Another breathless, gasping story about the evils of FB / technology / capitalism / <insert boogeyman here> from the Guardian, which has established itself as the nexus for alarmist 'journalism'. The footer: "in the coming year, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times..." Doesn't sound much like a news outlet to me.
...then you read the piece and find out there's really very little content, just links to other articles (some by the Guardian!). A lot of words on the page that give the impression of something important, whereas in reality they're just building on the narrative they've been selling.
It's not like they have any context or history of gross, concerted efforts at manipulating public opinion through Facebook and/or a lack of social responsibility to draw upon. /s
What gives the newspapers special status here that changes it from being apples to apples? Why do newspapers get to use broadcast media to influence the public but others aren’t allowed or at least should be looked at negatively?
Shocked that a normal and healthy practice that should be done more by more and different kinds of people is big news to the NYT, because tech.
Watching the NYT (and others) from within tech over the past few years has done more to destroy any trust in mass media than anything else in my lifetime.
It's been a while since I read this article, but I believe James Risen also talked about government employees working with the NYT to publish pre-approved "leaks".
The NYT is one of the primary targets of Manufacturing Consent. That book changed how I see the media. I still read NYT pretty regularly, but I definitely see it differently.
Yes, that was the start of it for me, seeing that going on while understanding exactly how much BS it was at the time. Then the 2016 elections (and constant fumbling to get any story right since) and this finished the job.
The Economist wasn’t great either. Around 02-03 I distinctly remember them raving at the effective political strategy of the Bush administration in bangig the drums of war as a ruse to bring Saddam Hussein to the negotiating table. It was apparent to even a kid like me that war was all the White House wanted.
Every rag has its issues. The pieces are written by people and edited by more people in turn. It’s more about reading the least worst of a bad bunch. NYT and FT are in that category for me at least.
Is there a therapist that specializes in all the trauma Judith Miller has caused me personally? I would really like to get into that with someone, it was a big part of my youth.
How hot will this thing be with 8 cores? Unless they've cut some ventilation holes in the bottom of the laptop. MBPs aren't exactly known for good thermal regulation (my previous one I had to actually undervolt the CPU so it wouldn't overheat while playing games for even < 30m).
Don't see anything re: keyboard so guessing that there aren't any changes there, unfortunately.
Dave Lee made a video about the Core i9 (now previous generation) that thermal throttled almost immediately under load. The throttling was so terrible it actually performed worse than the 2017 MacBook Pro.
This is from 2016, but you can see that even three years ago, the Guardian was already busy milking every possible story for outrage. Nothing can happen, clearly, without it being connected to something bad caused by tech.
Zero confidence that any part of the US congress is even remotely capable of producing a bill for this that isn't a complete disaster. Unfortunately, they'll probably try anyway.
One of those moments I'm glad that our government is so broken at this point that it can't really drive significant change.
And I feel better knowing that these two representatives haven’t been in the news for their views or for scandals. I’ll have to read the bill to know better.
They were afraid of being labelled unpatriotic. This was during the time where Senator Max Cleland was attacked for being "unpatriotic" even though he lost three limbs in the Vietnam War
Criminal Justice Reform bill is the masterwork of Jared Kushner. Kushner is the reason why it exists at all, so it wasn't really "congress" that "produced" it.
> 1. If you're an alcoholic and think you can handle a single drink, you're lying to yourself. 2. It's honestly not worth it. Life is better than being stuck in a multi day binger. The physically effects are taxing on the body. 3. You'll always have those urges and that feeling of wanting to drink isn't as bad as the act of actually drinking and the damage the follows.
Worth noting that #1 is AA dogma and is certainly not a medically proven thing. About 5% of people who go through AA eventually get sober, roughly the same as other treatment approaches (many of which skip the disease model of alcoholism entirely).
IMO, the AA notion that you are diseased for life unless you turn your life over to a higher power (which looks suspiciously like the personal god of Western Protestant Christianity) is poison.
There's so much I would like to say about this, but let me try not to let this get out of hand.
a. The people I know attend AA are not religious and they don't enjoy that aspect of AA.
b. They refuse to take medication like Disulfiram (Antabuse) and rather deal with their addiction by attending meetings.
c. I'm not sure if you are an actual alcoholic, it sounds like you're not, but I would advise you to be cautious about what you're saying here. If you deal with Alcoholism, there's no "final" cure. You are aware of that right?
People who deal with Alcoholism don't view their addiction as being "diseased" and AA doesn't suggest that as well. You might want to read the Big Book which is available online. I read it to understand what my friends actually deal with.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "disease model of alcoholism". It sounds like your knowledge is not only superficial, but poorly researched.
> If you deal with Alcoholism, there's no "final" cure.
This is precisely it. You fight it continuously and always assume you are going to mess things up even when you think you're 'finally' strong enough. Just being constantly paranoid about slipping back into old habits. It's no joke and there's no panacea.
This comment broke the site guidelines. We ban accounts that are repeatedly uncivil here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules in the future, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are, we'd be grateful.
Has it ever been the place to have an interview or 1:1 conversation? That it didn't work well seems like something that would be known in advance, and so the choice of doing it this way feels more like grandstanding on the part of KS.
Not saying Twitter doesn't have problems, just that this seems to be an interview constructed to support a narrative right from the start.
