Fewer Than 1000 Brits Googled “What Is the EU?” After Referendum | Hacker News Reader

Fewer Than 1000 Brits Googled “What Is the EU?” After Referendum

steve-patterson.com

112 pointsnzp28 comments

The cracks continue to show in the media blitz, which is actually a media meltdown reflecting the meltdown of the elites, against Brexit. First, the petition for a second referendum was revealed to be a fraud. Now, the story that Brits somehow didn't know the implications of Brexit and, worse, somehow didn't even know what the EU was, is revealed to be greatly exaggerated.

The author put it very well:

>I’ve never seen such snobbery in my life. The post-Brexit condescension has been nauseating.

The media has been successful in creating a lot of confusion around exactly who is fighting against who and for what.

"...the propaganda is already in high gear with David Cameron setting the tone by emphasizing how happy the vote has surely made Putin and ISIS..." from http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/06/24/paul-craig-ro...

I'll say this first: I personally think the referendum was a terrible idea. Economically, I disagree with the result. This notion of "prosperity in 10 years" with "a bit of a recession in the short/medium term" burns the working class the most. It's not fair on workers at all to throw the dice like this.

Nevertheless, it is absurd to predict the collapse of the UK because the pound tanked. Most people pressing for a Brexit probably expected that, and many may profit from it. Similarly, the turbulence so far is a non-event compared to the banking crisis.

I would feel better about Brexit if it had a plan behind it. Equally, if Scotland would be extended an invitation to vote for its independence and then EU membership. Of course, this (apparent) lack of planning is not the fault of the electorate.

I think the big issue now is indeed the response from an elite which has had its pretty face scratched. All that these desperate articles on Brexit loopholes reveal is that, since people who profit from speculating are thinking about such loopholes, you can bet that the likes of Boris Johnson (or any Conservative for that matter), who will prefer or profit from preserving the status quo, are thinking about the same things.

About how they can reimagine or circumvent the idea that the majority voted for. About how a Brexit can be converted into a downgrade from EU to EEA membership, or how the Brexit might be indefinitely postponed. It might make economic sense, but there will be a lot of perplexed people out there watching "BoJo" become a hero who handled a difficult situation by failing both sides of the Brexit debate in equal measure.

Of course the kind of thing Farage has in mind is absurd, of course, but a Brexit doesn't have to be a tragedy. People just have to realise that for a profitable solution, the EU must be identified as a competitor as well as a friend.

Personally, I think Cameron and Johnson planned the whole thing from the start. Boris acting as a Trojan horse for Cameron/the remain campaign. He was never a Eurosceptic, until suddenly after the Leave campaign started gaining momentum.

I have no proof, just a whisper. Observations of the both of them, and Angela Merkel's sudden "patience is a virtue" approach after a phone call from Cameron over the weekend followed by a cocky return to parliament by the incumbent prime minister.

And no, it's not wishful thinking. I don't enjoy recessions more than the next person, but the recession is not guaranteed no matter how many times the banks warn against it. I am not concerned by nations or identities. I believe in realpolitik and economic strength. If Brexit turns profitable, it will have been worth it. I'm just speculating for the sake of speculating.

> they can reimagine or circumvent the idea that the majority voted for. About how a Brexit can be converted into a downgrade from EU to EEA membership

The ballot paper said "leave the EU". What that looks like is apparently negotiable and dependant on political realities, since no one actually knows what people intended when they voted leave.

Is it just me, or have the mainstream media lowered their journalistic standards to compete with sensationalist blogs (e.g., HuffPo, BuzzFeed, etc)? This sort of thing seems to be happening with increasing frequency, even at NYTimes and friends.

> Is it just me, or have the mainstream media lowered their journalistic standards to compete with sensationalist blogs

Sensationalist blogs got a bit ahead, on the same trajectory, of where mainstream media was already heading, and that gap has significantly closed, yes.

Being a Brit who believes I know more about the EU than the median Briton does, but less about it than Wikipedia does, why should I be ashamed to google "What is the EU?"

Yeah, the way many media outlets grasped at any available pro-remain narratives after the results was quite funny.

Kind of the same thing was happening to news about Trump - first it was "The polls can be wrong", than "He may have won Iowa, but he will have a hard time continuing", then "Still could be a contested convention", and now it's "Delegates are dumping Trump". It's like they are trying to change reality just by pretending it's different. Sadly, it is not, and I think we would be well served by facing that head-on.

Cruz won Iowa, not Trump

I knew I should've fact-checked that, but I hope my point is clear anyway.

I find it it funny that people think that someone who doesn't know what the EU is will vote to leave it anyway. And then somehow remember the letters E and U long enough to google the grammatically correct phrase "What is the EU?". With correct title and punctuation too.

Of course, such people are always on the other team, never on one's own. Something that even Google probably doesn't know.

For reference, here's the discussion of the Washington Post article the author refers to, which hit 411 points on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11970344

Also, a related article from yesterday:

"Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11987414

Google Trends related tweet that some sensationalist news linked to:

- https://twitter.com/GoogleTrends/status/746303118820937728?l...

fuckin scroll-assisted JS ...

Does the article bother you?

Why do people do this? Does it look better on systems that don't have smooth scrolling or something?

my only guess is the dev // designer have this notion it "feels" better. although it may look smoother, you've got to make sure your users are more comfortable with how they feel using your site vs. them viewing your site

I think if you're using a traditional clicky mousewheel it might be less awful.

Not at all. I'm used to my "awful" clicky scroll. I know subconciously that a scroll click is equal to a certain distance down the page.

When I then scroll 3 clicks and I've almost cleared the entire page because of smooth scrolling, that's no fun.

I'd much much rather janky jerky scrolling consistently across all sites than the odd one or two smooth scrollers

Don't even get me started on smooth scrolling when it comes to using a bit of a dated computer. Scroll... wait for the js to catch up and the page actually scrolls.

Edit: may have misinterpreted where the awful was directed. I deal with a lot of Mac users. Apologies if I did misread it, leaving comment intact for posterity

Glad to see someone else who hates smoothscroll. I absolutely despise smooth scroll - especially since it is a browser option FFS. If I wanted it, I'd enable the option. I don't want it - which is why I disabled the option.

As a developer, a sincere "Fuck you" to every developer who adds this to their sites. I shouldn't need to add this to my 3rd party filters:

    !Disable Smoothscroll 
    */smoothscroll.js

ps: I find the above rule blocks maybe 80% of all smoothscrolling on websites, thankfully.

Unfortunately not this site as it uses a Jquery plugin called niceScroll() which is anything but...Running this in the console will remove it.

     jQuery('html').getNiceScroll().remove()

I have to agree. The scrolling on that page was implemented very poorly.

At least it's not the Medium banner that slides down over top of whatever you were trying to read when you scroll. I've never seen such a bad UI idea spread so quickly.

You can remove it by running this in the console:

    jQuery('html').getNiceScroll().remove()

Fewer, not less.

Comparatively speaking, 999 is less than 1000. They might have constructed it that way. One doesn't say 7 is fewer than 9.

You removed the discrete units from the text ("Brits") and then made a point that holds true only when discussing comparisons that do not have discrete units.

7 is less than 9. But 7 Brits are fewer than 9 Brits.

True. It depends if the emphasis is on the mathematical number or not..

A number less than one thousand represents the number of Brits who queried...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less

"descriptive grammarians (who describe language as actually used) point out that this rule does not correctly describe the most common usage of today or the past and in fact arose as an incorrect generalization of a personal preference expressed by a grammarian in 1770."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com