The CEO was placed by the conservative party in 2017 ending decades of impartiality. He is a hack with a background in tabloid news, which has slowly swept into BBC entire ecosystem.
Their entire political reporting side is headlined by Laura Kuenssberg who is on her best day mediocre and on her worst actively participatory on the decline of democratic principles in the UK. Her "mistakes" such as giving her questions to Boris Johnson ahead of time, would be fireable offenses in any other high stakes job. But despite repeated mistakes all somehow helping the more radical, anti democratic, side of the conservative spectrum her position has never been in danger. She also hosts far right parties 500% more time than their current seats in parliment and is directly responsible for the cleaning of image of repudiable characters such as Nigel Farage.
So if becoming a slightly less abrasive Daily Mail while being paid with public money is not worthy of being called Trash, then idk what is. Its becoming the New York Post but without slurs
The BBC doesn’t have a ‘CEO’ if you mean the Director General, there wasn’t one appointed in 2017. Tim Davie was appointed in 2020, with Matt Brittin appointed recently.
Possibly you mean David Clementi who was appointed in 2017 as Chair of the BBC, but he was a financier, with no background in journalism tabloids or otherwise, so not sure what you are talking about.
Laura Kuenssberg hasn’t been political editor since spring 2022. The political editor is Chris Mason.
I’m going to take the rest of your comments with a pinch salt.
> 've heard rightwing people call BBC absolute trash for not covering the rape gangs.
yeah so the story about that... its mostly a right wing hoax.
The real story is as follows, many police departments refused to help working class people specially women. This was repeatedly reported and demanded to eb reformed multiple times.
A woman finally got the story through in the early 2010s. Which led to a big trial.
Due to reporting laws in the UK, newspapers couldn't report on it. Names are sealed until the trail and a bunch of other protections.
However Facebook and Twitter were blooming. And a man by the name of Yaxley, now Tommy Robinson, decided to make the case about race before any news could report on it. He spent years calling the case "Asian Grooming gangs" without any news reporting due to trail muzzle laws in the UK.
By the time the case was out in the open, the name had made the rounds and newspapers like the Sun and Daily Mail used it from day one.
Most cases found had white perpetrators, but the ones with Asian men got all the headlines due to the Tommy Robinson years of shit stirring.
The most famous case found that the police had been investigated twice over their lack of helping vulnerable girls. A judge had ignored a video of a girl being taken advantage of, saying "this girls like it". No prior investigation found race to be a reason why they weren't helped.
In 2016, the chief of police was fired because he was found to be responsible in part for the 17 years of abuse this girls suffered as something he actively ignored.
After he was fired, he repeated a twitter talking point "we didnt help because we were scared of being accused of being racist". This was repeated by other fired member in the 2020 report, but somehow didnt show up in the 2011 report, the 2007 report or the 2001 report. All of which highlighted ignoring girls for being poor, drug users, sex workers, or coming from foster homes and nothing about the race of the abusers.
So its funny how right wing people complain about the bbc not reporting about the gangs, when its a conspiracy made up by a neo nazi felon, in active contradiction to every police investigation from before twitter narratives and which is now a talking point in most far right circles.
So I dont think it averages out, making up shit to be angry about when police reform is something they have opposed for decades is not warranty to keep an incompetent far right spokesperson in the most important political journalistic office in the country.
That is a weird accusation considering the fact that the BBC is still hiding an internal report they made about their Israel / Palestine reporting after they were accused of antisemitism in the early 2000s.
If the report exonerated them, and showed they even have a Israeli bias, why would they spend 50k in lawyer fees (disclosed so far, real number is probably higher) to hide that report?
There is obvious distrust on western sources of the conflict and the UK active participation in the creation of the 2 state solution, as well as its alliance with America all taint the possible impartiality or accuracy of the BBC. But the accusations against them for antisemitism and anti israeli bias go back decades
> The very power of Lisp, macros, dynamic programming, reflection lead to a mess of an ecosystem where every single developer reinvents the wheel and nobody can understand yet another DSL invented by the next developer next to them.
Have you like looked at anything in the Clojure ecosystem because this description makes no sense of any kind. Clojure has macros but less powerful than common lisp and Clojure code in the ecosystem tends to be small and understandable.
So does the community of every other dialect (Common Lisp, at least). Write a function if you don't have to write a macro, and maybe declaim the function to be inlined.
The "Lisp Curse" is a ridiculous and tired myth that can only be invented by people who have looked at the language for 5 seconds and went straight to finding an excuse to not learn it.
Clojure is actually an interesting case here, because it is hosted. So, you can write a Clojurescript macro that runs at compile time on the JVM, but emits code that runs at runtime in Javascript, e.g. instead of blindly loading and executing some JS lib code, your macro can first parse it, analyze it, and conditionally emit Cljs that changes the runtime behavior.
Use-cases for code that writes code across a host boundary are rare, yet enormously useful and really difficult to achieve without homoiconic nature of the language.
Hyperfiddle/Electric is a nice project that effectively utilizes the idea.
I believe the real issue is that Scheme, which was (through university) often the first and last contact of people with Lisp family languages, has greatly exaggerated case of "everyone reinventing the wheel", and that's before you get into educational reasons that led to people seeing very limited view of Scheme
I think you have very little insight to what you're talking about. The modern Lisp landscape is nothing like what it was in the 90s or even 2000s. The amount of practical shit Lispers been quietly building these days is genuinely impressive.
Have you ever seen GitHub language stats? Elisp there in the list a few points behind Lua, Elixir, OCaml and Haskell. The amount of Emacs Lisp on GitHub alone should be at least surprising. There's so much Elisp in the wild - the amount of it probably exceeds Clojure, CL and Racket combined. And let me remind you that it isn't a "general-purpose PL" - it's meant for one and only purpose.
Look at the number of package for AI-coding in Emacs¹ - 35 and counting. Mind that emacs has no central curated marketplace with the same discoverability as VSCode's. Packages live across MELPA, GNU/NonGNU ELPA, and countless personal repos, so a hand-counted 35 from a Reddit roundup is almost certainly an undercount of what exists in the wild.
And that's just one of the observable axes of Lisp. Anyone can join Clojurians Slack and scroll through #news-and-articles, just out of curiosity. It is hard to find a problem space today or a runtime where Lisp has not proliferated. Why? Because Lisp is enormously practical. Just because you convinced yourself it isn't, doesn't change a thing about reality.
Your point can stand, sit or jump around in a circle - makes no difference. Any ignorant fool can make a hollow point about things they don't fully understand and congratulate themselves in the process.
You can make similar "observation" about Linux on Desktop, mechanical keyboards, 3D printing and Raspberry Pi/Arduino tinkering and call them "hobby business".
You're essentially conflating "niche" with "unserious". By that logic Linux was a hobby OS and Git a hobby VCS - both literally started as one guy's side project, both now run the industry. Lisp is niche, not unserious: Clojure runs Nubank, Walmart, Cisco and Apple; Common Lisp ran ITA/Google Flights; and most of the features in whatever your favorite language is were Lisp ideas first.
Infinite scroll is a shit pattern it creates complexity and makes it hard to get back to a position on the generated and changeable list. It can also be unexpected slow. Everyone knows a page load can be slow if their Internet is slow but a slow down when scrolling feels janky.If you think you need it you need pagination and more importantly better filters and search so users can find stuff easier without 200 options.
The original proposal was to use a visual hash designed to identify known bad CSAM images even if cropped or otherwise edited. Your computer would scan all your stuff for these images and report you to apple who would report you to the cops. This presented a number of issues.
Accidental false positives could lead to horrific outcomes up to and including oh look bob got shot by the cops for resisting.
It was possible to produce apparently matching innocuous images and then poison people's machines with them.Oops did you click on that picture of a tree have fun with the cops. Like an advanced form of swatting.
Although inspired by a desire to find CSAM Apple could be forced to scan for ANYTHING by repressive regimes including America and China.
Although initially targeting images client side scanning of messages is a pretty obvious next step. Again obvious good motivation exists and is completely justifiable who doesn't want to stop the next mass shooting or terrorist attack... and then we can basically use it to find people critical of the regime. Do remember we are presently prosecuting a political figure for a picture of sea shells and a guy in texas is rotting in prison for distributing political literature.
Europe is a fractal mix of polities ruled by a constant flux of elected representatives, and consequently exhibits political behaviour from a wide range of constituencies. Each citizen agrees, presumably, with some policies and disagrees with others, then they vote as best as they are able - which is not very, since every large electorate in the world falls short of adequate political competence. Some of those people vote for authoritarians, which i consider a shame but which is also true in your closest democratic nation.
European citizen surveillance is something i oppose, but at least it's balanced by a robust bill of human rights. America's surveillance state does not have that balance, because America wrote a bill of rights but didn't bother with the follow-through.
Kindly don't use my continent as a punching bag, thanks.
The actual study is more circumspect than this click bait and examines pretty deliberately how people respond to inaccurate data. It's neither a trick nor a design flaw. It's literally the thrust of the study.
It still proves something much narrower. Wherein AI is insufficient to answer, people are apt to rely on it anyway.
A good real-world issue is health, where the issues are very complicated with many things poorly defined even at the state of the art where practitioners are relying on personal judgement and lots of data but patients are apt to feed ai very little data compared to what their doctor has.
Real frontier models can remain confidently incorrect in these cases.
The only reasons to entertain that perspective is their personal delusions which they ought not impose on others also when an act takes place in one jurisdiction wherein all actors are within that jurisdiction it is obviously nonsense to apply a different justifications laws to the act based on their residence.
Generally filling up the buffer is fine. It's perfectly normal that after viewing a certain number of documents one has to manually decide where to go.
You know what you need. A button that goes back but instead of going to the prior document goes to the first document with a different domain than the current one.
Yeah, I'm not convinced it's really the site's fault... I can understand the logic of wanting the back button to go back a channel, but also I generally want to go "out" of a page when I hit the back button, so there's no real one-size-fits-all answer.
But speaking only for myself, if history.pushState was removed from my browser I would probably be happier in the end. JavaScript SPA's abuse it 10x more often than they use it appropriately, I'd rather that if you're an SPA anyway, you implement your own in-app navigation and let my browser's mean "get me out of this app". Lord knows SPA's already reinvent every other web standard, why not one more...
I want a back button and a button to the left with a double arrow back like Rewind and for the browser to maintain both a buffer of prior pages and one at least as long of prior root sites with right-click showing this list
reply