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

Source for theguardian.com

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#51

Post by orcdork »

Antwan wrote: post #25
duckson wrote: post #8

The docs include a recipe for Breton crêpes. :) [1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/docs/99-arc...

This is not even close to bretonne crêpes. Either you use buckwheat floor and water, in which case you are making Galettes. Either you use plain white wheat floor, in which case it's crêpes you are doing. Under no circumstances you can put sugar in it, it's only added at the end. And of course, it's missing the most important ingredient: butter. #notevenclose

Like every comment on youtube recipe videos, here's another random person telling us how wrong everyone else is and how to do it better.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#53

Post by p4rsec »

skrebbel wrote: post #50
laumars wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Either you use buckwheat floor and water, in which case you are making Galettes. Either you use plain white wheat floor, in which case it's crêpes you are doing. Since we're already being pedantic, I just want to point out that you should never add flooring to crêpes (nor anything you intend to eat for that matter) :p

I feel very stupid but what is "flooring"? Is it just a different spelling of "flour"? I didn't manage to Google it.

flooring as in the floor under your feet. flooring, especially wood, is sold in "panels". therefore you get wood flooring panels. no idea why the guy spelled 'flour' like 'floor'.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#54

Post by maze-le »

toyg wrote: post #36
maze-le wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials I really don't know why this always has to be pointed out when it comes to classic mass media. I would say: "Good thing" because if you'd always agree, they would be doing a lousy job. Newspapers shouldn't be worldview-repeaters, especially in the op-eds. Lots of people look for validation of their already existing worldviews instead of critically reflecting o…

It's not about the newspaper quality, it's about signaling that the speaker is not a card-carrying supporter of the political faction the newspaper is traditionally associated with. So for the Guardian it translates to "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian". With the Telegraph it would be Tories/UKIP; and with The Independent (or whatever it's called now) it would be Russi…

>> "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian"

So, its essentially an apology for being an open minded conservative... Sounds pretty much like a premature capitulation to the bigots. But at least I know where its coming from. I've been questioned: "What? you are reading FAZ?!?!?"[0] (with undertones of "how dare you" and "what kind of leftist are you?"). Its a shitty state of affairs, when you are judged based on the sources you read.

I think it is very important for everyone to be confronted with opinions that don't fit into ones already established narratives. And nobody should ever issue an apology for that. The alternative would be to renounce your intellectual curiosity and feed of a self-reinforcing feedback loop...

[0]: The leading conservative newspaper in Germany.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#55

Post by toyg »

maze-le wrote: post #54
toyg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the newspaper quality, it's about signaling that the speaker is not a card-carrying supporter of the political faction the newspaper is traditionally associated with. So for the Guardian it translates to "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian". With the Telegraph it would be Tories/UKIP; and with The Independent (or whatever it's called now) it would be Russi…

>> "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian" So, its essentially an apology for being an open minded conservative... Sounds pretty much like a premature capitulation to the bigots. But at least I know where its coming from. I've been questioned: "What? you are reading FAZ?!?!?"[0] (with undertones of "how dare you" and "what kind of leftist are you?"). Its a shitty state of a…

> Its a shitty state of affairs, when you are judged based on the sources you read.

I think it's a natural state: sources inevitably influence your view of the world, and most people only consume one source for any given media, so it's not illogical to desume that you will be influenced primarily by that one source.

I completely agree that consuming a multiplicity of sources is a Good Thing.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#57

Post by danharaj »

p4rsec wrote: post #53
skrebbel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel very stupid but what is "flooring"? Is it just a different spelling of "flour"? I didn't manage to Google it.

flooring as in the floor under your feet. flooring, especially wood, is sold in "panels". therefore you get wood flooring panels. no idea why the guy spelled 'flour' like 'floor'.

Autocorrect?

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#58

Post by toyg »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #47
toyg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Digital media seems to be viewed much more as a commodity [...] in spite of it being the most effective and paradigm-shifting medium Or rather because : digital media is now so easy to produce and distribute, that its intrinsic value has now dropped to zero.

I’m not sure that’s it. I think that might be the perception, but users often speak out about the desire for higher quality content. Particularly content that is more interactive and engaging. But many media groups see it as a means to an end, like I’ve noted. Throw up WordPress with a CDN for images and host every brand you own on one to five instances and that’s it. They understand those words: WordPress, CMS, CDN,…

> they cannot see the benefits to investing in a more refined digital publishing platform

Isn't that "our" fault, in a way, as technologists? Ever since the internet appeared, we've told them that the only thing that matters is speed: a fast but pixelated jpeg is better than a heavy one; a fast and simple homepage is better than a detailed one; and this in an industry that already valued "scooping" over everything else... On top of that, we churn tech stack every year or two: Perl! ASP! PHP! Java! Ruby! Python! XML! jquery! React! RSS! Forums! Socials! ...

So they build the fastest way they can, with the minimum amount of quality they can get away with and the minimum of investment in the most "standard" tech available, and then concentrate on their core business -- which has always been advertising.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#59

Post by p4rsec »

danharaj wrote: post #57
p4rsec wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

flooring as in the floor under your feet. flooring, especially wood, is sold in "panels". therefore you get wood flooring panels. no idea why the guy spelled 'flour' like 'floor'.

Autocorrect?

I hadn't thought about that, but I suppose it's possible if he was on mobile. However his unusual use of Either twice also makes me wonder if maybe he's foreign and is as confused by English as native speakers are. This language is crazy

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#60

Post by mtarnovan »

dnomad wrote: post #48
swarnie_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian is both commercial and pretty left wing, i prefer a more balanced view of my news.

The Guardian is one of the most balanced news providers out there and you'd be hard pressed to find a more balanced English-speaking organization. A recent, concrete example of this is all the breathless reporting about Chinese camps containing a "million" Muslims. The story was complete hogwash [1] that was breathlessly hyped by every American news organization. The Guardian provided the most restrained and actually…

I used to trust The Guardian, but those days are long gone. A glaring example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/10/romanias-corru...

This is not journalism. The whole article quotes a paper published by a neocon think tank with ties to lobby groups payed by wealthy corrupt under investigation by the (Romanian) DNA. The article even hilariously uses references to recentnews.ro, long proven a fake news site, part of a network of fake news sites that launched the infamous "Pope shocks the world endorsing Trump".

Another example: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...

Post reply on HN