Just reporting what people claim isn't really enough, articles about any contentious issue would end like you said "SoAndSo said the White House lied, but the White House said SoAndSo lied." Journalists used to investigate stuff on their own, and make their own judgment calls about what sounds right or wrong. That's why journalists used to want/need to appear trustworthy.

A real reporter needs to go to the border and see for themselves what's up. If they are just reporting what others claim, then the most authoritative sounding source to each end consumer wins. That will be entirely subjective.. liberals won't believe Trump's White House statements, but will be more than happy to believe Joe Biden's White House statements, and vice versa for conservatives. So you'd end up with the same situation as now, except instead of people just flocking to a like-minded news host, they just believe the parts of the objective story they want to.

And further... even a story comprising objective facts can (and will) be heavily biased by what to include or exclude. It might be completely true to say "The White House says it's not a crisis. QAnon says it is." And that makes it sound like only crazy people are claiming it's a crisis. But left out is that bit about mainstream Senator SoAndSo, because too many people might believe him, which goes against the paper's agenda.

I don't think we can return to the old days of "I trust xyz because they are objective." I think the best shot is that each person needs to curate their own news, and if you want to be a responsible adult and hear multiple perspectives, you'll have to do that on your own. Substack gives you a great place to find those voices, but unfortunately what I've seen is that each writer is their own little kingdom. What I would like is the ala carte cable model (which never happened). For $10/month let me choose 3 people, anyone I want. Maybe it'll be 2 conservatives and a liberal, or a conservative, a liberal, and a non-political science writer.

Canceling is when you are trying to prevent other people, even those who don't want to participate in your boycott, from even being able to access stuff. You're inappropriately lumping them together.

Don't forget one of the most important techniques of real humans to understand -- asking.

"The cat is on the cot"
-- "What??"
"The cat is on the cot!"
-- "Are you saying cot, like a sleeping cot?"
"Yeah obviously"

If you want the AI to understand all variants of English without interaction it probably will never achieve mastery of any of them.

Not only does the NBA still own the clip, other people can own NFTs of the same clip lol.

"Price, ownership, and transfers will be recorded on the blockchain permanently. This is what makes each Moment unique; even if 100 Moments are made from the same play, no two will be identical."

That's really funny.

There's a great saying, "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." What it means is that when someone is ready to be a student, they can learn from just about anyone. At higher levels like universities or prep schools, the teachers/professors are much more likely to be specialized in the field they teach, rather than have a teaching degree. And it works fantastically well. Works perfectly well in apprenticeship programs too.

The challenge is reaching kids who aren't ready to be students either because they are unprepared or unwilling. The question then becomes, in a pandemic when things are not normal, should we be sacrificing the entire student population (who can't afford private schools which didn't close or home school) and ensuring that nobody is learning, or should we be doing things that still help many kids (maybe even most)?

Clearly teachers are not immune to covid, and they have the same risk factors as the rest of us -- age, obesity, etc.

I think the bigger question isn't whether teachers have died, it's whether they have caught it at school, and how many of them have done so. Then, how much would some focused risk mitigation based on what we know reduce that -- like having old or obese teachers transition to virtual schooling (which at least some parents want anyway) while younger and healthier teachers go back to the classroom.

An approach of zero risk tolerance is stupid, because there are risks either way. One affects teachers more, one affects kids more.

If a company does something you don't like that doesn't affect the app, I sort of agree with you that targeting the app's rating as "payback" is not fair.

In this case, the company's policy decision directly affects what you can do with the app, so it's fair to rate the app for that.

I find that really hard to believe. I doubt Google has ever removed a review that said something like "I used to like this app, but I'm giving it 1 star because the CEO said something bad about Trump" for instance. Glad to be proven wrong, but I won't hold my breath!

If you go back through the thread, "loss" was introduced by Mr Dollar Ton saying "A negative review that warns potential customers of a stock trading application that the said app may arbitrarily limit or remove access to your ability to trade assets that you own and expose you to losses because of this is extremely useful to the said potential customers."

So arguably it's his context that actually matters here, and it's pretty clear from that context what he means.

If for some reason you think "loss" has a very specific investment related context, I'm curious to hear your definition. I think it will still be incorrect because I can think of a few scenarios where being prevented from buying exposes you to real losses (ie your account value goes down).

That's.... not at all accurate? Again, you need to do some research into the scale of this event.

Gamestop becomes most actively traded stock on Fidelity
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbu...

Gamestop the #1 most traded stock in the US.. in terms of dollar volume not just share count
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Flivecovera...

"Millions" of amateur traders taking on Wall Street's most sophisticated investors
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2021%2F0...

Gamestop still on Robinhood's most popular stocks list (that's for Robinhood users)
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Frobinhood.com%2Fcollecti...

Now Robinhood has 13 million users. 100k/13 million = 0.7%... is it really unlikely to you that one of the biggest trading-related news stories, affecting a huge platform with millions of users, and particularly one of the most popular companies trading on that platform, would upset a tiny percentage of them enough to write a bad review, especially with tens of thousands of people TALKING about writing bad reviews because of how they were affected by it?

Come on man you're stretching my sense of credulity here. Are you just trolling??

I think the review system is imperfect, and I agree that coordinated review bombing is unfair to potential users who don't actually care about the underlying issue. Like if a ton of people leave 1 star reviews on a restaurant because the owner supported BLM.. many people do care about that and would choose to eat elsewhere, but many people would also support the restaurant, and many others would just not consider it either way when it comes to picking a restaurant. Ideally, reviews could be grouped together based on the issue, and people could choose whether to include them or not. If you could say "show me reviews from the perspective of being pro/anti/neutral BLM" that would be cool. I'm sure Google could come up with something that constructs a profile of you, and shows you an aggregate review based on that profile.

But in the absence of that the criteria should be more objective. I totally support removing reviews from people who aren't actual Robinhood users. I think that would be uncontroversial. If you could find out, removing reviews of people who were paid or rewarded in some way to post them would be fantastic. But if a real Robinhood user is upset by what they did, and their opinion of Robinhood has changed from 5 stars to 1 star, why should their voice not be heard?

Anybody who thinks those 100k reviews were substantially fake or manipulated, whether bots or paid people, or people just bandwagoning who don't actually care or aren't involved, is nuts. This is huge, there are potentially millions of people involved and affected, and the scrutiny over Robinhood's actions is intense and serious. To completely remove the negative reviews that arose from this incident, and give new users the impression that everything is fine, is harming those users.

Google should at least put a message up saying "100k 1 star reviews were submitted by users after Robinhood halted buying of Gamestock stock. Those reviews have not been included in this average." so that the information is there.

Where that turns into a loss is subjective, but the threshold has clearly been reached in the Robinhood instance. You have to look at the factors that go into the missed opportunity. If the predominant one is an intentional action by a single party, that's pretty solid. If there's a whole set of factors including your own actions, then it's less clear.

I don't think you understand the scale of this issue. A couple hundred or a couple thousand retail investors don't have enough power to manipulate stock prices of multi-billion dollar companies, especially with multi-billion dollar hedge funds moving against them. There are many many people involved.

The WSB subreddit has 6 million members. There are threads trashing Robinhood with tens of thousands of upvotes and thousands of comments. They are launching lawsuits and SEC complaints.

I have no problem believing 100k people from that group alone use Robinhood and were either directly affected, or have lost faith in the app due to Robinhood's actions. I'm surprised it isn't more than that actually... perhaps Google also stopped accepting reviews at some point so the cleanup is artificially low. A couple days ago when the shit was really hitting the fan, major brokerage websites like Fidelity were having capacity issues because so many people were trying to sign up for new accounts since their Robinhood (and a few others, but they seem to be the most popular) trading was frozen.

I agree with you that invalid reviews from bots or users who have nothing to do with the service should be deleted. It would be really easy for Google to delete reviews from people who haven't had the app installed, or even if we're being really cautious people who haven't had it installed for more than X days. It doesn't sound like that's what happened though.

Hey bootlicker!

Nobody's against locking up violent offenders. I don't think there was even close to 6000 though. Those were mostly peaceful protesters, sorry.

You have to be seriously stupid to think that a small riot is an insurrection.

Trump is out of office, it's ok for you to calm down again. The world isn't ending. Take your meds.

Hey moron,

I bet there are also fewer police killed by criminals in those countries, fewer criminals going around with guns, etc. It's not a simple problem, which makes it a little bit hard for you to understand I think.

Well, justified according to the law, why didn't you just say "Sorry you're right I agree with you" and save all the dumbass bullshit? lol

Insurrection! Lol. Come on dude. That was a riot, not an attempt to overthrow the government and take ownership of the country. It doesn't meet the requirements of an insurrection, any more than the pussy hat march during Trump's inauguration was an insurrection. But yeah I know that term is very in vogue with the idiot left at the moment.

Sure the election claims are far more serious than the moon landing claims, I totally agree. But the reason the election folk are more violent is also that the election claims, if true, have FAR greater significance than if "the government has been lying to us, we never went to the moon" -- who cares? So again.. you're not really disagreeing with me.. you're just too dumb to realize it I think.

So? You should read some of them. They do sound convincing. There's a great link back to the moon landing stuff.. did you know that a lot of the facts about the moon landing conspiracy theories turned out to be actually true? The conclusion wasn't true, but many of the pieces were.

If you look at the lawsuits, you'll probably come to the same conclusion... a lot of them are probably true, but were dismissed from court for various reasons that all come down to "The government prefers stability to actually investigating and delaying normal proceedings and then likely in the end it all goes for Biden anyway so what's the point."

I have no idea what or who you're talking about. You are just stupid dude, face it.