> During and between his terms as President of the United States, Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims
To have a productive discussion on HN, I'd like to ask a question I've always wondered about the USA: How come, given how the media represents things, there haven't been any new media companies, no new news shows, no new newspapers/websites, dedicated to honest, factual reporting, that have gone mainstream/nationwide?
Factual news reporting is boring. Nobody wants it. They certainly don't want to pay for it.
There's really no trouble getting factual information in the US. The main source of actual information is the wire services, such as Reuters and AP. It's dull, tedious, factual reporting.
News shows, web sites, etc. all get their news from there. They add various levels of commentary, entertainment, and ideology to make it more engaging.
Some are worse than others; you can get fairly decent reporting from most mainstream news sources. The more biased a news source is, the more time it devotes to attacking those sources as being biased.
It doesn't require a news source. It requires looking at news for news rather than entertainment.
This is made somewhat more complicated in the last few years. Since real news is boring, reliable news sources are less profitable, and many are failing. That leaves them open to being bought out by highly partisan owners, who leverage their reputation while betraying it.
The wire services remain reliable, so far, and have the advantage of being primary reporting. It's not hard to find reality if you want it. It's just that not a lot of people want it.
>To have a productive discussion on HN, I'd like to ask a question I've always wondered about the USA: How come, given how the media represents things, there haven't been any new media companies, no new news shows, no new newspapers/websites, dedicated to honest, factual reporting, that have gone mainstream/nationwide?
The problem is that anyone reporting honestly on Trump would be excessively negative, there's not that many people who want to suffer through reading that (or through verbatim quotes of the things he says!).
create exhaustion and disbelief in the consumer and they eventually give up on consuming, and will eventually choose to cherry pick factoids that confirm their preexisting beliefs
> so much so that there's a wikipedia page dedicated to the falsehoods
Not detracting from the merits of your statement, but Wikipedia is not neutral, it is biased politically/ideologically, so it should not be used as a fair "measure" of things.
Literally every information source has biases. We are human after all. Well, most of us. If you reject Wikipedia on this you basically have to reject everything anyone says, ever
It's rejecting Wikipedia strictly as a means to measure who lies more; even discounting ideological bias, I'm sure other people who are less scrutinized and publicized tell just as many, if not more, lies. They wouldn't have a Wikipedia page because relatively few people will care to read about Joe Nobody telling his wife that he was at a friend's house after he gets back from the strip club.
With respect to ideological bias, I strongly doubt that other Presidents never made "false or misleading statements" but I can't seem to find, for example, the page of "False or misleading statements made by Joe Biden". It seems a stretch to say he made none, to the point one might wonder about the discrepancy.
There's nothing recent about the most popular media being manipulated and/or biased. Discussions on this forum date back two decades, however the specific narrative depends on the context.
The media should be asking about Epstein every time they have a chance, but it doesn't happen, because the news makes it's money through audience capture via FOMO, and you do that by always moving to the latest thing that happened, doesn't matter how irrelevant.
Not just Trump, both him and Israel invaded Iran during pretend negotiations with them. If Iran had any sense at all, any smell of "peace" deals drom these two parties should mean a total military preparation to repel and counterattack and putting officers, civilians in bunkers.
Will some(most? a few?) state govts start publishing all the same data just for their own state?
I wonder if this will become a competitive advantage? States that publish nothing will get less FDI or local investment because the risks are harder to calculate?
Actually, will this affect different types of insurance?
It's such an insane problem for a developed nation to have, has anyone given serious thought to the long-term affects of this?
Not OP, but I think they still have the lead in hardware. However, I'm using an iPhone 14 which apparently released 4 years ago now, and it's still plenty fast enough for all my needs. If it lasts another 4 years, I won't update. That's probably their problem.
Do I think the software ecosystem is superior? I _hate_ using the app store with a passion. I _hate_ trying to find an app for my needs(most recently a gym app) and there's 40 options and they're all a monthly subscription. I _hate_ the advertising that my children get trapped in while playing a game(I sometimes have to switch to data so that my pihole isn't used so that the ads can load so that the game will work at all), but the ads don't have a timer or an X in the top right, you have to interact with them the right way to escape.
But most of all, I _HATE_ that all my daughter wants is a draw-by-numbers game and there's literally hundreds of almost identical games which all charge $10+ a MONTH for the privilege.
Nah, I don't think the software ecosystem is superior. Although Google trying to stop sideloading does make me think they're happy racing to the goddamn bottom.
Any 4 year old medium range Android phone is mighty fine these days, ie Samsungs just keep chugging, mine S22 ultra still has fine battery and rest is like new and I've seen the same for lower tiers. Market won't allow much gap anymore
Both are superfluous if you have ublock, and pihole doesn't do anything for "native" ads like on twitch or youtube. The only benefit is that it blocks ads in apps that use third party ad SDKs.
This doesn't change the UI as such, but it auto-mutes ads, and auto-skips once the skip option is available. It's a bit of a funny thing to setup, but it works great once setup.
https://github.com/dmunozv04/iSponsorBlockTV should get you started. In HA, it will available in the Settings > Add-ons / Add-on store. If you don't have home assistant, you can always run it on an rpi or in docker on a system on your network.
I wonder if it's because social media started out as connecting with people you know, and maybe their friends, so you can maintain/expand your social circle, or join new ones?
But now it's an algorithmic feed(they're all feeds) designed to maximize engagement with the app, and socializing is a distant 2nd(or 10th) priority for the app makers?
I read HN & Reddit, but the only "social" media I still use regularly are group chats with <10 people in them.
Because you have an idea for a product/service that you think people will want/need enough that they'll pay for it?
Because you think you can create the product/service before you go bankrupt, and that you can then sell it for a price the market can bear that will allow you to make a profit?
It's not just a coin flip, which is the impression you get looking at statistics too much.
- UK, Canada, Guyana, probably more countries shared intelligence on suspected drug vessels in Caribbean
- US Coast Guard accosted said vessels, searched them, arrested everyone if anything illegal was found.
Now it's:
- UK, Canada, Guyana, have all said they're not going to share intelligence, decreasing(by whatever percentage) the chances of finding a drug smuggling boat, and increasing the chance of it making its way to the USA.
- US Navy blows up what boats it does find without checking them for drugs, increasing(by whatever percentage) the chance of killing innocents, and degrading intl law & norms.
This really makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist, but it doesn't seem as far from reality as it should...
If there's no response: exhibiting total dominance of the region and being able to make up whatever unverifiable statistics they want re: domestic safety (drugs, gangs, etc).
If there is a response: potential for armed conflict which could become a pretense for interning more citizens with hispanic heritage, similar to what was done to Japanese Americans in the 1940s.
There's a thing going on in Australia with Melatonin. It's not OTC, it's a prescription thing. BUT doctors typically just tell people to buy online from America because it's much cheaper. So the TGA(Therapeutic Goods Administration) did some testing of what you can get online from America:
and are now recommending not to buy online because the doses are completely unregulated. They even reached out to companies like iHerb and asked them not to sell to Australians.
So, whatever dose you think you're taking, assume it's a bit of a guesstimate...
Most of us are interested in complex systems, and the economy is a very complex system, and discussing the outcome of some of the most significant blunt changes to this system counts as "intellectually satisfying"?
Also, it's going to affect all our lives somehow, even if we're not watching from the inside.
Thanks for this response. This is 100% what I was going for. I try to understand the world that I live in and share my observations with others, and use this to help others when I can
I don't even mean to be political, but one of the two parties here is notorious for lying, so much so that there's a wikipedia page dedicated to the falsehoods they have come out with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements...
First line:
> During and between his terms as President of the United States, Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims
To have a productive discussion on HN, I'd like to ask a question I've always wondered about the USA: How come, given how the media represents things, there haven't been any new media companies, no new news shows, no new newspapers/websites, dedicated to honest, factual reporting, that have gone mainstream/nationwide?
Is there something preventing this?
reply