Assuming we can use both lower- and uppercase letters (52 in total), with the ten digits and the underscore that gives us 63 characters to work with. A random 16-character combination of these gives us 95 bits of entropy (rounding down), which is secure enough by modern standards, at least for a home router.
Regardless, I understand the frustration of arbitrary limitations preventing you from choosing a secure password in a way that you’re comfortable with.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Those cases where an english word gets absorbed even though no one from the origin talks like that. It’s also informally called underline here in Brazil lol.
I had one of those “fancy” Vodafone routers included with my broadband which had a stupid rule set on choosing the WiFi password. It’s my network, not yours, stupid router. It can be as insecure as I want.
Anyway the rules were enforced by the JavaScript so it was easy to bypass until I got my own router to replace it with.
It’s important to note, that these things are designed for the average user. If you want to change the wifi password, you are by far not an average user. Most users just plugs in and never even think about that, and the number of that kind of users are several order of magnitude higher than the conscious ones. For them it’s much more secure to set a random pw. If you let them select a password they will choose 12345 or password.
If you know what you are doing usually it’s better to buy your own router where you can change everything the way you like.
The Intercept collected more than 1,000 articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times about Israel’s war on Gaza and tallied up the usages of certain key terms and the context in which they were used. The tallies reveal a gross imbalance in the way Israelis and pro-Israel figures are covered versus Palestinians and pro-Palestinian voices — with usages that favor Israeli narratives over Palestinian ones.
The term “slaughter” was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and “massacre” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. “Horrific” was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.
Only two headlines out of over 1,100 news articles in the study mention the word “children” related to Gazan children. In a notable exception, the New York Times ran a late-November front-page story on the historic pace of killings of Palestinian women and children, though the headline featured neither group.
Overall, Israel’s killings in Gaza are not given proportionate coverage in either scope or emotional weight as the deaths of Israelis on October 7. These killings are mostly presented as arbitrarily high, abstract figures. Nor are the killings described using emotive language like “massacre,” “slaughter,” or “horrific.” Hamas’s killings of Israeli civilians are consistently portrayed as part of the group’s strategy, whereas Palestinian civilian killings are covered almost as if they were a series of one-off mistakes, made thousands of times, despite numerous points of evidence indicating Israel’s intent to harm civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Lots of us know this. Lots of us can also see that the 4 titles that you posted are not an example of this.
Some of those article titles that you are trying to paint as inaccurate, are in fact highly accurate. I can’t find anything wrong with the titles of the guardian and the new York Times that you posted. They are reporting a thing that happened and a thing that was said. They make it very clear that the “pre-emptive” thing is a claim of Israel and not a fact.
Unlike your claim in the OP, The Guardian also doesn’t have a credibility of high on that shitty mbfc site, but only “mixed”.
Your alternative titles really highlight how little you value factuality.
Hezbollah did not claim to be launching a pre-emptive attack. And claiming that they launched a pre-emptive attack after they were already attacked is … Weird.
No one is reporting that Hezbollah was launching these rockets in self defence, because Hezbollah has already let it be known that their attack was a retaliation for the murder of one of their commanders in july.
No news source worth their salt is going to use those titles, because it’s straight up inventing alternate facts.
Your 4 examples of what you want to portray as “non credible reporting” are professionals. Unlike you, they’re not just going to invent news to push their narrative. Yes they have their biases, but unlike your alternate facts, their reporting is based on actual facts.
As I’ve explained above, reliably giving prominence to the quotes of one source promotes that one source and those quotes as it subconsciously it makes it seem more important to the reader.
This is a technique used for Propaganda when the propagandist doesn’t control the information space of the reader: since outright lies would easily be caught when readers have easy access to other newsmedia, the promotion of one side over the other by the propagandist is instead done by portraying it as more important by quoting it more often, giving more prominence to those quotes and never challenging them.
It’s interesting the number of concerned posters popping out if the woodwork here repeating the pretty old falacy commonly harped by such news media that “they are stating those are quotes hence they’re giving fair coverage” which is an obvious oversimplification of how impressions are made on others and hence of how opinions are made by even the most junior professional in PR, Marketing or Politics.
I remember seeing a truck with a libertarian bumper sticker (can’t remember what, but it was undeniably libertarian) parked legally in a handicapped spot. As in they had the sticker. You’d think they would be against working with the ADA.
The tnyt title looks accurate to me: it says Israel is striking Lebanon AND that Israel is casting these strikes as pre-emptive.
The title is not saying that tnyt believes that the strikes are actually pre-emptive, instead it’s reporting that Israel claims that the strikes are pre-emptive. Which is accurate, since Israel does in fact claim that.
Yep, this is a good example of what actual inaccurate/deceitful reporting would be like. Unlike the headlines in the post of the op, your made up title is reporting things that didn’t happened, and your quotes are not things that Hamas’ spokespeople have said. It is vaguely based on things that have happened, but it’s mostly just made up and thus completely inaccurate and deceitful.
The point being made is that they’ll harp unconditionally any old bullshit coming from Israel, putting it in a position of prominence, but not any old bullshit from other sources - even when they say the quote cones from sources in the Israeli government, merely choosing that for prominent position is already promoting it and that source.
Selectivelly and reliably quoting just the one side or always giving more prominence to what is said by just the one side says is an old Propaganda trick for when the Propagandist does not have full information control, and works by the same principle as exploited by lots of far-right populists to rise on saying controversial bullshit and on the criticism of their adversaries: anything given prominence and more attention is internalized by readers/viewers a being more important.
Actual Journalism would treat both sources equally.
Unlike plain-old-lies, such Propaganda Techniques can only be confirmed as such by measuring lots of articles from a news outlet and statistically analysing the words they choose and where they use them by comparison to other outlets, as pointed out in Linkerbaan’s post.
Would you be happier with a title such as “Israeli airstrikes tried to ‘prevent’ a ‘well planned and succesfully executed’ rocket strike from Hezbollah” ?
That just sounds like you want a stupid paper for stupid people, with longer titles
Yeah but your own contribution fits right in there with the 4 examples in the OP. Remember: you can’t use ‘pre-emptive’. That’s a manipulation & narrative control term
Portraying one side as having justification for their acts and the other as acting without reason.
Systematically quoting without confirmation the justifications given by one side, not the other.
The Propaganda technique called “framing” is, quite self-explanatorily, framing (a.k.a. decorating) what is being reported about one side’s actions in one way and what is being reported about the other side differently - the core content which are the events are described the same but only one side’s views on the why for those event are reported.
It’s a far more subtle technique than outright telling the readers “these are the good guys” or using nicer words for the same actions if executed by one side than for the same kind of action when executed by the other side (mind you, at least 3 of these 4 examples will also use this latter technique, which is about “portraying” rather than “framing”)
My contribution frames both sides equally thus both actors seem equally rational in their actions and the justifications for their actions given by both are there with equal prominence. It gives both sides’ justifications to the readers and leaves it to the readers to decide who to believe and which justifications they found valid. That’s how actual Journalism aims to report: giving what they have to the readers and leaving it up to the readers to decide who to believe.
The reason the Israeli airstrikes were cited as pre-emptive is that that adds important information, as in they were aimed at the sites that were about to launch the rockets
Adding that the rocket attack was called retaliatory does not nearly add the same level of information, as everyone already knows what the strike was for and, at the very least, that nearly every strike in this conflict would be called ‘retaliatory’. Again, you’re pleading for stupid news for stupid people.
Should they have added that it was Hezbollah that restarted this bloody back and forth in each and every title as well?
Saying that what they were trying to prevent was a retaliatory attack also adds important information.
In all you comments here you have consistently displayed the underlying logic in your attempts at “arguments” that your side getting its viewpoint and arguments aired should happen whilst the other side getting its viewpoints and arguments aired has all manner of vaguelly defined problems like the “title gets too long” or “imagine if we did this all the way to infinity”, which are “problems” that also apply to your side’s viewpoints (literally dropping “premptive” would make the title shorter and most of those titles are actually unusually long).
You literally apply two different standards for the same kind of information depending on which side it’s helpful for. You might as well just come out and say “I’m with Israel no matter what and I’ll always make excuses up for stopping the enemies of Israel being portrayed as human”.
I see no point in continuing to engage with such a dishonest tribalist since such people are not rational, and in this specific case the side you chose is child mass murderers, which is the most abhorrent faction imaginable for a human being to side with.
This is a religious conflict in which both sides are wrong and evil.
Reading your posts I think it’s pretty clear that it’s you that’s picked a side here that you want to defend. You want to defend it so badly you can’t look at a normal title of a news article anymore without getting angry that it’s not spinned how you’d want it.
Fantastic choice! These days I can’t take the hot sauce like I used to, but Cholula on taqueria breakfast burritos were an absolutely wondrous hangover food staple for me in years past.
lemmy.world
Newest