> They lied about Covid (Chinese bio-weapon)

Are you saying the media argued it was one, because I honestly didn't see that claim outside of the weird right wing media I try to avoid but Slashdotters link to from time to time. It clearly wasn't a bio-weapon.

> lied about it's threat-level. (It was relatively harmless)

The first wave had a death rate of about 2%, which is extremely high for this kind of virus. Long COVID is also a factor - it wasn't known what the long term effects would be, but it turned out to have them. Now, again, the weird right wing stuff may have claimed otherwise, but this absolutely was covered by the media.

> Campaigned to force mRNA experimental Genetically Engeered substances into people's bodies

OK, I think I get where you're coming from. You get your news from Facebook, right?

WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is essentially a version of Fox News aimed at people you can't easily lie to. If you think it's left wing you not only haven't read it, you barely know anything about it other than the name.

CNN has been drifting rightward for years, albeit dialing it back periodically when their ratings collapse as a result. Turns out Fox News viewers aren't going to watch an outlet that's constantly called "leftist" by the right wing, while liberals and the left do not like media that's both right wing and inaccurate. CNN's natural bias is towards corporate interests, not the left. It's just considered left wing by the right because of decades of smears, interpretations of poor journalism as "left wing", and, well, a lack of viewing by the audience that considers it that.

CBC I can't comment upon.

American TV News started going downhill in the 1990s. It has nothing to do with so-called bias - that's simply what the right wing have insisted on promoting as a way to cast doubt on legitimate news. It has to do with sloppy reporting, a failure to check sources, or have their content reviewed by subject matter experts. Part of this is the nature of the beast, viewers want their news to be timely, and their cable bills low. Part of it is that the professionals and the people who own the news organizations just do not care. They want ratings, not Pulitzers.

Diversity and unity are orthogonal. Diversity always has been a strength, a monoculture is a shitty way to live.

Nobody sane wants to live in an environment where everyone is like them.

Given what's happened since 2016, largely as a result of the extreme right wing media's lying since the 1990s, I think it was the wrong call not to kick out Fox News. It would have upset the establishment, but let's be quite honest, the country is at an end, the constitution isn't worth shit, human rights abuses are now mainstreamed, and much of this is due to the malign influence of a single Australian media baron, and the unwillingness of the Democrats to fight back or the establishment to recognize what's happening.

America is dead. Iranians can stop chanting that slogan now, they got what they wanted.

So you admit you're lying?

Well one is fascist and the other isn't, which should be a major thing even someone far removed from it and used to just comparing political parties to some crude "mid point" between your two dominant parties should be able to notice.

I mean seriously, this "both sides are the same" shit needs to stop. The Democrats are obnoxiously corporate, sure, but they're not trying to roll back protections for marginalized groups, they're not trying to dismantle democracy, they're not building concentration camps, and they haven't created a secret police with a budget larger than the fucking Marines solely to enforce one relatively unimportant set of laws as brutally as possible knowing it'll also result, and has also resulted in, harm to innocent Americans who haven't done anything wrong. They are also, for all their faults, pro-science.

How are they the same?

You mean maybe the people sending it to you forgot to put any ideas into the prompt?

Here's a fun idea, have a look at the open source contributors who are dealing with this shit, "security bug reports" day after day after day that's AI generated slot generated by people desperately hoping the AI will spit out at least one legitimate bug report so they can collect a bounty. People who blindly submit this shit not understanding what it means?

And fuck you BTW. Trying to blame the victims to justify your AI fetish, and so inventing crap they must have done because god-forbid YOU might be making the world worse. You're an asshole, you're bad and should feel bad.

Your the second person to write this and it's all true, although when someone asks you "Is the website down?" and you sigh because FFS we have eleventeen different fucking websites and anyway I'm a dev" there's at least a reality behind it. When your manager's manager tells you they're merging two teams in order to facilitate the cross pollination of synergies to promote teamwork, they are actually telling you your team is being merged.

But... what we don't need is all the human slop augmented by a giant mountain of AI generated shit. Because if you think the human slop is being replaced by AI shit, you have another thing coming. And the AI shit, unlike the human slop, isn't long winded (or the opposite in the "Is the website down?" example) statements of things that you need to be aware of, it's most of the time useless crap from start to finish.

> This allows for reduced thickness and reduced cost, which is what most people want

Reduced thickness? No, I think pretty much everyone agrees laptops are as thin as they need to be. Any thinner and they'll slip when you're typing on them, and we want some thickness to keep them robust.

Which also raises another problem with the "thinness" fetish promoted only by laptop marketdroids and the morons who work as reviewers for so-called "tech" websites like Engadget et al: the keyboards on most modern laptops are literally unusable. They're worse than ZX Spectrum+ and maybe on a part with the older rubber-keyed ZX Spectrum. They. Are. Fucking. Awful. And keyboards are one of the major reasons you use a computer rather than a tablet. So what the fuck is the point with these things?

People talk about how sales of laptops are declining and tablets increasing, but maybe if you actually cripple the major advantage a laptop has over a tablet, that's inevitable?

Cheaper, sure, but how much does it cost to add two dimm slots and to use mass produced commodity DIMMs? It's not even as if there isn't a cost to designing a motherboard so it only works with specific memory chips.

I hate this timeline. It's all going to shit.

They're not.

Liberals defend mainstream Muslims from attacks on their freedom of religion and from smears related to their religion. Because conservatives do not understand nuance they decide this means Liberals love Islam and think its the best and want to marry it, despite those same liberals doing the same for pretty much any religious group that's under attack, as Muslims were after 9/11. See also Gaza where RWNJs assume all liberals hate Jews and worship Allah, or think Hamas is great, because they don't want to see innocent Palestinians killed.

I've only come across one "liberal woman" who actually suggested life might be better, in some limited ways, in countries like Iran, and she was a nutcase, not representative of liberals in general.

You need to get out more and realize there's more to life than cheering or booing every identifiable group of people like a fucking football team.

The context of this is Microsoft changing software the person has already bought. It was something wanted and needed in its original form, it's not wanted in its modified form.

Did you mean to write "free"? I'm pretty sure it's included in the cost, rather than free in any meaningful sense. Perhaps you meant to write "Unwanted", or "forced"?

Well the point was more "We're not talking random access media here where seek times are really really important."

With a tape, even right now with some of the faster seek time devices, you wouldn't use it as random access media. That's not what it's good for. The fastest tapes with non-trivial storage capacities (ie not talking about stringy floppy or Sinclair microdrive type systems) still have a seek time poorer than the slowest floppy drives.

That narrows the scope of what concerns we should have. If it takes winding through tape for 60 minutes to get to the back-up, does anyone care?

They do, but I'm pretty sure you can write more than a thousand times to an SSD, so 1000T isn't going to be enough storage for a lifetime write log for a 1T SSD alas if it's based upon the media lifetime. What I've read is that modern SSDs tend to be rated for 100,000 writes per sector. That's a little more than 36Pb, but it's not unreasonable.

OTOH the point you raise suggests a combination approach might work pretty well, just write changed sectors but perhaps delay the write to deal with the inevitable "Update the sector at the end of a file" and "Create temporary file, delete it" stuff that goes on all the time and possibly makes up the bulk of writes in a file system. That would easily extend the capacity for backing up a 36Pb system could have.

That's terrific, but probably not something you should brag about on a tech website.

Not all of us watch videos only if we're watching some ad-infested cloud based service.