...I know for sure that if I am on the feed of posts and I refresh, some things will vanish and others will appear. Sometimes I want to go back to something I read earlier, sometimes it's impossible to find.
That's how they keep you scrolling. Also, I'm convinced that FB keeps track of what you've already seen and uses that to influence what they show you. "Going back" sometimes just isn't an option.
It's nice to be able to keep up with people you knew from college. But that doesn't mean I want to share in everything that goes through their heads.
You can tailor who's visible and partially tune what you see. For example, I have a friend who I sometimes have interesting discussions with but often shares posts from a Las Vegas animal shelter. I see everything from her except the animal shelter posts. I also have friends who post pics of their dinner. I see nothing from them. If you're seeing too much garbage, get rid of the sources of that garbage. If you're seeing too few informative posts, add informative sources. I often see posts from my favorite news sources that I might otherwise have missed.
I asked you about sources you trust. If you gave me examples, I'm not seeing them. Aggregates are great. They collect headlines from a number of different sources. I'm interested in which sources you trust since you so vehemently distrust CNN. Would you say you "trust" slashdot? Or Bing or Google? Every independent article, for me, is at a different "trust" level based partially on its source. Right now, on Bing's news collection, I see "Fox News", "Los Angeles Times", and "ABC News" featured at the top. These are what I consider sources. I'm hoping you can identify some trustworthy ones. Or do you treat all of these sources with equal weight and just average the stories together? In the case of a conflict, is it majority rules or is there somebody you can identify that you trust more than the rest? I trust CNN to tell me the truth and they consistently deliver. I don't feel any need to fact-check them even though I can get very different articles on the same piece of news from other sources. For example, CNN's coverage on the 'Pocahontas' incident didn't try to blame it on Warren the way Fox News did.
John Oliver is entertaining and can be informative. The investigative pieces he does on Last Week Tonight are terrific. Steven Colbert can be entertaining but, despite a reasonable fact-checking record, should not be considered a news source. I think he's said that.
As far as out perform CNN. Is a turd better with a peanut or a kernel of corn? I have a low opinion of most media and news sources. Too many "journalists" are actually activists. I am not sure I can answer that question. I know what I don't like.
Obviously the peanut. A turd with a peanut has more protein than one with corn; a turd with a corn kernel is next to worthless. This does kind of answer my question, but I think you're overstepping by saying that sources like CNN aren't "real news". Declaring news FAKE shouldn't be done flippantly and not without something to base it on. There are a lot of sources that deliver genuine misinformation and they should not be conflated with the MSM.
Yet, you are acting rather defensive over a biased news source. Why?
Because (Biased != Fake). And I consider questioning the legitimacy of our main stream media a big deal. You can say all kinds of nasty, accurate things about them, but you shouldn't be calling them liars when we're baited with so much misinformation from our White House. At least not without solid footing. Getting the truth right is a big deal. So is getting it wrong.
I don't use one source. Aggregates and multiple sources. I lump CNN with Fox and HuffPo and Salon.
That's dandy. You're doing a fine job telling us the sources you don't use.
Why is it if I criticize one news source I must automatically subscribe to another?
Because there's only one other person ill-informed enough to declare CNN "FAKE news" with nothing to back it up. Siding with CNN's chief critic suggested to me that you were a fan. Apologies if you're simply like-minded.
So CNN is on par with FOX news...
Yes. They both have good records of issuing accurate, biased stories. Fox's often edge closer to editorials (e.g. justifying atrocious behavior from our President), but neither makes a habit of lying. Either is a much better source of facts than our White House.
I'll ask again: What's your source that does so much better than CNN?
I don't know how you could describe CNN as "real news".
CNN has an excellent record of getting the facts straight. On the rare occasion that they make a mistake, they have an excellent record of promptly issuing corrections. Your links didn't impress me. Here's a bunch of other stuff that fails to damn CNN.
What's your favorite news source that outperforms CNN? PLEASE say DJT.
Dead trees will never die. I read news articles,/., etc on a screen. But picking paper/plastic for an actual book, I go paper every time.
Should we also duck and cover?
Sure, why not? It doesn't hurt anything and if it makes you feel better, it's a win. You might also try a rabbit's foot and praying to your favorite deity.
Your consciousness alters when you fall asleep, but doesn't cease. I'd describe being put under for surgery as being closer to death than just sacking out, but even then your consciousness is suspended, not ceased.
A lot of people have jobs with salaries, and "saving" four hours by not cooking doesn't "cost" me $600, since my company isn't going to pay me more money for that time anyway.
You could use that 4 hours driving for Uber. That doesn't mean you would (I never have), but you could. Working anything less than around-the-clock costs you money you could be making, salaried or not. Sleeping is very expensive compared to what you could be doing during that time, but worth doing occasionally IMO.
FB is very customizable. If you see garbage, it's because you're following sources that post garbage. I see posts from selected members of my family, some selected friends, and a few other sources that I've picked. Of course, I also see customized ads; that plus sharing info is the cost of doing business. I hide people who post, for example, pictures of their dinner. I also see REAL news from CNN, CNN International, and BBC News. I primarily get news from their web sites, but they post headlines to FB that may not make their front page and are interesting to me.
If FB is primarily showing you stupid stuff, that's because you told it to. If you're complaining that everything your friends post is stupid, change or hide your friends.
...most of the world is stupid...
Most of the world, by definition, is of roughly average intelligence. You're just full of yourself.
That is not correct. Telling people what they should have done, is a way to correct future behavior. Unless learning from mistakes is frowned upon.
One of your rules is irreversible. One requires some time and effort to correct. The other some people find insurmountable. What are you trying to teach people? What future behavior are you trying to correct? In your three rules, what mistake are people supposed to learn from? "Next time you go to high school maybe you'll know not to get knocked up. Hope you learned your lesson. Why are you still complaining about not being able to feed your child? I told you what you did wrong."
Point is, telling somebody what they should have done is a waste of time. Most people have already made the decision whether or not to have a child in high school. Somebody says, "I'm working as hard as I'm able, but I still can't keep food on the table." You solve their problem with, "Let me tell you where you went wrong."
Graduate High School, is that so fucking hard? Even people with kids manage to do it.
Did you complete high school while taking care of a baby? No? Then STFU. Having a kid as a kid often necessitates going to work full time on top of taking care of your child. Without family support it can be very difficult just to earn enough to survive without the added burden of full-time school. It's easy when you lose your virginity at 30, but for the rest of us there are temptations as teens that can lead to bad decisions. A bad decision as a teenager shouldn't doom you for life. Blaming their circumstance on their bad decision accomplishes nothing.
Waiting till your married and 21 to have kids, is that so fucking hard? Most people manage this.
Not useful advice to a 25 year old. Not useful advice for most people.
Having a full time job, is that so fucking hard? Most people manage this.
I realize I already said this, but are you aware that there are people who would very much like to have a full time job but can't get one? Those people are addicted to getting food every day just like you are.
There is no side to take when talking about facts.
Bull shit. There may be no sides to take on whether facts are facts, but when we're talking "about facts," we're talking about them in relation to ideas that may be disputed. The definition of "gay marriage" isn't up for debate; its legality is. The definition of "affirmative action" isn't up for debate; if/how it should be implemented is. Whether or not "illegal immigration" is illegal isn't up for debate; what to do with illegal immigrants is.
You seem to be suggesting that these topics all have only one side because there are facts involved. I'd suggest that you don't know WTF you're talking about. None of those topics are one-sided, even though we can "talk about facts" on all three.
Australia just legalized "gay marriage." How do you cover that event without mentioning "gay marriage"? "Australia just passed a law... We won't say exactly what it is, because we don't want to take a side. Anyway, that's what they're out celebrating. Their new law that shall not be named."
Affirmative action is discrimination.
Well, now we know your side. Let's hope the teachers are more balanced than you.
Illegal immigration is illegal, so there is no other side.
Again, we can infer your side. The question of what to do with people who live here without legal status has no obvious, indisputable answer. There is certainly more than one side.
Are you really so lazy that you can't copy/paste your 3 simple rules? Here they are for anyone who gives a shit what Michael's on about:
1. Graduating from high school. 2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married. 3. Having a full-time job.
Great. So the girl that had to drop out of high school because she got knocked up and married her baby-daddy we abandon. Good plan. Her poor planning obviously deserves a death sentence from her community. Or maybe you're expecting her to correct those decisions? Go back for a GED and kill her child? Also, has it occurred to you that some people without a full-time job would really like one? Your three rules are all fine ideas but expecting everyone to be able to follow them is ignorant and impractical.
But stop trying to use force to make other people follow YOUR morals... or accept when they want to make you follow theirs by banning abortion, or requiring church attendance.
Yes, by banning abortion, or requiring church attendance, or by banning rape, or enforcing road laws. These things are all obviously the same... I don't know why I thought it was OK to make laws for the public good.
...how do we run a government without income taxes, I will educate you...
You declared that you would educate us on how to run a government without taxes but then trailed off. Please, educate me with an example of a government that runs without taxes. Even if it's not "income" specifically, the citizens are paying for the operation of their government in every case I can think of.
If you think that is fair or "democratic", I would suggest to you that you support slavery...
If you're OK sleeping in a homeless shelter, eating every meal at a soup kitchen, and waiting for service at a free health clinic, then I'll support your choice not to work. Most people have loftier goals.
Are you really equating feeding the hungry with tying their shoes for them? And equating being poor with being in kindergarten? You're a fucking idiot.
So, you thing the "country" should provide you with everything you need...
Yes. I "thing" that we as tax payers should ensure that every last person in America has food, shelter, and healthcare. Civilized societies shouldn't leave the weak to die.
Slashdot Mirror
...I know for sure that if I am on the feed of posts and I refresh, some things will vanish and others will appear. Sometimes I want to go back to something I read earlier, sometimes it's impossible to find.
That's how they keep you scrolling. Also, I'm convinced that FB keeps track of what you've already seen and uses that to influence what they show you. "Going back" sometimes just isn't an option.
It's nice to be able to keep up with people you knew from college. But that doesn't mean I want to share in everything that goes through their heads.
You can tailor who's visible and partially tune what you see. For example, I have a friend who I sometimes have interesting discussions with but often shares posts from a Las Vegas animal shelter. I see everything from her except the animal shelter posts. I also have friends who post pics of their dinner. I see nothing from them. If you're seeing too much garbage, get rid of the sources of that garbage. If you're seeing too few informative posts, add informative sources. I often see posts from my favorite news sources that I might otherwise have missed.
I asked you about sources you trust. If you gave me examples, I'm not seeing them. Aggregates are great. They collect headlines from a number of different sources. I'm interested in which sources you trust since you so vehemently distrust CNN. Would you say you "trust" slashdot? Or Bing or Google? Every independent article, for me, is at a different "trust" level based partially on its source. Right now, on Bing's news collection, I see "Fox News", "Los Angeles Times", and "ABC News" featured at the top. These are what I consider sources. I'm hoping you can identify some trustworthy ones. Or do you treat all of these sources with equal weight and just average the stories together? In the case of a conflict, is it majority rules or is there somebody you can identify that you trust more than the rest? I trust CNN to tell me the truth and they consistently deliver. I don't feel any need to fact-check them even though I can get very different articles on the same piece of news from other sources. For example, CNN's coverage on the 'Pocahontas' incident didn't try to blame it on Warren the way Fox News did.
John Oliver is entertaining and can be informative. The investigative pieces he does on Last Week Tonight are terrific. Steven Colbert can be entertaining but, despite a reasonable fact-checking record, should not be considered a news source. I think he's said that.
As far as out perform CNN. Is a turd better with a peanut or a kernel of corn? I have a low opinion of most media and news sources. Too many "journalists" are actually activists. I am not sure I can answer that question. I know what I don't like.
Obviously the peanut. A turd with a peanut has more protein than one with corn; a turd with a corn kernel is next to worthless. This does kind of answer my question, but I think you're overstepping by saying that sources like CNN aren't "real news". Declaring news FAKE shouldn't be done flippantly and not without something to base it on. There are a lot of sources that deliver genuine misinformation and they should not be conflated with the MSM.
A flying saucer is not a U.F.O. because you have identified what it is.
Can you not have an unidentified flying saucer?
I told you I use aggregate sources to find out what is "happening" and use multiple sources to find "truth".
And yet you won't name one source. I'd love to know a few of these sources you aggregate from that outperform CNN. I keep asking. Don't make me beg.
Yet, you are acting rather defensive over a biased news source. Why?
Because (Biased != Fake). And I consider questioning the legitimacy of our main stream media a big deal. You can say all kinds of nasty, accurate things about them, but you shouldn't be calling them liars when we're baited with so much misinformation from our White House. At least not without solid footing. Getting the truth right is a big deal. So is getting it wrong.
I don't use one source. Aggregates and multiple sources. I lump CNN with Fox and HuffPo and Salon.
That's dandy. You're doing a fine job telling us the sources you don't use.
Why is it if I criticize one news source I must automatically subscribe to another?
Because there's only one other person ill-informed enough to declare CNN "FAKE news" with nothing to back it up. Siding with CNN's chief critic suggested to me that you were a fan. Apologies if you're simply like-minded.
So CNN is on par with FOX news...
Yes. They both have good records of issuing accurate, biased stories. Fox's often edge closer to editorials (e.g. justifying atrocious behavior from our President), but neither makes a habit of lying. Either is a much better source of facts than our White House.
I'll ask again: What's your source that does so much better than CNN?
I don't know how you could describe CNN as "real news".
CNN has an excellent record of getting the facts straight. On the rare occasion that they make a mistake, they have an excellent record of promptly issuing corrections. Your links didn't impress me. Here's a bunch of other stuff that fails to damn CNN.
What's your favorite news source that outperforms CNN? PLEASE say DJT.
There are still mail clients that don't disable loading images by default?
Gmail defaults to loading external content and is very popular.
There are other reasons to avoid Gmail.
By that logic, are we all native Africans?
We'll read dead tree books and newspapers...
Dead trees will never die. I read news articles, /., etc on a screen. But picking paper/plastic for an actual book, I go paper every time.
Should we also duck and cover?
Sure, why not? It doesn't hurt anything and if it makes you feel better, it's a win. You might also try a rabbit's foot and praying to your favorite deity.
How did the banana know to make carbon atoms turn into 8 year old human cells in one case, but 80 year old human cells in the other?
In both cases, the banana will transform into brand new human cells. How do you create 80yo cells without waiting 80 years?
I cease to be every night when I go to sleep.
Your consciousness alters when you fall asleep, but doesn't cease. I'd describe being put under for surgery as being closer to death than just sacking out, but even then your consciousness is suspended, not ceased.
A lot of people have jobs with salaries, and "saving" four hours by not cooking doesn't "cost" me $600, since my company isn't going to pay me more money for that time anyway.
You could use that 4 hours driving for Uber. That doesn't mean you would (I never have), but you could. Working anything less than around-the-clock costs you money you could be making, salaried or not. Sleeping is very expensive compared to what you could be doing during that time, but worth doing occasionally IMO.
...smart people avoid facebook anyway...
FB is very customizable. If you see garbage, it's because you're following sources that post garbage. I see posts from selected members of my family, some selected friends, and a few other sources that I've picked. Of course, I also see customized ads; that plus sharing info is the cost of doing business. I hide people who post, for example, pictures of their dinner. I also see REAL news from CNN, CNN International, and BBC News. I primarily get news from their web sites, but they post headlines to FB that may not make their front page and are interesting to me.
If FB is primarily showing you stupid stuff, that's because you told it to. If you're complaining that everything your friends post is stupid, change or hide your friends.
...most of the world is stupid...
Most of the world, by definition, is of roughly average intelligence. You're just full of yourself.
That is not correct. Telling people what they should have done, is a way to correct future behavior. Unless learning from mistakes is frowned upon.
One of your rules is irreversible. One requires some time and effort to correct. The other some people find insurmountable. What are you trying to teach people? What future behavior are you trying to correct? In your three rules, what mistake are people supposed to learn from? "Next time you go to high school maybe you'll know not to get knocked up. Hope you learned your lesson. Why are you still complaining about not being able to feed your child? I told you what you did wrong."
Touchy, touchy!
Point is, telling somebody what they should have done is a waste of time. Most people have already made the decision whether or not to have a child in high school. Somebody says, "I'm working as hard as I'm able, but I still can't keep food on the table." You solve their problem with, "Let me tell you where you went wrong."
Graduate High School, is that so fucking hard? Even people with kids manage to do it.
Did you complete high school while taking care of a baby? No? Then STFU. Having a kid as a kid often necessitates going to work full time on top of taking care of your child. Without family support it can be very difficult just to earn enough to survive without the added burden of full-time school. It's easy when you lose your virginity at 30, but for the rest of us there are temptations as teens that can lead to bad decisions. A bad decision as a teenager shouldn't doom you for life. Blaming their circumstance on their bad decision accomplishes nothing.
Waiting till your married and 21 to have kids, is that so fucking hard? Most people manage this.
Not useful advice to a 25 year old. Not useful advice for most people.
Having a full time job, is that so fucking hard? Most people manage this.
I realize I already said this, but are you aware that there are people who would very much like to have a full time job but can't get one? Those people are addicted to getting food every day just like you are.
There is no side to take when talking about facts.
Bull shit. There may be no sides to take on whether facts are facts, but when we're talking "about facts," we're talking about them in relation to ideas that may be disputed. The definition of "gay marriage" isn't up for debate; its legality is. The definition of "affirmative action" isn't up for debate; if/how it should be implemented is. Whether or not "illegal immigration" is illegal isn't up for debate; what to do with illegal immigrants is.
You seem to be suggesting that these topics all have only one side because there are facts involved. I'd suggest that you don't know WTF you're talking about. None of those topics are one-sided, even though we can "talk about facts" on all three.
...a Black-Oriented Science Fiction series hasn't been done before.
What makes you think this will be "Black-Oriented"? 'Get Out'? I did RTFA, but saw nothing about racial topics in the show.
Referencing "gay marriage" is taking a side.
Australia just legalized "gay marriage." How do you cover that event without mentioning "gay marriage"? "Australia just passed a law... We won't say exactly what it is, because we don't want to take a side. Anyway, that's what they're out celebrating. Their new law that shall not be named."
Affirmative action is discrimination.
Well, now we know your side. Let's hope the teachers are more balanced than you.
Illegal immigration is illegal, so there is no other side.
Again, we can infer your side. The question of what to do with people who live here without legal status has no obvious, indisputable answer. There is certainly more than one side.
Are you really so lazy that you can't copy/paste your 3 simple rules? Here they are for anyone who gives a shit what Michael's on about:
1. Graduating from high school.
2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.
3. Having a full-time job.
Great. So the girl that had to drop out of high school because she got knocked up and married her baby-daddy we abandon. Good plan. Her poor planning obviously deserves a death sentence from her community. Or maybe you're expecting her to correct those decisions? Go back for a GED and kill her child? Also, has it occurred to you that some people without a full-time job would really like one? Your three rules are all fine ideas but expecting everyone to be able to follow them is ignorant and impractical.
But stop trying to use force to make other people follow YOUR morals... or accept when they want to make you follow theirs by banning abortion, or requiring church attendance.
Yes, by banning abortion, or requiring church attendance, or by banning rape, or enforcing road laws. These things are all obviously the same... I don't know why I thought it was OK to make laws for the public good.
...how do we run a government without income taxes, I will educate you...
You declared that you would educate us on how to run a government without taxes but then trailed off. Please, educate me with an example of a government that runs without taxes. Even if it's not "income" specifically, the citizens are paying for the operation of their government in every case I can think of.
If you think that is fair or "democratic", I would suggest to you that you support slavery...
I don't think you have a clue what slavery is.
If you're OK sleeping in a homeless shelter, eating every meal at a soup kitchen, and waiting for service at a free health clinic, then I'll support your choice not to work. Most people have loftier goals.
Are you really equating feeding the hungry with tying their shoes for them? And equating being poor with being in kindergarten? You're a fucking idiot.
So, you thing the "country" should provide you with everything you need...
Yes. I "thing" that we as tax payers should ensure that every last person in America has food, shelter, and healthcare. Civilized societies shouldn't leave the weak to die.