171–180 of 221 posts
I’ll try to figure this out today
It seems to be back up, but I didn't do anything. I'm still going to find out what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. Thanks for posting this. I probably wouldn't have noticed until January. Edit: it turned out to be a problem with the server. Thanks again for the heads up and for everyone’s kind words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is a good source of information? By that I mean: - not about daily information (which are usually as fast as possible and don’t take the time to really understand the situation) - not biased - not about juicy news, but world topics that are ~objectively important I feel like there should be a subreddit for that.
Every source of information will be biased, and you have to take that into account by being critical. I found that the best source for me is The Economist: once per week, written by smart people, with good summaries of anything that is important. Delivered digitally (with an excellent audio version, too). It is "biased" in the sense that the editors hold a set of opinions and you have to be aware of it. I do not agre…
I don't understand why this isn't more common. I'm already spending 8-hours a day at work, reading stuff or parsing information in some ways. I have found that I have no mental capacity left to read a full newspaper on top of that.
Listening to a podcast while commuting is way less exhausting (to me at least).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should check out allsides[0]. It's a new aggregator that presents news from the left, right, and center. They're constantly reevaluating what side of the spectrum news sources land on. They post about their findings and explain why they consider a new source left, center, or right. [0]: https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
You could possibly automate an aggregator that takes the various sources, see what at least all of them agree on and then spit that out as 'just the facts'.
And I think his friends and family take great care in making sure his legacy stays online and make sure everyone still alive can keep reading some of the most provocative posts from one of the brightest minds of our generation published on the internet.
Correction: His weblog is (back) online. And I think his friends and family take great care in making sure his legacy stays online and make sure everyone still alive can keep reading some of the most provocative posts from one of the brightest minds of our generation published on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I like and respect who Aaron was and what he did for us all, I cringed when reading "I Hate the News" because it came across as very naive. It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting, also the same logic my fellow parents use as reason for not attending town meeting. Find new sources, find your news. While today's news doesn't effect you directly, it might tomorrow, or it might effect your frien…
effect (noun) -> affect (verb, in this intended usage) not nit-picking, rather trying to help correct a common error that distracts from an otherwise excellent comment
I’ll try to figure this out today
It seems to be back up, but I didn't do anything. I'm still going to find out what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. Thanks for posting this. I probably wouldn't have noticed until January. Edit: it turned out to be a problem with the server. Thanks again for the heads up and for everyone’s kind words.
His post "I hate the news" (0) was(is) very influential for me personally. It was seminal in what become a rather significant change in my habits and view of the world. I am now very conscious that news are entertainment, purely and simply. With the goods and bads of any other entertainment form. From time to time, while explaining my position to others (often seen as kind of radical), I refer this post. I hope it co…
While I like and respect who Aaron was and what he did for us all, I cringed when reading "I Hate the News" because it came across as very naive. It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting, also the same logic my fellow parents use as reason for not attending town meeting. Find new sources, find your news. While today's news doesn't effect you directly, it might tomorrow, or it might effect your frien…
What's wrong with not voting? If you're a regular person, it takes a lot of time and energy and you get nothing out of it. One vote never made a difference.
I don't buy the argument that "If everyone thought like that, then it would make a terrible difference"... This statement is bullshit because the premise is false to begin with; most people will not think like that because most people are sheep and will vote for whoever the media tells them to vote for.
The people who buy the rhetoric that their vote makes a difference are the same people who buy all the bullshit propagated by the political media.
If someone is suggestible enough to accept the premise that one vote out of hundreds of million makes a difference, then surely these people are also easily influenced by other kind of media. It's very far fetched.
If you're a thinker, then your vote can never compete against the masses who just follow the media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I like and respect who Aaron was and what he did for us all, I cringed when reading "I Hate the News" because it came across as very naive. It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting, also the same logic my fellow parents use as reason for not attending town meeting. Find new sources, find your news. While today's news doesn't effect you directly, it might tomorrow, or it might effect your frien…
>> It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting What's wrong with not voting? If you're a regular person, it takes a lot of time and energy and you get nothing out of it. One vote never made a difference. I don't buy the argument that "If everyone thought like that, then it would make a terrible difference"... This statement is bullshit because the premise is false to begin with; most people will not th…
...is the sort of thing said by people who don't watch the news and because of that are unaware of the number of manual re-counts that are done each election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting What's wrong with not voting? If you're a regular person, it takes a lot of time and energy and you get nothing out of it. One vote never made a difference. I don't buy the argument that "If everyone thought like that, then it would make a terrible difference"... This statement is bullshit because the premise is false to begin with; most people will not th…
One vote never made a difference. ...is the sort of thing said by people who don't watch the news and because of that are unaware of the number of manual re-counts that are done each election.
In a fair system with over 300 million potential candidates, how likely would it be that a father and his son would both be elected as president (as was the case for George Bush junior/senior)? What about the Clintons? When we factor in the empirical evidence, how can we still think that one vote out of hundreds of millions make any difference at all?