181–190 of 980 posts
I tried to solve this problem by making AI rank the stories by significance and rewriting the news titles in a boring, factual style. I think it worked quite well, there's only about 10 headlines a day (out of 15k+) that get a significance rating higher than of 5.5 out of 10. It also helps avoiding the overfocus on western issues and actually learn what's happening around the world. https://www.newsminimalist.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you could just read actual wire services. AP/Reuters etc have close to no clickbait.
Yeah, news ticker sounds like the perfect solution. If something relevant comes up you can still look up some full articles
1 = (Not describing the content because that's not the point.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I quit reddit too recently, I still look at it for info but I'm not logged in/scrolling through it I find myself reaching for something when I have YouTube/chilling at my desk at the end of the day, can't code anymore/make something just on till I sleep. Sometimes have the desire to play a video game (I have a gaming rig too funny how that works) I've been trying to read HN or IEEE, TechCrunch stuff like that as my "…
> It's unfortunate people expect you to have social media like a girl asks me if I have Instagram and I'm weird to not have one Outside of reddit/discord/hn, I haven't had any social media since roughly 2010, and I don't use reddit or discord for anything remotely "social media"-ish. While I still get the occasional look as if I'm wearing a tinfoil hat when I say "I don't have FB. No, no insta either. No... not snapc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're absolutely correct, but you're missing an important detail. I'm assuming you're more aligned politically with the left. If you're not, I apologize for the assumption. To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibil…
To someone who is more right-wing, the bias of e.g. NYT is just as blatant as Fox News is to you, and Fox may come off as "fair". This is because the propaganda is specifically intended to land with their own audience. It's tuned to your sensibilities. This isn't really a matter of subjective opinion, though. Objective surveys have consistently shown that Fox News viewers are worse-informed than people who don't pay…
There’s plenty of right-of-centre magazines and websites aimed at educated right-wingers: e.g. First Things, Commentary, The American Conservative, the Spectator
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about you read actual news, not already half-digested propaganda vomit? You do not have to live in polluted wasteland of western media propaganda! Big media failed 1000x since war on terror, and Bush lies, yet you still consume their shit! Simplest way is to read media from independent country. India is good, perhaps Arabic countries. Next level are independent channels on Telegram and Youtube. 10 min daily summa…
> Simplest way is to read media from independent country. India is good, perhaps Arabic countries. It's interesting that you listed India first. The English-language news source that pops up most often via Google News is the Hindustan Times, which is hot garbage. Are there any Indian sources that are much, much better than that which you recommend?
Hindustan times seems like a rag, like British Sun.
I guess I would recommend to take some event that happened 2 years ago, find how some papers wrote about it back then, and if you like it, follow them.
My point is there is no reason to stay in toxic relationship. There is no reason to read news if you do not get any rewards. Even monthly AI summaries will be better, and you will stay "informed".
For example all the Trump shit today, he wants legal precedents from constitutional court, 90% of this shit is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Avoid following the news constantly. Check in every once in a while—a couple times a week at most. Agreed. I personally believe that checking the news everyday is akin to something like a ‘news overdose’. There’s nothing wrong with spending just 15 minutes per week. At least for me, that’s a far healthier dose.
Indeed, 40 years ago, if we weren't getting our news from the TV, we quite often got it via weekly news magazines and Sunday newspapers.
One thing to consider for those of us who are more sensitive to online outrage is to just quit social media all together. I’m technically gen z and I’ve been off of social media (aside from HN, WhatsApp and discord) for years and you wouldn’t believe how great it’s been for my overall state of mind. Reddit, instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok, LinkedIn, Threads, etc are all the equivalent of digital junk food and I’d argu…
I find that just muting anyone who has anything to do with politics on facebook works well for me. I go on facebook to see your cutesy images and how your life is going not for long political diatribes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a department within his purview That's not how it works in the U.S. If an executive branch department was created by the legislature, it is up to the legislature whether or not it exists, not the executive. If the legislature has passed laws regarding how its resources are to be used, its employees treated, the executive is not free to disregard those laws. The legislature is the source of laws in the U.S., not the…
Playing by those rules, it's nearly impossible to change any big law or enact any drastic change to an existing law unless you have some world-changing event. The rest is just the slow march towards the mean which is controlled by the people that can bully others into silence and agreement. The mean is controlled by those that control the conversation and by those career politicians and bureaucrats that "play the gam…
I agree that our system of government makes it extremely difficult to enact large changes. That is by design, however well considered that design might be. Nevertheless, those are the rules. Which means the president can't legally do whatever he wishes to anything "under his purview" upon gaining power.
Or rather, that was the case until the SCOTUS decided there are no laws the president need respect. What they have not pronounced upon is whether the law binds anyone acting under the direction of the president. Does their invention merely protect the president from prosecution or does it abrogate all laws he finds inconvenient? I find it hard to believe they'll take the second step, but we'll probably find out pretty soon. Is Musk a monarch or merely our president?