don’t believe everything you read
#5fwiw, his list of "major sites" that got fooled is rather misleading and sketchy in its own way:
"yahoo" - syndicated content
"cnet" - (UK) cnet.co.uk's crave blog
"gizmodo" - (UK) gizmodo.co.uk
not saying that you couldn't fool major sites, but this is a misrepresentative. You say "Gizmodo' without qualification, people expect you mean Gizmodo.com -- Not Gizmodo.co.uk. But hey, anything for a headline/clicks/press, right?
Edit: It should also be noted that most of the sites listed are not gaming sites despite his tirade against gaming journalists
Re: Don’t believe everything you read
#6fwiw, his list of "major sites" that got fooled is rather misleading and sketchy in its own way: "yahoo" - syndicated content "cnet" - (UK) cnet.co.uk's crave blog "gizmodo" - (UK) gizmodo.co.uk not saying that you couldn't fool major sites, but this is a misrepresentative. You say "Gizmodo' without qualification, people expect you mean Gizmodo.com -- Not Gizmodo.co.uk. But hey, anything for a headline/clicks/press,…
If he'd left it a while longer before fessing up (say until the US started waking up) he'd have got a lot more on that list.
Re: Don’t believe everything you read
#7fwiw, his list of "major sites" that got fooled is rather misleading and sketchy in its own way: "yahoo" - syndicated content "cnet" - (UK) cnet.co.uk's crave blog "gizmodo" - (UK) gizmodo.co.uk not saying that you couldn't fool major sites, but this is a misrepresentative. You say "Gizmodo' without qualification, people expect you mean Gizmodo.com -- Not Gizmodo.co.uk. But hey, anything for a headline/clicks/press,…
If he'd left it a while longer before fessing up (say until the US started waking up) he'd have got a lot more on that list.
ya, but that's a different blog post. if you want to do that, do that. if you don't do it, don't make it seem like you did that.
Re: Don’t believe everything you read
#8I like the site that said "but we ran a prominent disclaimer at the end of the article!", as if that made up for a lede and a series of breathless grafs reporting the contents of an anonymous mail as fact.
Says the head of the new xbox division[1]
[1] According to an anonymous email I received 35 seconds ago
Re: Don’t believe everything you read
#9Or this is a brilliant cover up from Microsoft on a genuine leak. That is the fun with paranoia - there is always one more level of distrust.
Also specs of next gen devices are not that hard to guess.
Assuming goals are 1080p x 60FPS:
If you aim for sub 500 USD of production cost that retail at 350-400 there are not many balanced hardware solutions that could fit. My wild guess is that we will have 6GB of ram (it is dirt cheap so it makes no sense to have much less), because the invisible walls are something players and developers has complained a lot. 2GB of video ram and four core cpu. And maybe 7870/660ti class GPU and what is left of the budget for storage.
Re: Don’t believe everything you read
#10In summary, author blames gaming sites for lack of journalistic integrity at the same time he fails to notice he is a liar and a snark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
He didn't notice it?
> I feel bad for lying, but it proves the point very well.