hrxn

So, in effect, large, publicly traded corporations would then own the land, as you describe it? You think that's a good idea?

Well, what can you expect from The Economist? It's the age of fake news, after all, right?

Do you think someone went there and bothered to actually check how things really are at that place? Way too expensive, fake news is just cheaper :)

Well, transmitting all this energy is not that trivial, that's the point..

"Both sides" is just a shorthand expression for principles otherwise better understandable as "due process", but this is hard to summarize in just some words or a couple sentences.

It basically means there are two sides (at least) to everything, that can't just be disregarded. Exceptions prove the rule, of course.

On another point, Hotelling's law is a really poor example when it comes to debates or questions of politics, in my opinion.

Yes, Hamburg as well, but I think Cologne definitely had the bigger impact :)

Not a specific one, I meant more generally. My point is that length alone isn't a reliable indicator for (journalistic) quality.

It is, to some extend. Long articles, with obvious effort for research etc., are more likely to be better than short pieces that for the most part are just commentary, on average at least.

But this is not a causational relationship. I've read long essays where you could easily tell the tremendous amount of work put into them, but then I did some research on my own and found out that the premisses are extremely dubious. And so the whole thing just collapses..

> [..] There’s a big difference between watching a half hour of CNN’s refugee crisis coverage (not that they cover it anymore) versus spending that time reading a 5,000-word article on the same topic.

In my opinion, in some cases like this, the lengthy thousands word articles are often much worse.

But.. but what happened to "refugees welcome"?

Both sides is not a marketing trick. And comparing this with weather forecasts is a false equivalence.

All news is fake news, we get it..

Can't wait to see Forbes ending up in Facebook's new fake news filter...

Why does it have to have to do anything with it?

Because it's not a typical contribution to a discussion, it's just a very simple truth..

Discussions? With the Twitter character limit? You can't be serious..

The sooner Twitter dies the better...

Great metaphor for Twitter, actually. Nice.

Yes, as the trade surplus so aptly shows. Oh, wait..

So, just like everyone else, basically...

This article's premise hinges too much on the feasibility that 'good' and 'bad' can be defined objectively. Not good.