germanlee

Why don't they just support the growth of their own homegrown "WhatsApp"?

With government support and financial support, india could easily have an indian "whatsapp". WhatsApp isn't technological sophisticated. It's simply a large network. With government/business "tweaking", india could help their own "whatsapp" company take over much of that market from facebook.

Why hand the entire indian market over to facebook and zuckerburg?

There is no reason why large and significant markets shouldn't be dominated by local businesses. Not to say whatsapp should be banned from india, but it's only the incompetence of government/business that cedes their market to foreign companies. This also applies to the EU. It's insane to me that the EU doesn't have their own google, facebook, etc.

I told you why your assumptions were false. And please don't use philosophical and logical concepts you clearly don't understand.

> To give an example, if news A presents a factual statement, and news B presents a lie that contradicts A, you are no better off by watching both news sources.

Actually you are better off since you can then verify the "factual statement".

You are assuming "news A" is pushing "factual statements". That is itself a logical fallacy. I'll let you furiously google a list of logical fallacies to find out which.

You aren't addressing any "fallacy" because you built up false assumptions and are now arguing against your incorrect assumptions. That is also another logical fallacy.

You have a very "journalist" way of thinking. Illogical, agenda driven and misleading.

You forgot other Pulitzer Prize gems.

Pulitzer Prize winning news source : Nayirah, Yellow cake, assad syria chemical attack, Trump working for Putin conspiracy.

But then again, Pulitzer was the founder of yellow journalism, the original fake news.

I don't think winning an award named after the founder of yellow journalism is anything to be proud of.

"Back to Moscow comrades"?

That sounds like the fake news we've been hearing from many pulitzer winners.

The difference between infowars fake news and pulitzer winners fake news is that the pulitzer winners' fake news has resulted in the death of millions of people and the pulitzer winners should be facing war crime charges.

There is a difference between bad science and "not being a science" ( aka pseudoscience ).

The difference is that in one you can formulate replicable science. In the other, by its nature, you can't. Because on deals with "natural law" and the other with society.

There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether capitalism or socialism is the best economic system. There is no "replicable scientific test" to determine whether to have the death penalty or not. So on and so forth. Much of it is pretty much a "religious" endeavor. Pretty much those with power decide and social "science" is used to justify whereas in the past religion was the justification.

1. I didn't say all news sources are "equally biased". Saying all news sources are biased is not the same as saying equally biased. Some are obvious more biased and more propagandistic than others. But without a doubt, every news source has biases. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to look into the history of every news company. Who created them, funded them and who is running them. But I suspect you already know this.

2. I didn't say the "aggregates" produce an unbiased result. I didn't mention anything about "aggregates". Seeing different opinions exposes to you the biases of every news source. If you just watch foxnews or cnn all day, you won't be able to pick up on the bias. But if you watch both, the biases of both become blatantly obvious. I'm not saying watching both somehow magically makes CNN or Foxnews "objective" and "honest". Quite the opposite.

3. Neither of those assumptions are credible because I didn't make them. You made those assumptions in an attempt to defend mainstream media. Which I see all over social media recently.

Every comment about being skeptical about media ( especially mainstream media ) gets met with your type of comment. Makes me wonder.

It's in a replication crisis because pretty much none of it is science ( no replicable testing possible - hypothesis, experiment, theory ). It's why Richard Feynmann associated social science with pseudoscience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo

Because real science destroyed the credibility of religion and religion in much of the world is no longer a credible social control tool, the elites needed a new form of religion to control society. That new religion is social "science". Whereas religion controlled everything from economics, schooling, family, culture, society, law, etc, now they all fall under the pseudoscience/religion called social "science".

---------------------------------------------

Reply to ziddoap.

Considering you tossed around "illumati-esque", I doubt you are interested.

I consider social science to be a pseudoscience for the same reason richard feynmann did. Did you bother watching what he had to say?

Social "science" is a humanities. It belongs in the category with philosophy, ethics, literature, religion, etc.

Just because I said it is a pseudoscience doesn't mean that I think it is useless or bad necessarily. No more than I think literature, ethics, philosophy or even religion is bad.

I just think social "science" is a "religion" trying to latch onto the good name of real science. Just like creationism "science" or all the other fake "science" trying to gain credibility by associating itself with science.

HTTP is the Web. HTML is just the superficial face of the web.

Rather than being an honest game to reduce "disinformation", this game is simply defending mainstream media. It's message is essentially "trust mainstream media". Not that shocking coming from cambridge considering they are at the forefront of cultural war being waged in the west today.

How about get opinion/news from a wide variety of sources ( mainstream and fringe, big and small, national and international, right and left, globalist and nationalist, etc )? That's the only reliable way to wade through all the disinformation.

Especially regarding controversial, cultural, military, trade and geopolitical issues.

If you are getting your "news" from one source then you are getting propaganda and lies. How many wars have we been sold on lies by the media? And yet, we are expected to trust them regardless of their lies. And that's just the most glaring and obvious example.

For example, with the recent hong kong protests. It would have been nice to see what the chinese media or asian media were also saying about the issue. I suspect it's a lot different than the "news" we've been seeing about it in the US. If we are interested in the "truth", then it would be nice to see what iranians/iranian media and the media of nearby countries are saying. Rather than just a one sided pro-war "news".

But I suspect that neither cambridge nor the media they are protecting truly care about "news, disinformation, fake news, etc".

It's called propaganda. Go back 4 or 5 years ago. The NYTimes, Bloomberg, WSJ, etc all ran the same stories back then. The comments were the same. Usually some "expat" living there giving his "expert" propaganda or some "expat" talking about had he had to leave hong kong because it was so bad. Back then, there was a lot of "ghost cities" scare mongering. A lot less of it today. You notice the same patterns. The "britain tried to give democracy to hong kong" propaganda. The "people of hong kong" prefer britain propaganda. China is about to collapse.

Once the trade war nonsense ends, you'll see these stories and comments disappear. Just like all the "I hate facebook" stories and comments. Just like the "Russia controls everything in the US" stories and comments.

Until it's time for "We've always been at war with eurasia". If only these people cared about freedom here at home as much as they "care" about freedom in china. You'll notice that most of the people ( journalists and commenters ) crying about censorship, privacy, freedom etc in china are the same ones demanding more censorship, less privacy and less freedom here and on social media.

I didn't say HN was "all tech oriented". Please stop misquoting me. I said "There was a time when reddit, HN, digg, etc were all tech oriented. Meaning "HN was tech oriented", "reddit was tech oriented", "digg was tech oriented", etc.

I didn't say HN was all tech. My point was that HN was tech oriented like reddit, digg, etc.

I suggest you read 1984 critically instead of repeating the nonsense you were told.

Which "news organization" in 1984 was punished for reporting on topics that made the state look bad? Did you even read the book?

The point of 1984 was that even the opposition was controlled by the "state".

You can talk about Russia, China, North Korea and mindlessly participate in your 2 minute hate. But 1984 was not about Russia, China or North Korea. It was about 1940s Britain and the West.

And your comment didn't address what you quoted: "Who are the champions of censorship in the west? The news industry". Who were the champions of censorship in 1984? The Ministry of Truth.

Even if everything you wrote was true ( which it is not ), it didn't address what you quoted.

There was a time when reddit, HN, digg, etc were all tech oriented. The problem is that once a platform gets slightly popular, journalists, NGOs, PR, foreign actors, think tanks, etc sneak in and push their wares ( sometimes with the help of the forums themselves ). Slashdot might be worth a look but I gave up on them years ago.

The problem is that so much of "tech" forums, magazines, sites, etc are not run by "techies" but agenda driven media people masquerading as "techies". TheVerge, arstechnica, etc being prime examples.

My advice is to browse the "new" section of HN for the interesting tech/science/hack stuff. But unfortunately, most of the interesting stuff has no traffic or discussion. But maybe that's a good thing.

Newspapers aren't competing with google or facebook. No more than newspapers were competing against news stands. Newspapers are competing against each other and those that have the power to force google and facebook to give it preferential treatment will do well. Those without the power to strong-arm google and facebook will do poorly.

Newspapers biggest enemy are "authoritative sources" and the preferential treatment these "authoritative sources" get. Small and local newspapers are going to suffer as their top enemies ( NYTimes, WSJ, CNN, Foxnews, MSBNC, WashingtonPost, etc ) get the "authoritative source" special treatment on social media and the internet overall. This applies to other smaller outfits like huffpo, vice news, vox properties, etc. As they get squeezed more and more, they'll fold if they are independent or if they are owned by a larger parent companies, the parent company will either absorb them out of existence or slowly shut them down.

When the CEOs of Facebook, google, apple, etc all bend to pressure by "authoritative sources" and pledge to give them special treatment on their platforms, it spells doom for smaller competitors.

Look at how many nytimes articles we have here. As time goes on, it'll get worse and worse. The diversity of news, thought and speech online is slowly being destroyed by a handful of state backed news companies.

Apple, Google, Facebook, etc are each worth hundreds of billions of dollars. NYTimes is worth a fraction of that. Yet the nytimes is able to bully these massive tech companies. Strange huh?

How much would "special treatment" on facebook, google, apple, etc be worth? Tens of billions? Hundreds of billions?

Imagine you had a business and you could force google, apple, facebook, etc to show your product to customers first . How about you could get them to only show your product. How much would that privilege be worth?

WSJ didn't break the story. Other people broke the story. That story was "broken" on forums all over the internet. A WSJ journalist just collated the story and wrote a book about it. And keep in mind the WSJ journalist who broke the story refused to criticize the reporters from forbes, fortune, etc who created the theranos story. I'd have more respect for John Carreyrou if he had the professionalism and morals to go after obvious bad journalism. But he chose to stand by the journalism's equivalent of the "blue wall of silence".

Lets not forget that elizabeth holmes and the theranos nonsense was built up by journalists. Lets not forget that she was the media darling of an agenda driven "journalists" who wanted to push a narrative rather than search for the truth.

Crediting the WSJ or journalists for the theranos story is like crediting an arsonist firefighters for putting out the fire they themselves set.

Lest we forget.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/11620036/theranos-ceo-elizabe...

It wasn't a book about prophecy. It was a book on his present. He just set it in the future since he couldn't afford to tick off the censors in britain.

1984 was inspired by his work as a propagandist for the BBC Eastern Service during ww2. He based the "Ministry of Truth" on the BBC and the dreaded room 101 on a BBC conference room.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-...

Animal Farm is about the absurd and hypocritical political structure of the Soviet Union. 1984 has always been about Britain/West with a heavy focus on truth, propaganda and the news. But whether eastasia, eurasia or oceania, the ultimate message is that it's all one and the same and 1984 applies to all of them.

"In the end he succeeded in forcing her memory back until she did dimly recall that at one time Eastasia and not Eurasia had been the enemy. But the issue still struck her as unimportant. 'Who cares?' she said impatiently. 'It's always one bloody war after another, and one knows the news is all lies anyway.'"

                                                    - Orwell 1984

Sound familiar? What was true of orwell's 1940s britain or oceania seems true today.

Funnily enough, the BBC ( in the 1984 style ) "rehabilitated" orwell's legacy for their own purposes. Just like big brother "rehabilitated" winston in 1984.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41886208

In 1984, who are the champions of censorship? The ministry of truth. Who are the champions of censorship in the west? The news industry - one of the major supporters of censorship is oddly enough the new yorker. Who are the ones demanding that social media censor and who are the ones insisting certain words or topic shouldn't be discussed?

I didn't credit them with creating the world. I credited them with creating society, culture, etc. It isn't really a matter of debate. It's well understood the elites create societies and the institutions underlying them. The masses didn't create the US government or any of the systematically important institutions. A handful of elites did. This is pretty much true of every country/society on earth throughout history.

Feminism is a symptom rather than the cause. The cause is the commoditization of humans into productivity and consumption units in a post-industrial environment where the state and corporations dominate. Corporations want to extract every bit of production and consumption out of individuals. A woman taking time off for pregnancy or deciding to become a stay-at-home mom is a drain on corporate productivity. And every state has to some degree tried to diminish the role of parents and family in order to sap every ounce of allegiance from an individual to the state. In totalitarian states, the head of the state becomes the father of the people and the state becomes its family. It's easier to control and manipulate individuals with weak family ties. And it's easier for entities to inject themselves into a controlling family role with individuals with weak family ties. It's why pimps and madams target runaways and make themselves into paternal or maternal figures.

Society and culture doesn't grow organically. They are created and manufactured by the people with wealth and power. For the time being, those with wealth and power have decided that the breakdown of the family is in their interest. But it could shift quickly if the people in charge want it to. An extreme example is china where they encouraged women to have lots of children in order to strengthen their country. And not too long after that, they had a change of heart and encouraged the complete opposite - one child policy. Now it seems like they are backing off of it after a few decades of one child policy.

"All Companies Are in the Tech Business Now"

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-08/all-co...

"Every Company Is Now a Tech Company"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/every-company-is-now-a-tech-com...

It's amazing how the story changes just within a few months or years. Tech is the future of everything one day. The next, its glory days are behind it.

If I remember correctly, the runtime keeps size of the array in the header of the object along with sync block, etc. If you have VS, you can view the object in memory to see the sync block value, array size value, etc.

How could peak democracy be ww2? The only significant democracy in ww2 was the US. British Empire, Soviet Union, Germany, Japan, China, etc were not democracies.

There was the US and everyone else was a non-democratic empire or a colony of the empire.

Warren Buffet had an interesting take on "being rich". He defined it as being able to withstand economic, medical, etc catastrophe and still being able to maintain your standard of living and be able to rebuild your wealth in a reasonable amount of time. I think he set "rich" as having $25 million of liquid assets. He said have that amount of liquid assets will shelter you from a few medical or economic disasters and leave you enough to rebuild your wealth without affecting your standard of living.

If you had $3 million, a medical crisis or a business failure could wipe it all out and it would affect our standard of living and make it difficult to rebuild your wealth. $25 million cushions you against catastrophes. Of course he noted that it doesn't shield you from self-afflicted disasters like drug or gambling problems.