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

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#81

Post by rebolek »

stass wrote: post #65
dnomad wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

WSJ, Economist, FT and New Yorker are all western publications, and way closer to providing an balanced journalism. Guardian destroyed their own reputation in the last two years by openly publishing paid pieces and propaganda, even advocating for property seizure (see all their articles on “nationalization” of FB). Economist/New Yorker on the other hand are great examples of a quality left-biased publication.

I would have never though that I will see WSJ and balanced in same sentence.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#82

Post by ddebernardy »

laumars wrote: post #34
Antwan wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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've known a few toddlers who respectfully beg to differ about not eating floored food. And non-food, for that matter.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#83

Post by Loic »

kaelig wrote: post #69
Antwan wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am the author of this file. As one of the comments guessed, I was making them for my team. Agreed about the butter, very important! That's why the recipe mentions "paint the crêpe with butter". This is a family recipe carried over generations from the Pays du Léon. There are many sub regions in Brittany so I would not be surprised if your family's recipe differs. The other part of my family comes from Rennes, where…

I will test this recipe as I just came back from the south of Normandy with some packs of "Farine de blé noir" for this purpose. The timing is perfect. With respect to the recipes, this is one thing I really enjoy, cooking with the family recipes of other people, especially the ones which are about 3 to 4 generation old.

These old recipes allow me to enjoy the taste of something across the years, I like it. I will enjoy the taste of your grandmother crêpes. And of course, I will open a bottle of cidre with them :)

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#84

Post by lumberjack »

mtarnovan wrote: post #60
dnomad wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

This is also my issue with TheGuardian. Their reporting on internal issues in foreign countries is lacking in impartiality. It is not clear to me whether this is intentional or whether it is just that they put trust in the wrong foreign sources. I suspect the latter. Nonetheless they end up publishing some really ignorant and biased pieces about counties that Britons have no clue about, and thus cannot hold the paper accountable for.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#85

Post by nickserv »

mtarnovan wrote: post #60
dnomad wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The first link is an opinion piece, you do have to take those for what they are: opinion, not fact.

Usually the Guardian opinion pieces tilt to the left/progressive viewpoint, but not always. This is something I appreciate, not being always stuck inside a bubble.

The second link offers a summary and analysis of an interview of Assange, the original piece is linked, and while I didn't read all 3 articles completely I didn't see any massive distortion jump out.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#86

Post by chowells »

zhte415 wrote: post #61
p4rsec wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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 Non native speaking can be terrible. It's as if American's don't have the letter 'u' on a keyboard.

Americans use the letter 'u' for the 'u' sound. (Hahaha, contradicted myself within one word.)

Anyway, I am reminded of an exchange in the comments of Language Log. A British actor wanted to practice American rhotic accents. He said he was having trouble figuring out how Americans insert the 'r' sound. Someone explained that Americans use the 'r' sound where there is an 'r' in the word. He responded that he was baffled that the rule was that simple.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#87

Post by rhcom2 »

stass wrote: post #65
dnomad wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

WSJ, Economist, FT and New Yorker are all western publications, and way closer to providing an balanced journalism. Guardian destroyed their own reputation in the last two years by openly publishing paid pieces and propaganda, even advocating for property seizure (see all their articles on “nationalization” of FB). Economist/New Yorker on the other hand are great examples of a quality left-biased publication.

> see all their articles on “nationalization” of FB

Are you talking about the articles labeled "Opinion"?

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#88

Post by mtarnovan »

nickserv wrote: post #85
mtarnovan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The first link is an opinion piece, you do have to take those for what they are: opinion, not fact. Usually the Guardian opinion pieces tilt to the left/progressive viewpoint, but not always. This is something I appreciate, not being always stuck inside a bubble. The second link offers a summary and analysis of an interview of Assange, the original piece is linked, and while I didn't read all 3 articles completely I…

No, that is not opinion. It's payed lobby masquerading as opinion. For anyone who is up-to-date with the tense political and social situation in Romania, that article is a tendentious, vile manipulation, at a time when many Romanians look to the west for support in the fight against corruption.

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#89

Post by e12e »

tomalpha wrote: post #5

The Guardian has moved to a voluntary-subscription model for revenue - a gentle nagware if you like. No adblocker-blocking and (relatively) few actual adverts on the pages. I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials, but I do respect the quality of the journalism and the fact that they are a non-profit [0] I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a…

Well, there's :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)#Histo...

Re: Source for theguardian.com

#90

Post by joshmn »

Loic wrote: post #83
kaelig wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am the author of this file. As one of the comments guessed, I was making them for my team. Agreed about the butter, very important! That's why the recipe mentions "paint the crêpe with butter". This is a family recipe carried over generations from the Pays du Léon. There are many sub regions in Brittany so I would not be surprised if your family's recipe differs. The other part of my family comes from Rennes, where…

I will test this recipe as I just came back from the south of Normandy with some packs of "Farine de blé noir" for this purpose. The timing is perfect. With respect to the recipes, this is one thing I really enjoy, cooking with the family recipes of other people, especially the ones which are about 3 to 4 generation old. These old recipes allow me to enjoy the taste of something across the years, I like it. I will en…

> I will test this recipe

But does this recipe have tests?

Post reply on HN