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

Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 258 posts

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#231

Post by omnius19 »

mhneu wrote: post #154
omnius19 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would posit that you haven't looked very hard... http://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/206

The issue (in the US) is how many people read those Pulitzer winning stories vs. watched Fox News and other sources that are driven by the Murdoch/Ailes/Koch agenda. Sadly, a lot of people in the US watch Fox News and think it is the only truth. (Check out mediamatters.org for some agenda monitoring).

There are comfy media bubbles on both sides of the ideological spectrum and it is a serious problem. It is easy to criticize the other bubble while sitting comfortably in your own (please note I don't mean you personally, just a general person). One important step to popping those bubbles is to keep the stream of good journalism flowing. This means protecting the fourth estate from unwarranted attacks and trying to restore people's faith in the media and a basic shared reality.

However that is not the only issue causing these bubbles. People are segregating themselves, both socially and geographically along ideological lines. Print media is increasingly losing subscribers to generally less informative mediums such as tv. Technological advances, many brought about by my own field of software engineering, make it easier and easier for people to wall themselves off from ideas that make them uncomfortable. These are much more difficult problems to solve, and I certainly have no definitive answers for them.

So I start where I can, trying to encourage strangers on the internet (and in real life) to step out of their bubble and read the truly important journalism that still exists in our world. In the meantime, I hope someone much smarter than me can fix the divide in the US that causes these ideological bubbles. Because right now we are sitting on a powder keg, and the media isn't the cause... it's an effect.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#232

Post by omnius19 »

stcredzero wrote: post #108
omnius19 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. It is one thing to give reasonable criticism of a specific incidence of news media misconduct. It is another thing to blanket condemn every news organization based on inaccurate hypotheticals and personal opinions with no proof. Democracy is in trouble when people lose faith in the media and independent journalism is suppressed. By all means, be a skeptical and informed consumer of the news, but d…

Democracy is in trouble when people lose faith in the media and independent journalism is suppressed. Democracy is in trouble. Many people have lost faith in the media. Independent journalism is suppressed. (Though not completely in all the above counts.)

You may be right, but if so, that is quite a self-defeating and unproductive stance to take. If I accidentally start a fire on my stove, I don't say "screw it" and let my whole house burn down. I pull out a fire extinguisher and try to put it out.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#233

Post by omnius19 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #228
omnius19 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people, myself included, have supported the media long before Trump became president. It is easy to forget now, but Obama was also known at times for having an adversarial relationship with the media. Of course there are click bait articles and examples of bad journalism to look at. Just as there are examples of good and bad work in every profession. But pointing out singular incidents of questionable journalism…

As I said, I've definitely seen some good journalists persisting to this day. Though it's hard to support and defend what Trump's followers refer to as the "mainstream media" when the outlets I've found producing that great work, like The Guardian or The Intercept, aren't really mainstream.

You're right, the Guardian and the Intercept have done some very good investigative journalism in the last few years, particularly around Snowden and the US surveillance state. However they are certainly not the only ones producing impactful journalism.

http://www.cjr.org/criticism/best_journalism_of_2016.php

Here is a good list of some great journalism from the last year. Some of the media outlets are "mainstream" (note I really dislike that term as it is usually used by people being adversarial towards the media for their own gain). Some are small local papers. Some have what is perceived to be a left leaning ideological bent, and some have a right.

I find that many people laud the journalism and outlets that support their viewpoint. However, they avoid or actively denigrate good journalism and outlets that oppose their viewpoint. From your reading choices, I'm guessing that you probably don't read the Wall Street Journal or other sources with a perceived conservative bent. If not, you should try. And try some sources such as the Associated Press and Reuters which focus on producing content for many media outlets with different viewpoints and biases. Good journalism is being done across the spectrum. It should be supported, regardless of your political leanings, as the basis of a shared reality in which we as humans can make good decisions.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#234

Post by ocdtrekkie »

omnius19 wrote: post #233
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, I've definitely seen some good journalists persisting to this day. Though it's hard to support and defend what Trump's followers refer to as the "mainstream media" when the outlets I've found producing that great work, like The Guardian or The Intercept, aren't really mainstream.

You're right, the Guardian and the Intercept have done some very good investigative journalism in the last few years, particularly around Snowden and the US surveillance state. However they are certainly not the only ones producing impactful journalism. http://www.cjr.org/criticism/best_journalism_of_2016.php Here is a good list of some great journalism from the last year. Some of the media outlets are "mainstream" (…

On the contrary, I'm significantly more conservative than most of my friends (heck, I shared a post from National Review yesterday), and don't prescribe to either party. I have a hit and miss chance of reading WSJ because of their paywall.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#235

Post by omnius19 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #234
omnius19 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, the Guardian and the Intercept have done some very good investigative journalism in the last few years, particularly around Snowden and the US surveillance state. However they are certainly not the only ones producing impactful journalism. http://www.cjr.org/criticism/best_journalism_of_2016.php Here is a good list of some great journalism from the last year. Some of the media outlets are "mainstream" (…

On the contrary, I'm significantly more conservative than most of my friends (heck, I shared a post from National Review yesterday), and don't prescribe to either party. I have a hit and miss chance of reading WSJ because of their paywall.

Fair enough and I apologize for adding that assumption. It was unnecessary for making my point and disrespectful to you. I will leave it in for context but please disregard it.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#236

Post by shard972 »

idiot_stick wrote: post #164
shard972 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good they at least put a notice at the top but that doesn't excuse them. This is the kind of stuff Gawker does and was heavily criticized for, running a story without checking the facts because you want to be first or it fits your "narrative". I'm not sure what else it could be without it being much worse reason.

If you have a way to prevent things like this prior to their happening, I'm sure these newspapers (and many other industries) would love to hear it. Until then, things like this will happen. Assuming all media is bad because of these incidents is silly.

> If you have a way to prevent things like this prior to their happening, I'm sure these newspapers (and many other industries) would love to hear it.

Don't run with a story until you can verify it? I know that would have stopped them from running 90% of their anti trump stories because there isn't a lot of evidence for them but if they actually did that as a whole, I don't think trump would be president.

People still underestimate how well trump is able to play the game of calling out the media for crying wolf.

> Until then, things like this will happen. Assuming all media is bad because of these incidents is silly.

I'm really not dismissing all media, I'm just applying different standards to different outlets based on their biases. If i see a story on WaPo about something bad trump did, it better be well sourced and founded otherwise it goes in the trash.

Same with breitbart or any other right wing outlet, If they are making a claim that fits their narrative then you should look purely at the underlying facts and cut out the speculation.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#237

Post by shard972 »

hackuser wrote: post #189
shard972 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see something like this as a simple mistake, to me it's closer to gross negligence. How do you write an entire article like that without anyone asking "hey so, how is this a risk?". They wrote an entire article about the all the danger that this event shows us except the most basic questions about the hack would have quickly lead you to a realisation that there was absolutely nothing here. They even pin it on…

> How do you write an entire article like that without anyone asking "hey so, how is this a risk?". We don't know what they did in the course of writing the article or how the article ended up as it is. Maybe they did ask that, and the person they asked views the situation differently than you do; maybe they got conflicting answers and chose what was most convincing. Maybe they wrote about it and the editor cut it. (…

Well I think the answers to that can be found by looking at the background of the people. It's hard for me to go around telling people who they are since it can be subjective but let's just say I don't really have a lot of faith in my generation at the moment (20-30 year olds).

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#238

Post by MR4D »

hydrogen18 wrote: post #40
MR4D wrote: post #38

Didn't a Russian ship catch fire some months ago and travel through the English Channel? Seems to me that if it affected the nuclear aspect of the ship, it could pollute the water, and also flow into some of the major rivers of Europe.

How would that work? Does the Atlantic ocean flow into the rivers of Europe?

Clearly I blanked on my geology. :)

Thanks for all the humorous replies. :)

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#239

Post by CWuestefeld »

coldtea wrote: post #224
Tepix wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using: * very low noise * very shallow DOF * long bursts of rapid images * weather proofing (including cold) * improved dynamic range * high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality) There…

> The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using The "shallow DOF" can be achieved with a longer lens on a crop-factor camera. And most landscape pictures (such as those) use the hyperfocal distance anyway. A "expensive full frame" camera will have better "low noise" b…

Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking).

I agree with your overall point - and I've pretty much abandoned my APS-C camera, using my M43 camera almost exclusively.

However, there is a good reason for better high-ISO performance. It allows for tradeoffs in other areas. It means we can hand-hold in darker lighting or at higher focal lengths or smaller lighting than anyone could before. The ability to take a sharp photo while out on a hike when I didn't want to lug a tripod is valuable.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#240

Post by CWuestefeld »

dwringer wrote: post #209
PuffinBlue wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you're mixing your arguments. From your education you are aware that the 'equivalence' between APS-C and full-frame extends beyond focal length and into aperture and ISO performance I presume? That's the point the parent you're replying to is making. It is physically impossible to achieve the kind of equivalence you mentioned in your first post because the 'crop factor' is also applied to aperture and the cr…

The difference in DOF is more of a minor technicality than a "Your 1500 dollar lens performs like a 350 dollar one!" though. OP is correct that you are exaggerating, though OP was definitely wrong to ignore the difference.

more of a minor technicality

It all depends on what kind of photography you're doing, and your personal style.

For me, getting that shallow DOF is a nice-to-have, but it's not what I'm typically going for. More likely, I'm using a 7-14mm lens (on my m43 camera, if it you care), which for most reasonable compositions has infinite DOF if you just use hyperfocal distance.

Post reply on HN