If they deleted the tweet they would be accused of trying to cover up their mistake. They can't win, the best they can do is stick to tradition and publish a correction in the linked article and a follow up tweet.
Was that a measurement made when you got it, or what they put in the spec sheet?
They usually under-rate the battery to preserve it. For example, a 30kWh car will probably only have 28kWh usable. A 3500mAh phone will probably only have 3300mAh usable.
Okay, fair enough. But they also published a correction, which is the done thing. Journalists don't normally go back and burn every copy of the inaccurate edition they accidentally printed and sold, they leave it there for posterity and publish a correction.
Article mentions a book that argues mostly naming ideas in maths after Europeans and Greeks gives the impression that they invented all of it. Note that ancient Greeks were not "white".
Somehow you read "all math and science are White Supremacist". I think the problem here is your reading comprehension.
Men seem to be more willing to take risks, such as a big car loan to buy a nice vehicle that gets high ratings and increases their Uber income.
Driving faster is an interesting one. It's well understood that driving a little slower but more consistently is generally the best way to avoid slowing down traffic overall, and not accelerating hard/anticipating reduction in speed reduces fuel consumption and emissions.
It would be nice if Uber rewarded good driving, but I guess most customers prefer speed (within reason).
Would you advocate giving men rights over the unborn child, and if so what rights and how would they be balanced against the rights of the mother to control her body?
Indeed. There are two separate issues that often get conflated.
1. Equal pay for equal work. There is some debate about how much difference experience should make here.
2. Equal pay regardless of gender. This is more complex because there is much debate about how much things like pausing a career to become a parent is truly free choice for both parents, and if employers are acting free from bias etc.
A more appropriate comparison is with hidden cameras. Secretly filming people in the nude or having sex and then publishing those images is at best a grey area in most places, if not outright illegal. While it's fine to take photos in public that happen to include other people, it's usually not okay to covertly point a camera up their skirt and take a picture.
I guess you can argue that people shouldn't be embarrassed to be seen naked or having sex, but that's gonna be a pretty hard sell.
So making a convincing fake video of someone having sex is likely to be similar to covertly filming them having sex, with the punishment, if any, depending heavily on the context. Celebrity having sex on a public beach published in a magazine is probably okay, covert camera installed in your neighbour's bedroom and streamed to PornHub probably isn't.
Incorrect. Tesla cells, on a full charge-discharge, are rated for 3000 cycles. Panasonic don't lie about their batteries, that really is the absolute minimum you will get. Anyway, 3000 cycles, let's say 250 miles per cycle, that's 750,000 miles.
Apple are saying 80% after two years is normal. 80% is end of life for these batteries, it's the same metric that Panasonic uses. So to wear your Tesla battery out in two years you would have to do 375,000 miles a year, or about 1000 miles a day on average.
I'm sure someone will pop up to tell us that they do 1000 miles 7 days a week 365 days a year, but basically phones in general and iPhones in particular are about an order of magnitude worse on expected battery lifetime.
The type of device isn't really relevant, it's how the battery is managed.
If you only charge to 90% and never below 10%, a lithium ion battery will last much longer. If you keep it close to the ideal temperature, it will last a lot longer.
For example, some laptop batteries last a very long time because they are kept away from sources of heat and the manufacturer limits them to between 10 and 90% charge. Others might die fairly quickly because they are right next to the laptop's major sources of heat and the laptop needs to draw on them during normal operation because the tiny thin charger can't supply enough power on its own. Some manufacturers allow you to charge to 100% and drain down to 1%, so they can claim to get 20% more battery life than their rivals.
It's interesting that Apple says 80% after two years is normal, because that suggests that they are managing the battery very poorly. 80% is considered end of life for rechargable batteries.
the stories they cite as junk (not fake mind you, but junk) turn out to be 100% accurate
You came so close to figuring it out. They are not saying that the stories are necessarily untrue (some are, some aren't), they are saying that the site itself is junk news. They actually define junk news in the paper.
Even when sites like the Infowars happen to say something that is true, that doesn't mean the site itself isn't junk news. It doesn't make all the other stuff on the site true, or less biased, or less deceptive.
Slashdot has a fair balance of views for the most part. The only real issue is when trolls get mod points and start abusing the system to silence things they don't like to hear.
The staff seem to have done something recently that fixed a lot of the troll moderation, because my (admittedly informal) monitoring of the situation has gone from a dozen abusive moderations a day to a few a week. The ones I do find are mostly just known issues like Mashiki sock-puppets. The trolls are still trying, e.g. they are using more meta moderation now, but so far it's been fairly effective.
These days when you hear people complaining about progressives or leftists or liberals saying something, you usually find that actually no-one is really saying that thing and it's just people whining about the imaginary whining.
We build this incredible tool for communication. Now it's destroying our democracies. We have to figure out how to use it for good, to make our democracies better, not worse.
This is extremely relevant to news for nerds and stuff that matters. Understanding the nature of the problem is key to finding a solution.
If there is any kind of left wing equivalent to that I really, really want to see it. No joke. Bonus points if it tries to sell you soy based brain pills.
For example, the study relies on a list of sites known to have fake news, with a "representative article" for each site.
The classification they use is "junk news", not "fake news". They describe the criteria for fake news in the paper, and if you read it carefully you will see that a story being true does not exclude it from also being junk news. It's entirely possible to present the truth in a way that distorts it, for example.
In other words they are not providing you with examples of fake news, they are providing you with the URLs they looked for to collect data on how often sites to junk news were linked to.
They are NOT commenting on the accuracy or truthfulness of the linked articles.
The closest thing to "RUSSIANS hacked US power grid" that the WAPO appears to have ever tweeted is this: https://twitter.com/washington...
Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont
Which is true. Where is this inaccurate tweet you speak of?
I'm not interested in supporting WAPO here, I'm just suspicious when people frequently claim that tweets and articles exist but don't bother linking to them.
When your bar for how willing to engage with critics is the comment section of a news website, you have lost all perspective on what journalism is.
Hint: it's not trying to defend yourself against a barrage of trolls with Brietbart links and conspiracy theories. It's not turning your website into a cesspit of unmoderated sewage, or opening yourself up to accusations of bias by deleting troll posts.
Anyway, look at Brietbart. Often the very first comment completely debunks the story, and they just ignore it anyway. Anyone going there for news is already so far down the rabbit hole they aren't going to be convinced by the contradictory comments anyway, so what's the point?
I don't think we need to lie, we just need to stop playing defence.
Just watch the way people on the right argue. They throw accusations and conspiracies at you, so you try to debunk them and defend the ideas and people they are attacking. You make a good argument, but they just ignore it and move on to the next copy/paste attack.
Technically you won, but it really looks like they did because you are constantly trying to defend your position and they never acknowledge that they were wrong about anything. And most of them don't even realize they are doing this, they are just doing what they saw work for other people.
You also have to remember that they are presenting the whole thing to their side in a way that makes you look bad. They use a lot of coded language, selective quoting/editing and simply ignoring things that are problematic for them.
So trying to debunk them or defend your ideas is always a losing proposition. Instead, take a leaf out of their book. Put out your narrative, make your argument without constantly referring it to theirs. Look like you are winning instead of getting bogged down in their bullshit.
As you can see, it does include a number of left leaning sources. However, it does have to be said, most of the junk "news" is coming from the right, particularly sites like Infowars, Hannity etc, and there are simply not left leaning equivalents. The left just doesn't have conspiracy theorists with TV show/online soy pill shops pumping this crap out.
A whole community of pretend news sites and blogs has built up around sites like Infowars, dedicated to spreading and amplifying that content and getting it distributed on social media. It was a deliberate effort, and it wasn't replicated on the left.
You actually just demonstrated why the right is often so gullible. Anything that contradicts your established view is written off as a conspiracy by your enemies, no matter how outlandish and divorced from reality that conspiracy theory is.
I didn't actually make the argument you are trying to counter. In not going to disagree with you because I'm not the imaginary person you are having an argument with.
Did you not read the post or watch the video, or is this some kind of hallucination? Who do you think you are responding to? Or is this just a general point unrelated to the prior content of the thread?
Slashdot Mirror
Infowars does indeed claim that soy will feminize you, and their brain pills do contain soy so...
If they deleted the tweet they would be accused of trying to cover up their mistake. They can't win, the best they can do is stick to tradition and publish a correction in the linked article and a follow up tweet.
My battery capacity reports: 45.3 Wh (design)
Was that a measurement made when you got it, or what they put in the spec sheet?
They usually under-rate the battery to preserve it. For example, a 30kWh car will probably only have 28kWh usable. A 3500mAh phone will probably only have 3300mAh usable.
Okay, fair enough. But they also published a correction, which is the done thing. Journalists don't normally go back and burn every copy of the inaccurate edition they accidentally printed and sold, they leave it there for posterity and publish a correction.
Article mentions a book that argues mostly naming ideas in maths after Europeans and Greeks gives the impression that they invented all of it. Note that ancient Greeks were not "white".
Somehow you read "all math and science are White Supremacist". I think the problem here is your reading comprehension.
Men seem to be more willing to take risks, such as a big car loan to buy a nice vehicle that gets high ratings and increases their Uber income.
Driving faster is an interesting one. It's well understood that driving a little slower but more consistently is generally the best way to avoid slowing down traffic overall, and not accelerating hard/anticipating reduction in speed reduces fuel consumption and emissions.
It would be nice if Uber rewarded good driving, but I guess most customers prefer speed (within reason).
Would you advocate giving men rights over the unborn child, and if so what rights and how would they be balanced against the rights of the mother to control her body?
Indeed. There are two separate issues that often get conflated.
1. Equal pay for equal work. There is some debate about how much difference experience should make here.
2. Equal pay regardless of gender. This is more complex because there is much debate about how much things like pausing a career to become a parent is truly free choice for both parents, and if employers are acting free from bias etc.
A more appropriate comparison is with hidden cameras. Secretly filming people in the nude or having sex and then publishing those images is at best a grey area in most places, if not outright illegal. While it's fine to take photos in public that happen to include other people, it's usually not okay to covertly point a camera up their skirt and take a picture.
I guess you can argue that people shouldn't be embarrassed to be seen naked or having sex, but that's gonna be a pretty hard sell.
So making a convincing fake video of someone having sex is likely to be similar to covertly filming them having sex, with the punishment, if any, depending heavily on the context. Celebrity having sex on a public beach published in a magazine is probably okay, covert camera installed in your neighbour's bedroom and streamed to PornHub probably isn't.
Incorrect. Tesla cells, on a full charge-discharge, are rated for 3000 cycles. Panasonic don't lie about their batteries, that really is the absolute minimum you will get. Anyway, 3000 cycles, let's say 250 miles per cycle, that's 750,000 miles.
Apple are saying 80% after two years is normal. 80% is end of life for these batteries, it's the same metric that Panasonic uses. So to wear your Tesla battery out in two years you would have to do 375,000 miles a year, or about 1000 miles a day on average.
I'm sure someone will pop up to tell us that they do 1000 miles 7 days a week 365 days a year, but basically phones in general and iPhones in particular are about an order of magnitude worse on expected battery lifetime.
The type of device isn't really relevant, it's how the battery is managed.
If you only charge to 90% and never below 10%, a lithium ion battery will last much longer. If you keep it close to the ideal temperature, it will last a lot longer.
For example, some laptop batteries last a very long time because they are kept away from sources of heat and the manufacturer limits them to between 10 and 90% charge. Others might die fairly quickly because they are right next to the laptop's major sources of heat and the laptop needs to draw on them during normal operation because the tiny thin charger can't supply enough power on its own. Some manufacturers allow you to charge to 100% and drain down to 1%, so they can claim to get 20% more battery life than their rivals.
It's interesting that Apple says 80% after two years is normal, because that suggests that they are managing the battery very poorly. 80% is considered end of life for rechargable batteries.
the stories they cite as junk (not fake mind you, but junk) turn out to be 100% accurate
You came so close to figuring it out. They are not saying that the stories are necessarily untrue (some are, some aren't), they are saying that the site itself is junk news. They actually define junk news in the paper.
Even when sites like the Infowars happen to say something that is true, that doesn't mean the site itself isn't junk news. It doesn't make all the other stuff on the site true, or less biased, or less deceptive.
Slashdot has a fair balance of views for the most part. The only real issue is when trolls get mod points and start abusing the system to silence things they don't like to hear.
The staff seem to have done something recently that fixed a lot of the troll moderation, because my (admittedly informal) monitoring of the situation has gone from a dozen abusive moderations a day to a few a week. The ones I do find are mostly just known issues like Mashiki sock-puppets. The trolls are still trying, e.g. they are using more meta moderation now, but so far it's been fairly effective.
These days when you hear people complaining about progressives or leftists or liberals saying something, you usually find that actually no-one is really saying that thing and it's just people whining about the imaginary whining.
We build this incredible tool for communication. Now it's destroying our democracies. We have to figure out how to use it for good, to make our democracies better, not worse.
This is extremely relevant to news for nerds and stuff that matters. Understanding the nature of the problem is key to finding a solution.
Have you ever seen an Alex Jones broadcast?
If there is any kind of left wing equivalent to that I really, really want to see it. No joke. Bonus points if it tries to sell you soy based brain pills.
For example, the study relies on a list of sites known to have fake news, with a "representative article" for each site.
The classification they use is "junk news", not "fake news". They describe the criteria for fake news in the paper, and if you read it carefully you will see that a story being true does not exclude it from also being junk news. It's entirely possible to present the truth in a way that distorts it, for example.
In other words they are not providing you with examples of fake news, they are providing you with the URLs they looked for to collect data on how often sites to junk news were linked to.
They are NOT commenting on the accuracy or truthfulness of the linked articles.
The closest thing to "RUSSIANS hacked US power grid" that the WAPO appears to have ever tweeted is this: https://twitter.com/washington...
Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont
Which is true. Where is this inaccurate tweet you speak of?
I'm not interested in supporting WAPO here, I'm just suspicious when people frequently claim that tweets and articles exist but don't bother linking to them.
When your bar for how willing to engage with critics is the comment section of a news website, you have lost all perspective on what journalism is.
Hint: it's not trying to defend yourself against a barrage of trolls with Brietbart links and conspiracy theories. It's not turning your website into a cesspit of unmoderated sewage, or opening yourself up to accusations of bias by deleting troll posts.
Anyway, look at Brietbart. Often the very first comment completely debunks the story, and they just ignore it anyway. Anyone going there for news is already so far down the rabbit hole they aren't going to be convinced by the contradictory comments anyway, so what's the point?
I don't think we need to lie, we just need to stop playing defence.
Just watch the way people on the right argue. They throw accusations and conspiracies at you, so you try to debunk them and defend the ideas and people they are attacking. You make a good argument, but they just ignore it and move on to the next copy/paste attack.
Technically you won, but it really looks like they did because you are constantly trying to defend your position and they never acknowledge that they were wrong about anything. And most of them don't even realize they are doing this, they are just doing what they saw work for other people.
You also have to remember that they are presenting the whole thing to their side in a way that makes you look bad. They use a lot of coded language, selective quoting/editing and simply ignoring things that are problematic for them.
So trying to debunk them or defend your ideas is always a losing proposition. Instead, take a leaf out of their book. Put out your narrative, make your argument without constantly referring it to theirs. Look like you are winning instead of getting bogged down in their bullshit.
Here is a list of the sites (page 6 onwards): http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp...
As you can see, it does include a number of left leaning sources. However, it does have to be said, most of the junk "news" is coming from the right, particularly sites like Infowars, Hannity etc, and there are simply not left leaning equivalents. The left just doesn't have conspiracy theorists with TV show/online soy pill shops pumping this crap out.
A whole community of pretend news sites and blogs has built up around sites like Infowars, dedicated to spreading and amplifying that content and getting it distributed on social media. It was a deliberate effort, and it wasn't replicated on the left.
You are still arguing with someone else, but replying to me.
Oxford University is a "leftist institution"?
You actually just demonstrated why the right is often so gullible. Anything that contradicts your established view is written off as a conspiracy by your enemies, no matter how outlandish and divorced from reality that conspiracy theory is.
I didn't actually make the argument you are trying to counter. In not going to disagree with you because I'm not the imaginary person you are having an argument with.
Did you not read the post or watch the video, or is this some kind of hallucination? Who do you think you are responding to? Or is this just a general point unrelated to the prior content of the thread?
Because there isn't a simple monkey-see monkey-do link.
What does this have to do with child exploitation and bizarre, disturbing imagery?