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

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 312 posts

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#191

Post by bobwaycott »

general_ai wrote: post #172
facetube wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How in the world is a picture of actual reality a "political statement"? How on Earth can an unedited photo of something that really happened be construed in this way?

It's a photo that was taken hours before inauguration, which made it look like the grounds were sparsely populated. Also known as "fake news". Here's the Gigapixel during Trump's inauguration speech: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inaugu...

There have been side-by-side comparisons provided many times over by the same parties at the same vantage points, taken at roughly similar times (tens of minutes at most). The Trump pics, during much warmer weather with a bit of a drizzle, are sparsely populated compared to the Obama pics of roughly the same moment in inaugural event time, and a far colder 28 degrees outside, are far more packed. There's nothing fake happening here. There's even an awesome time lapse covering, I believe, a roughly 7-hour period. There's video and photo evidence of the Pres & VP walking along with empty stands behind and beside them. None of the photographic proof has been doctored—which would make it fake. The only thing fake here are the claims of the proof being fake.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#192

Post by general_ai »

bobwaycott wrote: post #191
general_ai wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a photo that was taken hours before inauguration, which made it look like the grounds were sparsely populated. Also known as "fake news". Here's the Gigapixel during Trump's inauguration speech: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inaugu...

There have been side-by-side comparisons provided many times over by the same parties at the same vantage points, taken at roughly similar times (tens of minutes at most). The Trump pics, during much warmer weather with a bit of a drizzle, are sparsely populated compared to the Obama pics of roughly the same moment in inaugural event time, and a far colder 28 degrees outside, are far more packed. There's nothing fake…

Was the CNN Gigapixel "doctored" then?

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#193

Post by bobwaycott »

general_ai wrote: post #180
sqldba wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that photographic viewpoint I can't compare. We really need a picture from the birds eye view.

It's pretty clear there are a lot more people than the aforementioned picture shows, though.

No, it's really not. Because you can't see the distance. And from this vantage point, tricks of perspective make the immediately close crowd the only thing one focuses on. I can see empty ground coverings way off in the distance of the pic. It's not an outlandish claim to make that based on their distance from the camera, seeing the empty space as visibly as one can must mean it's a very large empty space. That's what the pictures and video timelapse from the Washington monument provide—the total viewpoint. This gigapixel from the sidelines is in now way informative as an indicator of total crowd size.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#194

Post by guelo »

refurb wrote: post #105
guelo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That chemical spill was a disaster caused by an accident when the EPA was trying to manage the wastewater from a gold mine. The wastewater was created by unregulated gold mining in the 20s. Trump wants to return us to those days when industry was unregulated and created the pollution that has taken decades to clean.

That mine spill was a major cock-up by the EPA. They even admitted it was. They were warned it could happen. It's not helpful to try and explain that away.

Can you explain to me the thinking that leads from the EPA made a major mistake to the EPA should be dismantled because it seems irrational to me.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#195

Post by monksy »

facetube wrote: post #165
monksy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is incredibly appropriate for the security services to state suspicion/evidence of foreign maleficence. (If it's true.. if it's a political suggestion.. they should be punished for propaganda) Although, Wikileaks has been nothing but consistent in stating it wasn't rush that gave them the leaks. It is fine for NPS to report occurrences. However, it was not fine for them to make a comparison of inaugurations. The o…

Comparing objective reality between two points in time is not partisan. It is factual. It is the truth. If the crowd had been larger than previous years, would you still object?

It would suggest trying to win favor. Still poor taste. They stand to gain nothing and loose a lot by making comparisons.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#196

Post by general_ai »

bobwaycott wrote: post #193
general_ai wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear there are a lot more people than the aforementioned picture shows, though.

No, it's really not. Because you can't see the distance. And from this vantage point, tricks of perspective make the immediately close crowd the only thing one focuses on. I can see empty ground coverings way off in the distance of the pic. It's not an outlandish claim to make that based on their distance from the camera, seeing the empty space as visibly as one can must mean it's a very large empty space. That's wha…

I see. "I refuse your reality and substitute my own". If you can't see that Gigapixel shows radically more people, then I'm afraid I can't help you. :-)

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#197

Post by ryanx435 »

facetube wrote: post #160
belovedeagle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell, there was a notice that public-facing communication be put on hold. Then EPA employees started howling that since peer reviewed articles are public, the administration had just ordered a gagging of all scientific endeavors. The administration put out a clarification that of course scientific articles weren't banned, upon which the media jumped on this as evidence that "aha! So you did ban scienc…

Who is "the left"? Be specific.

Why should they be specific when the left groups half of America into a basket of deplorables?

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#198

Post by bobwaycott »

general_ai wrote: post #192
bobwaycott wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been side-by-side comparisons provided many times over by the same parties at the same vantage points, taken at roughly similar times (tens of minutes at most). The Trump pics, during much warmer weather with a bit of a drizzle, are sparsely populated compared to the Obama pics of roughly the same moment in inaugural event time, and a far colder 28 degrees outside, are far more packed. There's nothing fake…

Was the CNN Gigapixel "doctored" then?

That's a pretty silly question. But I dealt with that in another response to you below. I've not suggested anything of the sort. The Gigapixel is taken from a terrible vantage point for providing an accurate ... hell, not even a rough estimate of the total crowd size. That wasn't the purpose of the picture and it's chosen perspective. That makes it pointless and obvious defensive grandstanding to use it as indicative of anything other than the panoramic view near the main stage. It's the equivalent of choosing the profile photo that makes you look thin when it isn't indicative of all the weight you've gained since that photo was taken. Misleading for the purposes it's being offered.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#199

Post by gvd »

jakeogh wrote: post #186
gvd wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think the fact that many people in the US coming from less free/developed countries is a problem (not the fact that they are here). They might come here thinking..wow this is great..this must be how it's supposed to be (together with the existing citizens who constantly hear they live in the greatest/free-est country on the planet). While when e.g. a Northern European comes here they are amazed by what kin…

NPR is one of the worst propaganda outlets. It insulates it's listeners from opposing viewpoints to a degree that I think is unhealthy, I'm often in awe of the sophistication of it. When they have a opposition expert on, it's very rarely someone I consider credible. They misrepresent the viewpoint of the opposition, and it's hard to believe it's not deliberate. I watched them (along with the rest of the MSM to be fai…

I disagree. Government can fund media, without you immediately thinking of Russia. Being Dutch originally, I would refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_syst...

Note that this is not a closed system where there is no private news/tv.

Also, look at DW (Deutsche Welle) and BBC. Whatever your opinion, these still provide much better information than whatever you can get in the US (well, you can actually get BBC/DW).

I would love to hear a better approach.

Re: Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

#200

Post by vacri »

cyberferret wrote: post #125
vacri wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On HN, you cannot downvote a direct reply to your comment, so you can't punish an explanation provided to you.

I actually upvoted @DanielBMarkham, because I thought his comment added value, and he did explain very well that it wasn't aimed directly at my post! :)

My point was more that if you're being 'punished' for a comment, it's not the person you're replying to that is doing it - that is, it's not the person asking for the explanation that's punishing it.

I think that the GP is being unfair, though. Complaining about arguments specifically on the topic of politics? That's the essence of politics - conflict and how to deal with it. If people didn't disagree on a topic, it wouldn't be political. Outside of political topics, I'd say the bulk of explanations offered on HN are upvoted or at lest left neutral.

Post reply on HN