I just feel bad for the kid. Mom wanted to get off the grid but Colorado has a history of killing those who try it without a lot of money and infrastructure to support it. Go off the grid in like South Carolina, not Colorado.
Lol this is ridiculous. I’ve been hiking in the Rockies plenty of times during the winter, as long as you take the proper precautions you will be fine.
What a terrible way to go. They sounded less prepared than even Chris McCandless.
I can’t believe I’m recommending reality TV, but Alone is a fairly good representation of being alone in the wilderness with no resources. It is extremely unpleasant.
Alone is a great show. But I’ve got to tell you, while I watch and know I do not (currently) possess the skills to do what those folks do, there is a draw for me to want to do it. I mean I’m sure I’m over-romanticizing the thing to an extent, and - again - I know enough about me to know I can’t do it today, but there’s a distinct pull to want to.
I’m a pretty hardcore outdoorsman. Been hunting and fishing since I was a kid, and I spend a lot of my year maintaining family timberland pretty far out in the cut. I like to think I can handle some shit, and I even attended a wilderness survival camp as a kid. I’m good with knots, plant identification, wood carving, shelter building, and fire building.
A few seasons of Alone showed me that I probably wouldn’t last more than a few months if the area I was in had any kind of significant winter. Maybe in the south where it never snows, but even then it’d be fucking unbearable in the middle of summer where you still have to constantly work for food and water and are constantly at risk of dehydration and malnutrition.
I did a wilderness survival camp in Arizona as a kid myself. I have had massive respect for nature ever since then. Even with a group of people survival in the wilderness is tough. I remember struggling for days to even make my first fire.
Alone showed me how different survival tactics are depending on your location. I feel like I could survive at least a few months on my own in the Sonoran desert, but anywhere else I would be done for pretty quickly. Cold snowy weather would probably end me on the first night.
No doubt. We get used to the fact that even if we were forced to go without food for a day we could rebound after gorging ourselves on reserves the following day. But bury your no-heat wooden shelter in snow and go without food for a day and see how hard it gets to figure out food the day after. Then keep that going for a week and shit gets real, REAL fast.
I think many people have that pull to nature, but most that do it and survive recognize that living without the infrastructure of the rest of humanity is at least extremely challenging and so will thoroughly prepare.
ITT: plenty of people who don’t remember 2007 or 2020. Financial forms obey the rules that they want to when they want to. The federal government works for them, not the other way around.
This has nothing to do with the law this is MasterCard deciding to not go after that market.
Fellow newsian Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “David Simon Reacts to Man Sentenced in Michael K. Williams’ Death” (Similairity: ~75%).
BING BONG this action was performed automatically by a bot approved by the mods (:
India is a quasi-dictatorship that depends on its people to be uneducated and divided. It’s more probable that it’ll suffer continued brain drain, as people are looking for opportunities elsewhere.
I feel like too many people do not respect nature. They romanticize it, and that’s a very dangerous thing. They forget that you need actual skills to survive in the wild. This didn’t have to happen.
That has gotten worse with all the “survivalist” shows acting like its easy to survive with just a knife and fig leaf in the wild.
They see a show grab some gear and off they go. Not realizing those shows are often fake and when not, the star has many years of actual experience and training.
I’m a huge fan of Alone, but would never in a million years think I could do it. Those people are literally survival teachers or Bushmen/women who have done this their entire lives and even then only make it 20 or so days before calling to gtfo.
Why? Because nothing ever happens to cops who abuse their power, that’s why. 99% of the time they get a slap on the wrist for basically murdering people and destroying their lives, and only on rare occasions when there’s media coverage does something get done about it. But we shouldn’t have to rely on media outrage for justice to be done
Trolling is also not allowed, go back to reddit for that.
Telling someone to go back to reddit to troll is itself a mild form of trolling and fails to model the behavior the rule calls for. It contributes nothing to the meaning or clarity of the rule and the rule is better without it.
Sources should be as unbiased and reliable as possible Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion.
This rule would be improved by listing media source bias/fact-checkers that the mods largely trust, even if they reserve the right to occasionally override public checkers. The ability to pre-screen a source with fair reliability is valuable to posters.
Post titles should be the same as the article used as source Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title is wrong / incorrect, the post will be deleted.
Even reliable news sources frequently editorialize their titles at this point. I’d appreciate a carve-out to de-editorialize a clickbait title, but I appreciate that title-matching is much easier to understand/enforce and that people are likely to try to abuse a de-clickbaiting clause to re-clickbait and bias their titles. If a culture where people modified titles to improve titles could be fostered, that would be neat.
Point 1 was indeed kinda a joke, but if you feel like that hurts the rule, I will remove it.
I am working on making some kind of place where we show all banned news sources which then integrates with the bot, but this might take some development time.
As stated in the rule, we will only remove posts if the title is wrong / incorrect, with that we mean that it misrepresents the article. The autobot can’t sense that you editted the post to make it better, so I just wanted to make clear that the autobot will still message you.
Point 1 was indeed kinda a joke, but if you feel like that hurts the rule, I will remove it.
I feel like you wouldn’t and shouldn’t accept the justification from a commenter that their trolling was a joke. You also wouldn’t consider it an improvement to make a racist joke alongside the rule against racism as a tongue in cheek way of illustrating the rule by counter-example. It simply is the thing the rule purports to disallow, which isn’t a great joke and doesn’t help the rule.
As stated in the rule, we will only remove posts if the title is wrong / incorrect, with that we mean that it misrepresents the article. The autobot can’t sense that you editted the post to make it better, so I just wanted to make clear that the autobot will still message you.
I might suggest to extend the rule with something like: While de-clickbaiting and de-editorializing poor upstream titles with replacement factual titles is allowed, when in doubt using the upstream title is always sensible. Having the modbot inform people about title deviations by quoting the rule including the bit about de-editorializing seems reasonable.
I’d suggest maybe going a little further on the title rule, something like:
Titles should accurately reflect the content of the article. Avoid sensationalized, misleading, or editorialized titles. If in doubt the articles own title is acceptable but accuracy is always preferred.
I’m working on making a list of banned sources (which everyone can read, and discuss), which can then integrate with the bot, so it will tell you that the source is not allowed.
I agree. Bias is hard to eliminate, even assuming good intentions. Also, sometimes there are topics that are only reported on by outlets that have a certain political slant. This gets into a gray area because sometimes those topics are invented or exaggerated to be more newsworthy than they are… but at other times they may be important news that simply isn’t covered by more neutral media for various reasons.
That said, I definitely could do without the daily hate pieces that slanted outlets tend to produce. So I think it’s a good idea, just might need some thoughtful tweaking.
This is the chart I sent to the mods over a discord message.
Basically, anything in the middle three columns would be “preferred” and the furthest left and right columns would be “not-preferred”. Again, stuff from the furthest left and right columns are not subject to instant removal and some could still fly if you can’t find another site posting the content, but generally, it isn’t that difficult to find another source that wrote an article about the same topic.
It would be ridiculous to think there are totally “non-biased” sites, the goal here is really just to not have constant posts from Fox News or the Huffington Post, let alone sites that veer even further in either direction, with the endgame being that this doesn’t wind up being a massive echo chamber of a community for any particular political leaning.
Edit - Open to suggestions about said chart, and other sites users think fall into any of the categories
It concerns me somewhat that that chart doesn’t consider accuracy at all merely whose biases stories most align with. There’s been a major problem with subtle and sometimes not so subtle lies being pushed in various news sources. The fact they give OAN any kind of semi-good rating at all is alarming as OAN regularly runs entirely made up stories with either no factual basis or which are at best a series of rumors tied together with editorialization and inference. There needs to be a much stronger delineation between opinion pieces and reporting and far too many news sites blur those lines.
The same website does offer a fact-check chart as well. Could possibly cross reference it with the bias chart. However, the plan is a blacklist rather than a whitelist, so most sources are going to be okay, at least to start with. If anything becomes a problem it can certainly be blacklisted quickly once that bot is up.
Well, that chart claims to show how biased a fact checking site is once again not how accurate it is. What I’m most interested in is historical data and sources. Does X news site regularly post stories that claim certain details as facts that later turned out to be false? Do they provide sources and how reliable are those sources? Do they claim things as factual that at the time are known to be false?
Having a evolving story with a lot of unknowns is one thing as long as it’s clear what’s speculation or what details are unconfirmed. Once in a while having a mistake in your reporting as long as you own up to that mistake and post a correction is acceptable. Regularly reporting on rumors with little or no corroborating evidence particularly if they’re not very blatantly calling it out as rampant speculation is not acceptable.
One thing that news sites need to do a better job about is vetting their sources. Fox News in particular massively abuses this. They regularly allow absolute kooks on their news and present them along side well respected experts as if the two are equivalent sources and it gives the false impression that completely unfounded claims have some degree of factuality. This is why historical checking is so important, so that you can see if some news site regularly runs stories that turn out to be false or misleading or that regularly include false or misleading info.
That’s not a bad chart, the general problem is maintaining a balance. You’re probably better off straight banning anything in the far left/right columns, because once you let a few through it swings fast.
The other problem that frequently happens is not treating both sides biased sources equally. If you make an automated message about potentially biased sources, you need to use it on all sources from each side, not equal numbers of sources. That chart has almost twice as many left leaning publishers as right leaning. This is important, because there are simply more left leaning publications (at least at the large publisher level). It doesn’t mean you have to allow NewsMax for balance, it means moderators need to be aware that most posts are going to be left leaning by numbers, which will create a feeling of favoring left sources.
The other problem that frequently happens is not treating both sides biased sources equally.
This is of the utmost importance to me (us). It’s definitely not going to be a situation where we say “Oh we blacklisted a source from the right, we have to hit one from the left now”. If a source is credible and not incredibly biased, it will always be allowed.
How did they leave a car at a campsite for months and not have any kind of search and rescue triggered?
My buddy got lost on a trail once and had to do an shitty night out in the woods, the next morning there were forest service personnel out looking for him because they spotted his car parked overnight with no camp permit posted.
I thought this was standard practice at every national and state park. An unattended vehicle is seen as a sure sign that someone is in trouble. I guess I’m never going hiking in Colorado, cause if I get in trouble the CO forest personnel are apparently just going to leave me for dead.
The roads would have gotten buried with snow. One snowy day would do it. By the time they realized it, too late. Those forest service roads are not plowed.
They must have made some sort of effort to hide the vehicle, or park it somewhere it wouldn’t be questioned for some time. If the goal is to get away from people, you don’t want your vehicle to cause someone to come looking for you.
It wasn’t a park, so unless someone filed a missing person report the car itself wouldn’t necessarily trigger anything since people abandon all kinds of crazy shit on national forests.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.