jsl1212

Regarding a source's credibility and ignoring it outright are two different things entirely. I was just agreeing with Crichton that publications need to be held to a consistent standard across all areas of coverage.

That's an interesting quote from Crichton. I think the safest assessment of any given publication is to regard its credibility as only being as good as its worst story. Like Crichton said, should we really take CNN seriously in any subjects if they're saying space turned Scott Kelly into a mutant?

Try adding a few dashes of cocktail bitters to your club soda. It's very refreshing and also good for an upset stomach.

What version of iOS are you running? I have an iPhone 6 which I absolutely loved until I made the mistake of upgrading to iOS11 recently.

I have an iPhone 6 and iOS11 has been nothing but a nightmare since I upgraded. The built in apps (alarm, messages etc.) are rife with bugs and take at least double the amount of time to do the things they used to do with no trouble at all.

Yep. I run latest Ubuntu on my Surface Pro 4 and it's great. The touchscreen doesn't work, although there are plenty of custom kernels out there that would fix that.

It's their institutional lack of "old-school editorial rigour" that got them into this mess. The article gives no indication of what they have done or will do to prevent such poor reporting going forward. In the six months it took them to publish this they could have taken some steps to ensure their team has the resources it needs to better report on these areas in the future. Unfortunately, I think this op ed is too little too late for the Guardian as far as their credibility is concerned.