Is it a new thing entirely? Is it just a new word for propaganda or is it simply lies? Could it just be a more extreme form of the baseless "opinion piece"?
Whatever it is, I'm already getting sick about hearing it. If someone doesn't like a news story they label it as "fake news" regardless of whether it is or not. Once that happens, we're all fucked because nothing is true any more. As that writer succinctly points out — don't play chess with pigeons: even if you win they'll just upset the board and shit on it. I'm not sure where the pigeons come from, but the analogy makes more sense than a lot of other stuff right now.
They're all fake now. Multi-source your news and do some research. I can't find anything US-based that resembles unbiased journalism anymore. This really sucks being unable to trust any of them.
Bias is not the same thing as fake.
Fake news is an outright shameless lie that's designed to spread confusion and polarize debate. Of course you can achieve a similar effect with an "opinion piece", but fake news is a step further since it creates its own "facts". All news outlets everywhere are biased in some way. It varies in degree, but it's always there. If you don't see the bias, then that's probably just because the slant jives closely with your worldview. Bias is not an inherently bad thing, but it's problematic if it's extreme because then it shuts out other reasonable viewpoints. I agree that good things should come of reading more widely. The Guardian recently ran a piece honestly encouraging its readers to sample some more conservative news sources.
Claiming that the video is evidence of something that it does in fact not show is however fake news.
This is poisonous behavior.
Attributing a behaviour to someone with no evidence is pretty poisonous, yes. Perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence instead of berating the person requesting it?
It's not so much that. What is poisonous in this case is obscuring the debate by casting doubts over even what constitutes a fact. If there are no longer any facts there can no longer be debate and this puts democracy in peril. The evidence in this case is in the original story that the OP claims is fake. He's not requesting evidence, he's obscuring evidence by labeling it as something else. It's pretty straightforward to see why this is so. The story is based upon at least one video of Trump answering questions from a reporter. Nobody is saying the video is fake. This is my take on why the reaction to the video is reasonable and not overblown. The news story as a whole is made up of the video and the reaction to the video. Some people are disturbed by the video and we can debate whether this is reasonable. What we can't reasonably do is call the whole thing "fake".
This is not fake news. Fake news is lies masquerading as the truth. On the other hand, this is a particular situation where Trump said something which triggered debate and differing opinions on what it means. There is video evidence of the whole exchange and the exchange is meaningful. So how the hell is this "fake news"? It's also not the only time he's discussed things along these lines or was questioned about these issues. So it's an on-going story too.
I genuinely find this comment chilling. Things have entered a spiral that going in a worrying direction. If we can't agree on the facts under debate then we are all (regardless of our political affiliation) going to be fucked. It's in everyone's interest not to create a fog that makes dialog and reasoned debate impossible. When debate becomes impossible we no longer have a democracy. Elections are just window dressing.
This is hyperbole and untrue. I've never heard anyone suggest anything remotely like this for reasonable criticisms.
Your problem is hilighted there. You should fix that cognitive bias and see more clearly.
I suspected someone would say that but I wrote it anyway. I wrote it because Obama, like any president, was continuously being criticized. The vast majority of those criticisms were not racially motivated. Some of them were. I was trying to distinguish the two. I didn't mean to imply that any unreasonable criticism of Obama is racist.
A smarter politician would've taken the opportunity to say "Muslim database? That's horrible idea and I'm against it!
That is exactly the point. But I don't think this is a question of being smart. I think this is a question of him at heart not being opposed to this idea. In fact, he's a narcissist who is not opposed to any idea that inflates his ego and gives him air time. All publicity is good publicity as far as he's concerned. He fought his whole campaign that way. Consequently, nobody really knows what he'll do when he gets into office. If he decides that his popularity will go up if there is a database of every Muslim in the US then he will do that and worse. I think extreme Islamist terrorists know that and know that it would play into their hands; they'll be looking for an opportunity to trigger him.
MSNBC "Racism!" drinking game.
Sorry pal, but you just dont remember it because you werent the target of constantly being called racist for 8 years.
That is just a collection of 1 second clips showing news anchors using the word "racism". There is no context whatsoever. There is racism in the US. Your video means nothing. A minority of "criticisms" of Obama were indeed racist. Most were not. The political debate during his presidency was not obviously influenced by racism in his opponents. I suspect most racist comments would have come from the media and the pundits.
This is not "fake news". It's an analysis based on something he said and/or was questioned about more than once. You are spreading FUD and subverting reasonable debate by labeling things you disagree with as "fake". This is poisonous behavior.
No, he advocated for an immigration registry to help with the immigration vetting process. The "Muslim Registry" was part of that fake news that people seem to think helped Trump win the election.
I must call you out on this: it is not "fake news". It is actual news based on something he said. The transcript is here. It's clear that to a degree he is being led on by the reporter and, as is often the case, isn't really thinking about the answers he's giving. He provides vague replies about "management" being the solution and appears distracted. Nonetheless, what's most striking is that he doesn't attach much significance to the concept of a Muslim database. It seems like a totally reasonable idea to him. If I was a Muslim in the US, this is what would worry me. My worry would be compounded by his reaction to the questions in the second half of this video. He's asked about the racial discrimination which a database might bring about and repeatedly avoids the question. He has an opportunity to clarify his views and reassure, but he doesn't take it. It is worrying when someone reacts in the way that he does and none of this information is in any way "fake".
When Obama was president, criticism of him was proof that you are a racist and don't deserve to have rights*.
This is hyperbole and untrue. I've never heard anyone suggest anything remotely like this for reasonable criticisms. For example, the Obama administration's drone program is something that is worth examining in a critical manner, but there is nothing racist in do so. If, on the other hand, if your criticism is that Obama wasn't born in the US then you are indeed skirting the hinterlands of racism. Nobody is suggesting that birthers don't deserve rights. I think this stance would be the assessment of most reasonable people.
In the UK it's either covered by law or it's the policy of the post office not to do this.
However, a few years ago the post office delivery guys started acting up in certain areas due to low pay.
For a time I had several packages stolen from outside my front door.
I went to the post office and spoke with the guy in charge.
He outright denied that his staff were leaving parcels outside my door and challenged me to prove it.
I just decided to stop getting packages delivered home since I was to move house soon anyway.
The next place I moved to was more isolated, so no fear of getting stuff stole, but a new problem developed.
The posties decided that it was too far to walk (about 100 m down a path) and just didn't deliver some of the mail.
I found out this was happening when I got the fourth reminder to pay a traffic violation but missed the first three.
The fine had gone up following each reminder.
Fuckers cost me 300 bucks.
Yeah, it's not clear to me if they are saying that literally 20% of the land's surface is covered by roads or that 20% of the land is defined as areas that contains roads. The latter seems more likely.
The original article is not innumerate. It describes the distribution of sizes of road-free segments and considers what sort of land these are. Even in the abstract (which you obviously haven't read) states that since 80% of the planet has no roads "only 7% of land patches created by roads being greater than 100 km2." Thus, in the areas where there are roads, the road-free patches tend to be very small.
Unfortunately I cannot think of any good way to smuggle video or picture content that a photojournalist or video journalist will be able to do in the field in adverse conditions like this that couldn't somehow be detected if the investigator is committed enough to being thorough. In some ways the presence of strong encryption might actually make it more dangerous as it means to look closely at this person because they've got that strong encryption...
Put it on a microsd card and shove it up your arse.
Just uninstalled Ubuntu 16.04 here after about three weeks & installed Win 10. The file manager in Ubuntu would constantly cease to function.
I'm not a big fan of 16.04 either. On two machines I work with the ethernet port randomly stops functioning every so often and until I unplug/replug the cable, similar deal with pulseaudio, systemd refused to boot the machine because one of the network shares in fstab had a syntax error, and there was a clusterfuck the one time I tried to install an ATI graphics card. However the file manager... You could just install a different desktop environment (I'm guessing you were using Unity?) and that problem would go away. I might try uninstalling systemd, TBH. I reckon half of my problems come from there.
...it took a year to check all of the calculations needed to produce the atomic bomb and that work was all done by humans. Imagine how history might be different if even one of them had a pocket calculator.
Apparently this statement refers to people working at the Manhattan project. They had a variety of computing machines. Feynmann described the process also.
Slashdot Mirror
we will never be rid of fake news.
It's far too useful to some folks when they need to sway public opinion on something. The truth be damned.
fake news... What is it?
Is it a new thing entirely? Is it just a new word for propaganda or is it simply lies? Could it just be a more extreme form of the baseless "opinion piece"?
Whatever it is, I'm already getting sick about hearing it. If someone doesn't like a news story they label it as "fake news" regardless of whether it is or not. Once that happens, we're all fucked because nothing is true any more. As that writer succinctly points out — don't play chess with pigeons: even if you win they'll just upset the board and shit on it. I'm not sure where the pigeons come from, but the analogy makes more sense than a lot of other stuff right now.
And what president hasn't been continuously criticized? It comes with the office.
I said, all of them.
That is just a collection of 1 second clips showing news anchors using the word "racism".
Who knows?
They're all fake now. Multi-source your news and do some research. I can't find anything US-based that resembles unbiased journalism anymore. This really sucks being unable to trust any of them.
Bias is not the same thing as fake.
Fake news is an outright shameless lie that's designed to spread confusion and polarize debate. Of course you can achieve a similar effect with an "opinion piece", but fake news is a step further since it creates its own "facts". All news outlets everywhere are biased in some way. It varies in degree, but it's always there. If you don't see the bias, then that's probably just because the slant jives closely with your worldview. Bias is not an inherently bad thing, but it's problematic if it's extreme because then it shuts out other reasonable viewpoints. I agree that good things should come of reading more widely. The Guardian recently ran a piece honestly encouraging its readers to sample some more conservative news sources.
Claiming that the video is evidence of something that it does in fact not show is however fake news.
This is poisonous behavior.
Attributing a behaviour to someone with no evidence is pretty poisonous, yes. Perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence instead of berating the person requesting it?
It's not so much that. What is poisonous in this case is obscuring the debate by casting doubts over even what constitutes a fact. If there are no longer any facts there can no longer be debate and this puts democracy in peril. The evidence in this case is in the original story that the OP claims is fake. He's not requesting evidence, he's obscuring evidence by labeling it as something else. It's pretty straightforward to see why this is so. The story is based upon at least one video of Trump answering questions from a reporter. Nobody is saying the video is fake. This is my take on why the reaction to the video is reasonable and not overblown. The news story as a whole is made up of the video and the reaction to the video. Some people are disturbed by the video and we can debate whether this is reasonable. What we can't reasonably do is call the whole thing "fake".
It's present in other videos of the same exchange. It was a question from the reporter that apparently Trump found unremarkable.
This is not fake news. Fake news is lies masquerading as the truth. On the other hand, this is a particular situation where Trump said something which triggered debate and differing opinions on what it means. There is video evidence of the whole exchange and the exchange is meaningful. So how the hell is this "fake news"? It's also not the only time he's discussed things along these lines or was questioned about these issues. So it's an on-going story too.
NYT is the prime driver of fake news.
I genuinely find this comment chilling. Things have entered a spiral that going in a worrying direction. If we can't agree on the facts under debate then we are all (regardless of our political affiliation) going to be fucked. It's in everyone's interest not to create a fog that makes dialog and reasoned debate impossible. When debate becomes impossible we no longer have a democracy. Elections are just window dressing.
There is no "far left" in America.
This is hyperbole and untrue. I've never heard anyone suggest anything remotely like this for reasonable criticisms.
Your problem is hilighted there. You should fix that cognitive bias and see more clearly.
I suspected someone would say that but I wrote it anyway. I wrote it because Obama, like any president, was continuously being criticized. The vast majority of those criticisms were not racially motivated. Some of them were. I was trying to distinguish the two. I didn't mean to imply that any unreasonable criticism of Obama is racist.
A smarter politician would've taken the opportunity to say "Muslim database? That's horrible idea and I'm against it!
That is exactly the point. But I don't think this is a question of being smart. I think this is a question of him at heart not being opposed to this idea. In fact, he's a narcissist who is not opposed to any idea that inflates his ego and gives him air time. All publicity is good publicity as far as he's concerned. He fought his whole campaign that way. Consequently, nobody really knows what he'll do when he gets into office. If he decides that his popularity will go up if there is a database of every Muslim in the US then he will do that and worse. I think extreme Islamist terrorists know that and know that it would play into their hands; they'll be looking for an opportunity to trigger him.
MSNBC "Racism!" drinking game. Sorry pal, but you just dont remember it because you werent the target of constantly being called racist for 8 years.
That is just a collection of 1 second clips showing news anchors using the word "racism". There is no context whatsoever. There is racism in the US. Your video means nothing. A minority of "criticisms" of Obama were indeed racist. Most were not. The political debate during his presidency was not obviously influenced by racism in his opponents. I suspect most racist comments would have come from the media and the pundits.
This is not "fake news". It's an analysis based on something he said and/or was questioned about more than once. You are spreading FUD and subverting reasonable debate by labeling things you disagree with as "fake". This is poisonous behavior.
No, he advocated for an immigration registry to help with the immigration vetting process. The "Muslim Registry" was part of that fake news that people seem to think helped Trump win the election.
I must call you out on this: it is not "fake news". It is actual news based on something he said. The transcript is here. It's clear that to a degree he is being led on by the reporter and, as is often the case, isn't really thinking about the answers he's giving. He provides vague replies about "management" being the solution and appears distracted. Nonetheless, what's most striking is that he doesn't attach much significance to the concept of a Muslim database. It seems like a totally reasonable idea to him. If I was a Muslim in the US, this is what would worry me. My worry would be compounded by his reaction to the questions in the second half of this video. He's asked about the racial discrimination which a database might bring about and repeatedly avoids the question. He has an opportunity to clarify his views and reassure, but he doesn't take it. It is worrying when someone reacts in the way that he does and none of this information is in any way "fake".
When Obama was president, criticism of him was proof that you are a racist and don't deserve to have rights*.
This is hyperbole and untrue. I've never heard anyone suggest anything remotely like this for reasonable criticisms. For example, the Obama administration's drone program is something that is worth examining in a critical manner, but there is nothing racist in do so. If, on the other hand, if your criticism is that Obama wasn't born in the US then you are indeed skirting the hinterlands of racism. Nobody is suggesting that birthers don't deserve rights. I think this stance would be the assessment of most reasonable people.
In the UK it's either covered by law or it's the policy of the post office not to do this. However, a few years ago the post office delivery guys started acting up in certain areas due to low pay. For a time I had several packages stolen from outside my front door. I went to the post office and spoke with the guy in charge. He outright denied that his staff were leaving parcels outside my door and challenged me to prove it. I just decided to stop getting packages delivered home since I was to move house soon anyway. The next place I moved to was more isolated, so no fear of getting stuff stole, but a new problem developed. The posties decided that it was too far to walk (about 100 m down a path) and just didn't deliver some of the mail. I found out this was happening when I got the fourth reminder to pay a traffic violation but missed the first three. The fine had gone up following each reminder. Fuckers cost me 300 bucks.
its a empire building game, even the use of 3d is on the unnecessary side
They have a 2D version.
Yeah, it's not clear to me if they are saying that literally 20% of the land's surface is covered by roads or that 20% of the land is defined as areas that contains roads. The latter seems more likely.
The original article is not innumerate. It describes the distribution of sizes of road-free segments and considers what sort of land these are. Even in the abstract (which you obviously haven't read) states that since 80% of the planet has no roads "only 7% of land patches created by roads being greater than 100 km2." Thus, in the areas where there are roads, the road-free patches tend to be very small.
Unfortunately I cannot think of any good way to smuggle video or picture content that a photojournalist or video journalist will be able to do in the field in adverse conditions like this that couldn't somehow be detected if the investigator is committed enough to being thorough. In some ways the presence of strong encryption might actually make it more dangerous as it means to look closely at this person because they've got that strong encryption...
Put it on a microsd card and shove it up your arse.
Or maybe sanity is just fine and each time only the angry people complain.
Just uninstalled Ubuntu 16.04 here after about three weeks & installed Win 10. The file manager in Ubuntu would constantly cease to function.
I'm not a big fan of 16.04 either. On two machines I work with the ethernet port randomly stops functioning every so often and until I unplug/replug the cable, similar deal with pulseaudio, systemd refused to boot the machine because one of the network shares in fstab had a syntax error, and there was a clusterfuck the one time I tried to install an ATI graphics card. However the file manager... You could just install a different desktop environment (I'm guessing you were using Unity?) and that problem would go away. I might try uninstalling systemd, TBH. I reckon half of my problems come from there.
...it took a year to check all of the calculations needed to produce the atomic bomb and that work was all done by humans. Imagine how history might be different if even one of them had a pocket calculator.
Apparently this statement refers to people working at the Manhattan project. They had a variety of computing machines. Feynmann described the process also.
To stoop down and pick up a penny takes 1 sec. $.01 for 1 sec is equivalent to $36 per hour pay for 1 second.
That's a totally bogus calculation. There only one penny, so it's irrelevant how many theoretical pennies you could pick up in a hour.
Ah, right. Sony's fault. Should have known