Even when they tell the technical truth, it’s so full of deception to sell ads I just can’t.
I opened the first 15 results on Google and every single one mentions the number of people as proportion of the overall company size. The vast majority are in paragraph 1 or 2.
Could you link to the article (hopefully from a reputable source) that doesn't mention the company size?
Yes, it's only 1% of a company, which is not a lot. But 700 people being fired is quite a lot, if we consider that this affects more than these 700 people. I'm sure a lot of these 700 people have a family at home.
In your example I don't really see why that is proof that they use the total amount for ad-driven clickbait. There are more than enough better examples for this, I think.
So was the quarantine window wrong all along? Or is it changing now because we really need workers?
The real soon here is a complete erosion of trust in institutions. I think many folks greatly underestimate the extent of the harm caused by this loss of trust.
I'm not really bothered about the true origin of the virus, except inasmuchas scientists lying about their true beliefs is incredibly damaging to public confidence, and energises conspiranoids. Lying about the benefits of mask-wearing was bloody stupid.
I no longer pay attention to statistics about infection rates and fatality rates. They are presented in the press without context (e.g. "It's a Monday, so results are skewed because some clinics report numbers for the whole weekend"). We get numbers with spurious precision. How can they know it's 251 cases, and not 249? Where are the error-bars?
It's really annoying; if you want to understand what's happening, you really do have to "do your own research". I feel ashamed to have just typed that, because that's a phrase mainly used by antivaxxers and QAnon conspiraloons, people who generally don't have the critical-thinking capacity to distinguish their left hand from their right, let alone evaluate research.
Thanks, but not mine. At one time I used to read Indymedia, an open-posting forum. There were a lot of pretty conspiraloonatic posts, often about 9/11 and "chemtrails". This was the early noughties. The word's been around a long time.
- As individuals you kind of know what they know what their biases are
- You can follow all sides of the debates
- It's quicker by about 12 hours than the newspapers
You get to see the biases in the news when it breaks on twitter first and then you get the editorialised dumbed down version written up by journalists a few hours after. Obviously you have to be a bit selective about who you follow.
By the way, what do you think of the tone of the other reply to my comment? (Did you perhaps see the now-deleted curse word at the end?)
Do you really not see the connection?
But you don't really need to take US intel's word for any of it. The grant application where the scientists literally propose modifying spike proteins of bat coronaviruses in the Wuhan Lab leaked from the DoD and you can read it for yourself:
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066966-defuse-prop...
https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/oVt6gT0yBx4eQXSeuN...
"A GRANT PROPOSAL written by the U.S.-based nonprofit the EcoHealth Alliance and submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, provides evidence that the group was working — or at least planning to work — on several risky areas of research. Among the scientific tasks the group described in its proposal, which was rejected by DARPA, was the creation of full-length infectious clones of bat SARS-related coronaviruses and the insertion of a tiny part of the virus known as a “proteolytic cleavage site” into bat coronaviruses. Of particular interest was a type of cleavage site able to interact with furin, an enzyme expressed in human cells."
Note that the names on this grant proposal were the same scientists that were executing this coverup and the ones responsible for the obvious lie that it couldn't have come from the lab.
The idea that it wasn't created by scientists requires either a lack of information or tremendous naivety to continue holding onto. You can literally read their proposals to deliberately engineer viruses to be more infectious to humans and - even crazier - to deliberately release these viruses into bat caves and then spray airborne vaccines over self-same bats.