421–430 of 503 posts
Reminds me a lot of google's effort to create high-quality scans of every book ever written. They got pretty far before the publishers stopped them. They now sit on a sizeable percentage of all books published, locked away in their servers where nobody can access it.
Could they still use this to train an AI model, legally speaking?
> it is not that the facts it reports tend to be inaccurate yes it is. I really lost faith in nyt when they ran article about running out of running out of charge in a Tesla. When they were caught red handed lying they still wouldn't admit to it. Their response was: "Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity, in Tesla Test" They just don't get it. People are sick of their BS and they need to just comp t…
That's 7 years ago? I don't know anything about that entire story so I can't comment specifically, but the NYT publishes about 150 articles a day, so there are bound to be some stinkers over the years. It's not great, but dismissing an entire publication over it doesn't strike me as fair.
This is not the behavior of an organization with a commitment to the truth.
[0] Original Critique and NYT response: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-th...
[1] Historians' response: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-proje...
[2] NYT Issues Correction: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since the statement they're fact checking is "twice as much... than any other nation," averages don't apply; the smallest ratio is the strongest counterexample. Politicians can avoid being fact checked like this by using less absolute statements in their rhetoric.
They are also using exchange rate $ equivalent instead of PPP, the ratio then is 1.93 for the Netherlands to the US. This is a lie by the fact checkers. One that pushes an agenda that's obvious to see for everyone who cares to look.
(Additionally, PPP is a model someone can use, but it's hardly agreed upon universally as the correct model for equivalent spend value. It's a "basket of goods" model, influenced by the goods chosen. At worst, Politifact is guilty of making a judgement call based on a choice of metric that reasonable people can disagree on, which is hardly "a lie" that "pushes an agenda").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm German. Public broadcasting, including ARD/ZDF but also countless of local radio station is without a doubt significantly better in quality than BILD/RTL or other private tabloid media Better than FAZ, ZEIT, Spiegel? That's the private media you should compare the news sections to, and I have some doubts that anybody thinks Public Broadcaster by and large have a similar level of journalistic integrity & quality…
Public broadcasting does not replace FAZ/Zeit/Spiegel though. There's a difference between reporting short pieces of news and the articles in the mentioned news papers.
I find the argument "look at quality of the private sector, we need the public broadcasters" to be generally disingenuous. Private companies will invest where there's a chance to make a profit, having to compete with tax-funded free services makes that much less likely, ergo you won't see a lot of investment. To consider that proof for the necessity of a tax-funded system is like a monopolist claiming that nobody would provide the services if they didn't, knowing full well that it's their abuse of the monopoly that keeps competitors out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more than just whether or not the events are true; I'll assume they are, but the commentary of "protests and riots are [..] an attempt to dismantle all of Western Civilization and upend centuries of tradition and freedom of religion" and "flag burning at the antifa/BLM gathering" most certainly is not. The problem with that last one, to be clear, is that it's trying to associate some alleged terror organisation…
This, to me, is the biggest reason it's presented as a lie. You can present factual events in such a way to convince people to draw incorrect conclusions, and that seems to be what the Breitbart article is doing. I actually like this example of a lie, because it's not an unintentional lapse of editorial oversight but an intentional distortion of fact. The unstated conclusion of the article, that Portland is an anarch…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more you know about a subject, the more false reporting you will find related to that subject. Remember that next time you read news about something you are not already well versed in.
Yes, sure, but this all unfortunately feeds into the motivations of conspiracy theorists. Maybe it is what it is, but what can we do to stop the wave of noncritical thinking washing over the Internet, where people insist that they are the only wise ones? Are we just doomed? I realize that media has lost its credibility in the eyes of many, I just wish that there was a good amount of high-quality critical thinking to…
Take the current virus. We realize that the republican version of 'it's a hoax and everything is fine' is a lie. But so is the democrat version of 'you need to never leave your house or you're a murderer'.
The simple fact is that without having solid numbers for:
1). The true infection rate.
2). The true age-adjusted mortality rate.
3). The asymptomatic r0 rate.
Any policy anyone suggests tells you more about the person suggesting it than about how effective it will be. It could be that reality is closer to the republican version, or the democrat one. But without a lot more science that no one is doing we will not know until decades down the line when people start digging up corpses and testing for the virus and finally doing some basic statistics.
And that's before we even look at what the economic impact is of the virus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) There are protestors 2) They are doing things 3) "Protestors are doing things" is a lie because they might not "actually" be part of the protestors but instead be false-flag undercover agents? That's wild. You can't have a functioning press under those assumptions, because you don't know for absolute certain that everything is the way it looks. Donald Trump might be a long-term agent of the Democratic Party aiming…
There is a long, long history of false-flag operations undertaken during protests. Some caution is advised when deciding whether any one action is taken by genuine protesters, especially when it's as comically "unpatriotic" as burning the bible and flag.
"Today there were protests, and during those protests these things occurred, we do not yet know if the people committing these terrible acts where part of the protest or not"
Instead we get
"During mostly peaceful protests everyone sat in a circle chanting defund the police" while in the background we see buildings on fire
I wonder sometimes if all of those people who sat around dreaming about what the Web would do for the world ever get together and ask what the hell happened. What's worst is that a lot of these conversations happened when memory of Eternal September were still relatively fresh. For my own part, I was maybe 22, new to the industry, and had not yet begun to appreciate Carlin's, "Scratch any cynic and you will find a di…
The fact that I can read your comment suggests that the Web has done something pretty incredible - it has made it possible for anyone with internet access to share information with billions of people. I think that this article is written from an idealist perspective. It's asking: How can we take this accessible Web of journalistic information, and make access to it free, while still providing professional journalists…
That's not a lot of real improvement for 30 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree with you. The only thing I'm arguing against is the GP's comment that we should blindly put our trust in the groups mentioned. Some of the best parts about science, as you've pointed out, are peer review and replication. There should never be a need to put your faith in an individual scientist and take them at their word. >There is a special place in hell for those who cynically use the fact that sci…
Reading charitably, I don't believe that it's what you meant. But with disturbing frequency, I do see similar words uttered and written with fairly clear cynical intent.