get_off_my_lawn

I don't think a connection is implied. The previous poster is simply expressing his approval of Germany's decision in this particular case, as opposed to their recent attitude and legislation in free speech matters, which it seems he is not a fan of.

Aside from all the Times flavours, The Observer and "i" are both left leaning papers that are missing.

Although there are overall probably more left wing than right wing papers among the small ones (like the Daily/Morning Star, as you mentioned), there do seem to be more conservatives newspapers among the big names.

That comes as a bit of a surprise to me, given the situation is the opposite when it comes to non-print media. I struggle to think of a news channel which is obviously conservative. I definitely wouldn't call BBC that, and others like Channel 4 are as openly left-wing.

As someone who predominantly follows television and online news, I haven't personally noticed any conservative bias in the available options, and even a slight under-representation if anything.

I don't think you can take away any useful information from this "study". A single glance at the sources is enough to tell you that the author selected a sample that would guarantee them the conclusion they wanted.

All the newspapers in the screenshot are notoriously right wing, as is every other paper that gets mentioned, apart from the Guardian. I guess that one was included to make the biased sample seem less obvious, and since they happen to be quite neutral on Corbyn, so they don't offset the stats too much.

This study is the equivalent of only looking at "Fox News" and other similar news broadcasts, and drawing the conclusion that American media as a whole is very conservative and supportive of Trump.

Fair enough, let's assume that in the previous analogy I am actually the parent footing the hospital bill. If I know for certain that you are going to recover, and I can afford it, but decide to let you die anyway, is that really significantly better?

However, I do acknowledge that there are exceptional circumstances, such as the birth posing a health risk to the mother, both mother and child being likely to die if delivery is attempted, etc. That would be the case of "not being able to afford it" in my analogy, or the significant personal risk you mention (at least I assume that's what you mean, as normal pregnancy is nowhere near a significant risk, with the current maternal death rate being 1 in 10,000). In those cases, I'd be willing to agree with you.

Isn't it, though?

By that same logic, I can walk into a hospital, go to someone on life support who can't currently "survive on their own", and unplug their systems, thus "withdrawing the support they require to live". If they die, is it really any different from killing them any other way?

To make the analogy even more accurate, let's say you are in a coma and will come out of it in 9 months. You can't survive without support now, but we know for a fact that you will come out of the coma after the 9 months have passed and will then be able to do so. Is it fine for me to shut down your life support half way through?

> Many technical founders consider a non-technical founder as somehow “less important” that the tech, but it’s definitely is the opposite. All the great tech in the world doesn’t mean jack if you can’t sell it.

And all the marketing skills in the world don't mean jack if you have nothing to sell.

A technical founder who can create a product and market it with average efficiency can still be successful, unlike a non-technical sales guru with no product.

So I'd say the technical person is till the more important one.

P.S We're also ignoring the fact that many technical founders are also great at marketing themselves. Unlike a non-technical one, who isn't technical by definition.