News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by matz1 on Saturday May 04, 2019 @01:15PM (#19827786)
Well at least to me, the author and to some society, both are technically fact and both are technically correct.
Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by Fezzik on Saturday May 04, 2019 @02:19PM (#19828205)
In this example, though, we are looking for actionable items. But for the pollution, it appears this girl would have not had respiratory failure. Reducing pollution is the actionable item for addressing the respiratory related illness in this story, and thus the focal point. Writing an article about this person and not mentioning pollution, and writing only about respiratoy failure, would have been utterly pointless.

Edit, to add: just because something is true does not make it relevant. It is true that if this woman never would have been born she would not have had respiratory failure caused by pollution and this article never would have been written... but how is stating that helpful?

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by matz1 on Saturday May 04, 2019 @02:34PM (#19828297)
I'm just pointing out that it is also correct that the girl die from respiratory failure.

I do not claim to know what is the author true intention or whether its helpful or not.

Re:London girl could be first to have “air pollution” listed... by habnds on Saturday May 04, 2019 @04:30PM (#19829165)
just trolling