And asbestos is a very generic term. There are certain particle sizes that are absolutely harmful and others that pose little to no effect. There should be a name for the dangerous particles regardless of meterial. Silicosis agents?
How's the 3d printing landscape for metal overall? I hear there have been made great strides in 3d printers that rely on sintering. Very affordable relatively speaking.
Foreign agents are always discussed because frankly, they are almost completely outside of the law. But what about non-foreign agents? Surely, they exist, and the ones that break the laws to get their way should be thrown in jail, but when do you ever see that?
It sounds like there was a more-or-less professional election rigger involved:
"According to prosecutors, McCrae Dowless, a contractor for the Harris campaign, oversaw extensive election fraud in Bladen County, in the district’s rural east, affecting potentially hundreds of votes."
When people talk about voter suppression, we don't always talk about these highly effective methods such as:
- requiring a specific ID that is difficult for certain segments of the population to get. Either by requiring non-existent documentation, or making the in-person process onerous.
- closing polling stations, or understaffing in certain areas.
- adding regulations that are prima facie neutral, but in reality disadvantage some population segments more. (eg: unstable home addresses, no PO boxes accepted, not allowing college addresses)
- not making good faith effort to ensuring everyone has maximum access and accommodation at polls, eg: signage, language translation, advertising campaigns, technical use challenges.
A lot of these rules and restrictions are constructed in such a way that the dominant language/culture/homeowners don't have any problems meeting them, thus offering an easily defensible reasoning behind them. It seems totally reasonable to assume everyone has ID - but if you don't drive, and are well established in a community you probably won't need ID to conduct life.
The reality with the importance of the chief federal executive office and how the election swings on such narrow margins in certain states, this is a problem that constitutional we just aren't able to easily solve - deliberately so, that is the constitutional order constructed on purpose.
So bad docs because they list a way you don't approve of?
They do list a number of different ways. They could have used intval() for example 4 because I prefer it but it doesn't take away from the docs or make them bad.
Do you have a method that makes sprintf with d value invalid?
It's nice to say it's luck, sure, and make everyone feel like they have a fair chance. However, I'm pretty certain the ones that obsess and plan the most to get rich and squeeze every little bit out they can into their plans have the best chance. Some lazy slob without the same attention to detail and effort just isn't going to make it.
I stopped with Facebook because of spying and narcissism. I stopped with Twitter because of selective tweet promotion and targeting - you're effectively giving a group power over your life guiding you what is right to watch or be concerned about. I don't ever want any media or pseudo-media company doing that. Presently I search a list of different sites with totally different leanings and try my best to capture the truth without the slant.
The messenger is part of the content. If Alex Jones screams some anti-liberal hate, I can rationally make some assumptions about the quality of his message before even committing time and energy to vetting his statements. This is normal, and vetting all statements would be impossible. This is a useful filter, if applied prudently.
For many people, yes. None of the critics here, for example, has challenged a single element of the article as factually false (let alone providing any supporting data for same).
Is somebody automatically disreputable based upon their political affiliation? If so, perhaps MacCarthyism is alive and well! It would be fair game, of course to analyze the article and list the reasons it is or isn't accurate.
The reason the article isn't accurate is that it (deliberately) fails to mention the actual reason she was fired: failure to disclose a financial conflict of interest, along with failure of any of her academic work to meet the lowest bar of academic quality after fifteen years.
This is the problem with most publications. It's get the news out first, rather than research and try to be unbiased. Bias is unfortunately what our news is today.
The problem you described is real, and is visible to some degree at all publications. But you're either misinformed or are being disingenuous if you think you can credibly claim that the Washington Times is in any way comparable to other more reputable publications in this regard. They are a clear outlier with a motivated bias.
The Washington Times does not skip research to get their publication out first, they deliberately craft misleading and false stories in order to serve their conservative narrative.
Do you have some personal insider knowledge to substantiate this with? I mean I have some pretty heavy personal bias about the Washington Post being pro Amazon, and I would totally understand it if it was. But even then, I can't make a claim that they are deliberately making false stories. That's a level of knowledge I can't claim to have. That's also potential libel on your part.
You can't credibly make those comments about the Washington Post because they aren't true, and most educated people know that. Legally though, you're welcome to say (almost) whatever you want about them.
Sibling comments are correct:
The Washington Post is a reputable newspaper with a slight liberal skew.
It sounds like you're not very familiar with the media landscape in the US, or with how libel laws work here (hint: there is no potential libel on my part, that's ridiculous).
What you just said is totally acceptable as opinion. But claiming "they deliberately craft misleading and false stories" is not provable by your person, since you do not yourself work there. There are people who really believe their drivel is true. I don't claim to know why this is, but flat-earthers seem to exist, even today, just as a side example.
There is a baseline standard of quality in journalism that a majority of the educated public still requires, populist Newspeak notwithstanding. If you read news without scrutinizing it, and without holding it to such a standard, you are guaranteed to read and accept things that aren't true.
When you publish a story about someone that fails to mention a relevant detail that is present on that person's Wikipedia page, that is not an accident, that is a deliberate omission. In this case, the relevant section was highly visible, and was five sentences long. Nobody writing this article could have missed this.
Then there's the detail itself. When the detail undermines the author's argument, or changes the narrative of the story they're trying to tell, the author needs to address this. They need to mention the detail, and if they have other evidence that might move me to put less weight in that detail, then they can present it here. But to leave the detail out entirely, and hope that I don't google the person is dishonest, and assumes that their readers are stupid and uncritical.
When the editors at a publication exhibit a pattern of such sloppy, deliberately misleading journalism, and when that pattern happens to perfectly fit a specific political narrative, then the educated public is more than justified writing off the publication in the manner that I have done.
tl;dr: Google stuff. Look for problems with the way the argument is presented, not for things you disagree with. If it doesn't pass the sniff test, you're allowed to write it off. If there's a pattern of not passing the sniff test in a particular way, you're allowed to call bullshit. I can't believe I have to fucking spell this out, but here we are.
Another thing you should note is even though The New York Times is "the newspaper of record" there are tons of things they get consistently wrong, and seldom ever retract an iota as far as I've seen.
You also have in the news industry what is acceptable fact. There are facts, which if any one party find them negative to anyone reported, simply won't be reported. This is why the ideologies of China (blocking or discrediting news) fit so well with the US right now - we're already basically doing this.
Washington post is a left-leaning news paper, but actually reputable as news can be in USA. Washington Times is basically another Breitbart or Infowars.
Very true, the problem is removing the Fairness doctrine. Which required that all 'news' had equal airtime between different sides of an issue. Since that went away the news has become just all opeds all the time... Just listen to whichever echo chamber fits your political ideology best instead of getting all the facts.
Moderation does not unbiased news make. Everything is biased. What you have is the news you are already biased towards - your own personal echo chamber.
I'm not claiming that it's unbiased, just that I'm getting much more relevant information from the comments than on any other news site/forum that I know.
Just not having jokes/clickbait allowed makes HN special.
An example for the strong bias that I know of is how much HN crowd thought that the iPhone would flop.
