You mean poor news, right? There is such a thing as news, coming from reputable sources, at least, as reputable as a friend of a friend. We can agree to start from the position knowing all news information is biased, but if you still end up with that view, where is the learning coming from?
News isn't just biased. Modern technology gives us the power to get news from the source. In the past, a reporter would report on something that happened to a person. Today, that person can just post what happened to them on Twitter. Where do you think journos get their information from? The only reason to have another layer is to curate, decipher, and explain the raw information. That means applying bias. In fact it means news is bias in today's world, which is fine if you're aligned with the person doing it. For example, internal newsletters at companies are a great source of information, because your interests are intertwined. But you might not necessarily feel that way when it comes to media organizations that are mouthpieces of the state. Algorithms like Twitter are a much better system, because the worst bias they can inject is curation. They can't do spin and they can't assign meaning. At least not if you're only looking at the raw feeds. If you limit it to "Following" then it can't curate either, so the platform is capable of providing a small corner we can choose to be in that has zero bias other than your own.
I don't get your point. You are describing a world I do not take part in, I think for myself. And make adjustments appropriate to me. Your points are mostly circular and decidedly lacking in irony. I repeat, if what you say is so true, how do you learn? It sounds as if the barest of truth is out of reach, no matter what. How do I thus gauge the content of your words?
If by truth you mean facts, then most news is factual. Non-facts are easy to disprove. News is about glomming beliefs and emotion onto facts, similar to how advertisements get attached to web pages. If you're looking for truth, look to math.
That's not what news is at all. That's biased news. And not facts either. You might be confused with talking about how one projects feelings on to stories, filter internally, and, inevitably, bias them all by oneself.
I cringe when I see one, but sometimes the articles are good. Apparently, some people have great writing skills but suck at visual taste. Though, arguably, they aught to know that about themselves.
Is that a little like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? Good to have principles that propel forwards and not become entrenched by them, wouldn't you agree? That said, you will save, or at least not waste, an awful lot of time - there was already too much and now a lot more tripe out there since so-called a.i..
> Good to have principles that propel forwards and not become entrenched by them, wouldn't you agree? That said, you will save, or at least not waste, an awful lot of time - there was already too much and now a lot more tripe out there since so-called a.i..
In this case, it's not really entrenchment, because there are viable alternatives.
There was a huge difference between an American 'period' and an English 'full stop' to me for decades. The same thing having two different names in the same language only became apparent to me well into my life. Hearing US stand-ups ending lines, punctuated with a throaty 'Period!' I thought were referencing time immemorial, not just 'that's the end of my sentence'.
There have been a higher than average postings of off topic (not all unwelcome by any means) news posts. And by all accounts readers are split on their presence. Here's an approach worth pursuing at least once in your adult life for longer than your 2 week holiday/vacation.
I'm coming at this not knowing enough, but have read many similar articles over the past 20 years or so. Bluntly, why don't these villains, instead of (for example) breaking into highly protected government nuclear facilities, why not just transfer all of 'everyones' money to their bank accounts? (hacks being so easy).
It's easier to track fund transfers than it is to track small snippets of assets being traded and reassigned. The smaller the pieces and the more of them there are going in all different directions in the first few steps the harder it is to find the end destination. Do this multiple times over multiple steps and you create plenty of buffers, because tracking the theft requires investigating every single possible route the assets could've taken. It's all about how much time you have to obscure the latest evidence before the authorities sort out the previous evidence. Shell companies are the corporate version of this sort of scheme.
Thank you. But remember, these are villains we're talking about. They would not care if the world knew they had stolen nuclear secrets. They won't care if they are tracked stealing money. Right?
Let's change it to, emptying 'everyone's' bank account; that kind of chaos would pretty much put a billion people in serious trouble almost immediately.
The point is, why go to the trouble of attempting to attack the most guarded?
let's say the bank doesn't notice the transfer and revert it back. how will they withdraw the money without getting caught? when you approach the "coupe of million dollars" milestone, humans start reviewing transactions. even with your own money, it isn't unusual to have the cops called on you when withdrawing large sums of money if you don't usually do that.
You’re thinking or villains from poorly written movies.
In reality, most of the people stealing data and money are not terrorists and don’t have as an ulterior motive “to instil terror and fear”. Usually they’re either politically motivated or just don’t have other means to put food on their tables.
