141–150 of 214 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this downvoted? "Official" news may not be perfect but it is without doubt that most alternatives are way worse.
Probably because the reference to Q Their biggest line was "nothing can stop what is comming" and sure enough the biggest thing to ever happen happened, Covid.
Isn't that a tautology?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In response to something you didn't actually say - news is a classic example of when a free market may be bad, but all the alternatives people tried were much worse! And on what you did say - total agreement. The news has always been terrible. The internet has brought the cost of broadcasting so low actual honest or expert opinions and can make it out as well as the orthodoxies of people who can afford media companie…
Edit: I'm sorry for the lengthy post, but I felt giving rough examples was necessary to convey the point. It's true that some unofficial quality voices are disrupting established narratives ... but I'm sorry to say this isn't the shift that matters, because 99% of the 'unofficial sources' are considerably worse than just 'bullshit' in the press. The 'Giant Kraken Monster' of fake news is really shocking, and it's tak…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My theory is its data driven decision making. It's messed up the corporation to be purely metrics driven. Everyone hunts the metrics and misses the qualitative reasons for anything. We distrust internal models now, and try to be purely empirical, which is a mistake. We are overly technology now, but the technology lacks nuance and long term reasoning.
What irks me about data-driven decision making are two things: 1. Correctly reasoning from data is a very difficult task, needing advanced skills, requiring deep understanding of statistics. Most companies have nobody with such skill set on board. 2. It provides a fake air of legitimacy to otherwise arbitrary decisions. Whether by mistake (confirming your own biases with data) or on purpose, you can use data to justi…
I think one of my favorite cases of bullshit was the 2 years spent investigating Trump for Russian collusion, and nothing happened despite "Anonymous sources say..." stories every week in the New York Times. The hilarious thing about watching this is is the seemingly coordinated narrative everywhere with everyone using the same phrase like they all are just repeating "the truth" from some central source where they wr…
I've seen this reported numerous times by "mainstream media", here's a recent one:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/protesters-france-denou...
I think one of my favorite cases of bullshit was the 2 years spent investigating Trump for Russian collusion, and nothing happened despite "Anonymous sources say..." stories every week in the New York Times. The hilarious thing about watching this is is the seemingly coordinated narrative everywhere with everyone using the same phrase like they all are just repeating "the truth" from some central source where they wr…
If one news source reports "this is a sphere", and another reports "this is a sphere", and yet a third reports "this is a sphere", then you better go find and listen to the crackpot insisting it's a cube. Otherwise it's a sure sign you're in a bias bubble. There is no underlying truth about the shape of the thing, so any similarity in reports must have come from the reporters being hacks and bullshitters. Why yes, I am very smart and a free thinker. Let me tell you how you must be in Plato's cave for accepting the sphere-narrative instead of my preferred cube-narrative. I wonder why I am perceived as arrogant and tedious?
I think one of my favorite cases of bullshit was the 2 years spent investigating Trump for Russian collusion, and nothing happened despite "Anonymous sources say..." stories every week in the New York Times. The hilarious thing about watching this is is the seemingly coordinated narrative everywhere with everyone using the same phrase like they all are just repeating "the truth" from some central source where they wr…
>The bottom line is, if you see that all your news sources are repeating each other, it may be time to diversify your news sources. If one news source reports "this is a sphere", and another reports "this is a sphere", and yet a third reports "this is a sphere", then you better go find and listen to the crackpot insisting it's a cube. Otherwise it's a sure sign you're in a bias bubble. There is no underlying truth ab…
My post was the equivalent of "this is a sphere." Your reply is the equivalent of "this is a circle.". Thus, you are wrong. Why? Because math.
If you want to argue like this, I'll be here all day. :).
Btw, when you have two opposing viewpoints you are supposed to use your reasoning skills to determine truth, not apriori decide what is true as if it's an abstract math problem and stick your fingers in your ears so you don't hear any disturbing contradictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In response to something you didn't actually say - news is a classic example of when a free market may be bad, but all the alternatives people tried were much worse! And on what you did say - total agreement. The news has always been terrible. The internet has brought the cost of broadcasting so low actual honest or expert opinions and can make it out as well as the orthodoxies of people who can afford media companie…
I always thought PBS and NPR were pretty good. What am I missing?
Two quick examples from npr.org right now:
1. Somehow we can model how the economy can adapt to zero carbon in 40 years yet couldn't predict changes to solar PV becoming more affordable in the last ten: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/14/1027370891/climate-change-sol...
2. Could this article be more sympathetic to the administration? https://www.npr.org/2021/08/14/1027552833/heres-why-biden-is... the meanest thing they say it's "misjudged the speed". Why not "it's been obvious for two decades ANA could never hold together including the eight years he was VP"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always thought PBS and NPR were pretty good. What am I missing?
NPR has an implicit assumption in ~every story that a problem is best addressed by government intervention and spending. They're credulous of any claim an "authority" makes. Two quick examples from npr.org right now: 1. Somehow we can model how the economy can adapt to zero carbon in 40 years yet couldn't predict changes to solar PV becoming more affordable in the last ten: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/14/1027370891/c…
It's more benign than qanon. I haven't checked their coverage of mask wearing. I'll change my mind if they were pushing masks when Fauci was lying and saying they were unnecessary.