They arrested this lady in front of her kid bc she asked Abt a public servants suspiciously high salary. It’s apparently against Town rules, however, having rules regarding content is supposedly illegal soooo
A first person scifi FPS-RPG. Developed in Ukraine. Very unique experience wrapped inside of a concept that’s been done before. High slavjank tolerance required.
GNU Hurd didn’t take a good path of development following MACH design. But I still think GNU Hurd is the kernel of the future. Probably the Next generation Hurd. Just because GNU MACH and Hurd present very convoluted designs.
A kernel that performs most of their activities in user space and that it is truly modular looks very promising for the kind of systems we have nowadays and in the future.
Someone has to make the change, or we will stagnate in cumbersome and up featured systems.
One problem I’ve noticed is that the bot doesn’t differentiate between news articles and opinion pieces. One of the most egregious examples is the NYT. Opinion pieces aren’t held to the same journalistic standards as news articles and shouldn’t be judged for bias and accuracy in the same way as news content.
I believe most major news organizations include the word “Opinion” in titles and URLs, so perhaps that could be something keyed off of to have the bot label these appropriately. I don’t expect you to judge the bias and accuracy of each opinion writer, but simply labeling them as “Opinion pieces are not required to meet accepted journalistic standards and bias is expected.” would go a long way.
Thanks for this. As a mod of /c/news, I hadn’t really thought about that. We don’t allow opinion pieces, but this is very relevant if we roll out a new bot for all the communities that currently use the MBFC bot.
Try to make it more clear that this is not a flawless rating (as that is impossible).
Ways to implement:
Make sure the bot says something along the lines of “MBFC rates X news as Y” and not “X news is Y”.
Make a caveat (collapsable) at the bottom, that says something along the lines of “MBFC is not flawless. It has an american-centric bias, is not particularly clear on methodology, to the point where wikipedia deems it unreliable; however, we think it is better to have this bot in place as a rough estimate, to discourage posting from bad sources”
If possible, add other sources, Like: “MBFC rates the Daily Beast as mostly reliable, Ad Fontes Media rates it as unreliable, and Wikipedia says it is of mixed reliability”
Remove the left right ratings. We already have a reliability and quality rating, which is much more useful. The left-right rating is frankly poorly done and all over the place, and honestly doesn’t serve much purpose.
Interesting that people say that opinion pieces should not be held to the same standard. I personally see such pieces contribute to fake news going around. Shouldn’t a platform with reach, held accountable for wrong information, they hide behind an opinion piece?
The NYT ran an opinion recently where the author pretty clearly was using the NYT along with other outlets as part of a voter demobilization tactic in which the author lied about not voting. The NYT was skewered on twitter, and had to alter the opinion after the fact. It seems like some basic fact checking would have been useful in that situation. Or really, just any amount of critical thought on the part of the NYT in general.
It’s not a question of “should” - an opinion piece is rhetoric, not reporting. You can fact check some of it sometimes but functionally can’t hold it to the same standards as a regular news article. I agree that this can sometimes lead to “alternative facts” and disingenuous arguments, but the only other option is to forbid the publication of them which is obviously an infringement of first amendment rights. It’s messy, and it can lead to people being misinformed, but it’s what we’re stuck with.
The song goes “Pinky and the Brain, one is a genius, the other’s insane”, which, if it implies anything, implies Pinky is the genius and Brain is the insane one
Brain has himself trapped in the rat race. He’s so focused on making a profit he’ll never see the truth of the world. Pinky has the ability to escape Samsara.
Not really. I can’t think of the technological term but there is a stylistic device that mirrors them. I can only think of a German example:
Und die einen stehn im Dunkeln und die andern stehn im Licht.
Und man sieht nur die im Lichte, die im dunkeln sieht man nicht. And some stand in the dark and others in the light. And you only see the ones in the light, the ones in the dark aren’t seen.
When you go literal, the pinky and braim song says “one” and “the other”, not the former and the latter. It doesn’t specify which one it is.
While The Brain’s plans always fail, in two episodes of Pinky and The Brain, Pinky comes very close to actually conquering the planet. In “Pinky’s Plan,” he invites all the world leaders to a party and then talks them into handing over control of their countries to The Brain. In “Pinky’s Turn,” Pinky creates an Oyster Petting Zoo that eventually becomes so successful that it results in President Bill Clinton appointing Pinky to a cabinet position.
In both of these episodes, Pinky’s plan goes surprisingly well, putting him within reaching distance of global domination. However, when he hands the reins over to The Brain, Brain fumbles and everything falls apart.
kbin.life
Top