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

Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

raptitude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 741 posts

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#561

Post by lotsofpulp »

Aunche wrote: post #550
lotsofpulp wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim was the President has the lowest impact on one’s life. As I showed, it is a reality that the President’s actions have a significant impact on people’s lives, probably bigger than a mayor or state senator or state representative probably has in the recent past. Whether the President should or should not is irrelevant. The salient fact is that if the presidential election results for 2016 were different, the…

>As I showed, it is a reality that the President’s actions have a significant impact on people’s lives, probably bigger than a mayor or state senator or state representative probably has in the recent past. The president nominating a justice that decided to allow the Texas abortion law to remain in effect while it is being challenged has a bigger impact than the state senator who drafted the law? Of course, the Presi…

I was referring to the expected outcome of the Supreme Court essentially overturning Roe v Wade later this year.

The rest of your comment is agreeable, but does not address the jist of mine which is that the President can and does have an effect on people’s every day lives in a noticeable way, hence people paying attention to them in the news.

> People seem to forget that the purpose of democracy is to give a chance to make sure your own interests are heard, not to give you an opportunity to impose your will on the rest of the country

As an aside, this is what the pro abortion choice position is. The people who want an abortion can get one, and the people who do not, do not get one. The abortion anti choice bloc wants to impose their will the rest of the country/state/city/whatever.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#562

Post by harry8 »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #560
harry8 wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objectivity is an ideal to be stived for. It's a reasonable point of view to suggest that striving for that ideal is worthwhile. When I think about no engineering design is a perfect trade-off, it becomes obvious that acknowledging this inevitable flaw does not make every trade-off equally useful. Some get closer to an ideal for the circumstance, usually they have to sweat to get there. And so it is with history and…

Objectivity as an ideal often prompts people with otherwise good integrity to both-sides issues where one side is clearly malicious or dishonest. Objectivity isn't the goal of journalism and shouldn't be: truth and clarity should be.

You're using the word "Objectivity" with a very different meaning to me.

"Truth and clarity" - this as an ideal IS objectivity. Not some half-baked, half-way position between competing lies which is anything but objectivity.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#563

Post by amanaplanacanal »

ufmace wrote: post #304
lotsofpulp wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The president has a very significant impact on many people’s lives via judicial nominees. The biggest this year is expected to be the effects of the 3 Republican Supreme Court judges installed by Trump on many women’s access to abortions, but many other judges in the system are appointed by presidents as well that make decisions that affect many people’s lives.

To further clarify the sibling's point, the reason for this is that the Progressive wing of the Democrats couldn't convince people to approve abortion access through democratic means as soon as they would have liked, so they decided to get a rather dubious Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution that declared it to be a Constitutional Right. Now they are totally dependent on keeping agreeable Supreme Court j…

> Progressive wing of the Democrats

Actually the Supreme Court that decided Roe vs Wade was mostly appointed by republicans.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#564

Post by DSMan195276 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #411
DSMan195276 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be honest, that's kind of an odd take to me considering that the "first century of our country" was followed by a pretty bloody civil war. Yes the United States is still here, but I'm not sure I would be so casual about all the terrible stuff that has happened in our history as though it's no big deal if it happens again.

I'm not saying it was great or not important, only that it wasn't existentially concluding. And the difference between "a bad person" becoming President and "half of the country withdrawing from Congress and formally seceding" is several orders of magnitude.

If your only criteria for concern is "existentially concluding" then I'd say you need to recalibrate your barometer. The biggest problem with this approach is that you'll likely only recognize such an event after it is already impossible to stop. We ended up getting very close to throwing out the past election results, wouldn't that be such an event? Or do you think it doesn't qualify because we managed to stopped it this time?

While I somewhat understand your reasoning behind not being concerned, the danger is that there is no guarentee the US will continue to exist forever, and history is full of failed democracies. If you're unwilling to have any concern over the stability of our democracy because it has got this far, then by the time you notice it has failed it will be too late to do anything to fix it.

And in the meantime, bad Presidents have and will continue to do terrible things to people, pretending like it's no big deal is not good. The fact that the US still exists is little consolation to those who were harmed by poor presidential decisions.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#565

Post by dnissley »

andrepd wrote: post #546
mastazi wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Economist seems to hide their agenda I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre"), they openly endorse candidates in many elections worldwide, they often include sentences in articles such as "this paper believes that..." etc. I don't agree with some of their points, but by making them explicit they also make them…

>They don't hide it. I think that they are pretty clear about their agenda to be honest. E.g. they explained and even gave a name to their stance ("extreme centre") My point exactly, that's anything but clear and honest! Calling their views, which are objectively right-wing neoliberal capitalist, calling them "centre" or "moderate" is part of an attempt to naturalise (if that makes sense) their worldview into somethi…

Could you clarify what you mean without using the words right, left, or neoliberal? All of which are extremely vague.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#566

Post by eyelidlessness »

harry8 wrote: post #562
eyelidlessness wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objectivity as an ideal often prompts people with otherwise good integrity to both-sides issues where one side is clearly malicious or dishonest. Objectivity isn't the goal of journalism and shouldn't be: truth and clarity should be.

You're using the word "Objectivity" with a very different meaning to me. "Truth and clarity" - this as an ideal IS objectivity. Not some half-baked, half-way position between competing lies which is anything but objectivity.

Ah yes. “Objectivity” is often used as lacking bias. Truth and clarity require taking a position and advocating it. The only way that’s unbiased is if there isn’t anything at stake in the truth or clarity thereof.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#568

Post by naasking »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #335
ufmace wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To further clarify the sibling's point, the reason for this is that the Progressive wing of the Democrats couldn't convince people to approve abortion access through democratic means as soon as they would have liked, so they decided to get a rather dubious Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution that declared it to be a Constitutional Right. Now they are totally dependent on keeping agreeable Supreme Court j…

> Living in a Democracy requires us to consider the opinions of our fellow citizens and try our best to accommodate them, rather than steamrolling them. The majority of americans believe in abortion by a non trivial margin. The reason it's not guaranteed is precisely because the united states is not a democracy, but a democratic republic, giving significantly more political power to some voters based on where they li…

The majority of Americans also live in urban areas, but not letting urban concerns steamroll rural concerns is also an important consideration.

Re: Things you notice when you quit the news (2016)

#570

Post by ksec »

macksd wrote: post #4

I fully agree with this. Scanning Google News or a couple of the more professional international news services like BBC / Al Jazeera / Reuters I still feel pretty well informed (and confident that there's usually nothing of immediate consequence to me) but it doesn't grow into "expert analysis" or impact my feelings much. Here's another thing I noticed: how manipulated / manipulative it is. And not just news and I do…

Recent Supply Chain News, Holy mother of god, the basic fabric of our society and they could not have been more wrong.

Commodity Prices and fluctuation, My god they really dont have a clue about commodity.

Tech, Foundry. Repeated mainstream news that follow like an echo chamber. We are now looking at Qualcomm X65 Modem switching to TSMC 6nm. ( In case you are wondering, NO it is not true. )

And Stocks. Using Bottom Up Analysis we figure out Google is paying $15B to Apple when the actual company annual report only state $13.5B in CAC ( Customer Acquisition Cost ) in total. ( Not all CAC goes to Apple, I mean Mozilla has a small trunk of it for example )

I am not sure if it is related, but because of how much BS coming from mainstream news, people are fed up and actually provide insight on Youtube Channel. How is something being done, why it is done this way. They are still high level overview, but they are directionally much closer to the truth than anything else. And it is the same with PodCast.

I now mostly just skim read news on my RSS-Feeds.

The worst thing about all of these is how people trust those number, figures, analysis. This makes online discussions on these topic 95% of times useless. Like I recently said to Dr. Ian Cutress where we agree, most media are only here for attentions and clicks, they are not here to inform their readers. The sad state of things.

Post reply on HN