I have seen Latex + Beamer and Reveal-MD recommended by many here. Will check it out. Thanks!
141 karma · joined June 21, 2021
These videos will be part of the documentation for the software. Specifically for those who prefer watching videos over reading the documentation itself.
Either ways, will consider any suggestion you might have for an alternate way of communicating to customers.
Nick Sandmann begs to differ.
On a more serious note: Nope. I have had enough of left wing fake news about my Country and my experience says otherwise. I was center-left most of my life. Not anymore. This is now the majority sentiment in my Country.
The fact is that left wing bias exists in mainstream media outlets in most Democratic countries. Whether they are tied to reality is highly questionable. Yes they do get some of it right. But most of it horribly wrong. Left wing media today is beholden to the Establishment. There is no counter to the Establishment anymore.
1. Do you agree that it is true that the story of Hunter Biden was gagged by the Establishment and the details were not reported or were skewed to favor the Biden family in the leftist media? That the narrative was decidedly more in favor of the left?
2. Do you think it is fair that sources that consistently claimed the opposite (of Hunter Biden's laptop story being authentic) should be deprecated by a resource (Wikipedia in this instance) that espouses factual content (New York Post in this instance)?
3. Do you think it is fair that Fauci, who flip-flopped multiple times on mask mandate (funny how you moved away from mask mandate to vaccination as you know you will be on a slippery slope if you go that route) was still considered an authority on the pandemic by the Left wing Establishment to such an extent that they kept defending him and keep defending him to this date?
4. Do you think it is fair that the "Gain of function" research, the Wuhan lab leak theory and Dr Fauci's involvement with the Wuhan Institute of Virology was suppressed by the media and left wing establishment? Anything that tried to counter the mainstream theory on origins of the virus were shut down or blocked? That the theory on origins of the virus being from natural causes (that it jumped from bats to humans through another animal with no proof whatsoever) was peddled and enquires on the lab leak theory were shut down or blocked, giving enough time for the perps to clear up any evidence that might link back to them?
I have plenty more that go into realm of internal US politics and issues. Like why did CNN, NBC and Washington Post settle lawsuits with Nick Sandmann? If they are epitome of Truthfulness they should have fought the defamation case to the bitter end rather than settle for an undisclosed sum of money. If I am speaking the Truth I wouldn't back down.
> Can you think of a similar non-factual conspiracy that has infected substantial numbers of left wing sources?
Yes. Blind belief in whatever mainstream media spouts. Maybe you should start to wonder if conspiracy theorists have already gone mainstream and those who are now labelled conspiracy theorists are ones who are asking genuine questions and seeking answers that none in the Establishment have a straight answer for.
If I have to go by what mainstream Western media says about my country, it would be that my country majorly lives in slums, is extremely poor and has money to waste on Space and Technology but isn't using that money to feed the poor. This is how mainstream Western media denigrates my country repeatedly. I have seen enough fake news peddled against my country by Western media outlets to even consider them reliable anymore.
This is not just his claims. This is pretty self-evident to those who are on the other side of the political spectrum which admittedly most IT/software crowd are not.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/
"A 2018 study by Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu compared levels of political bias in Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica by quantifying each encyclopaedia’s respective usage of phrases favoured by Democratic or Republican members of US congress. Their study found that Wikipedia articles are more politically biased than those in Encyclopaedia Britannica, as well as being slanted towards Democratic (as opposed to Republican) points of view. The study also found that the amount of bias in Wikipedia articles tended to decrease the greater the number of people who had edited them. The reason for this trend was explained in an earlier study by the same authors: “Benefitting from the efforts of many contributors, an article is also more likely to present controversial content in an unbiased way: thus diversity may help reduce content bias.”"
"Wikipedia’s list of deprecated sources currently contains 16 right-leaning sources: Breitbart, the Daily Caller, the Daily Mail, the Daily Star, the Epoch Times, FrontPage Magazine, the Gateway Pundit, Infowars, LifeSiteNews, News of the World, One America News Network, the Sun, Taki’s Magazine, VDare, WorldNetDaily, and Zero Hedge – and just one left-leaning source, Occupy Democrats. Other politically biased sources have also been deprecated, but it is harder to position them on the left-right political axis, such as media companies controlled by the Russian or Chinese government. The deprecated right-leaning sources include both those that advance far-right conspiracy theories (Infowars and WorldNetDaily) and those that advance ordinary conservatism (the Daily Mail and the Sun), as well as many shades of grey between those two extremes. It could be argued that even the non-extreme sources that have been deprecated are not of a particularly high quality, so the prohibition against citing them is not a problem per se, but a similar standard has not been applied to lower quality, left-leaning sources such as CounterPunch, AlterNet, and the Daily Kos.
According to Ad Fontes Media‘s widely-used media bias chart (which is commonly cited in discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard), CounterPunch, AlterNet, and the Daily Kos are all less reliable than the Daily Mail. This is significant because the Daily Mail, a deprecated right-leaning source, is often used as a benchmark for judging whether other right-leaning sources should be deprecated. All three of these left-wing sources are widely used at Wikipedia. An external links search shows around 2,580 Wikipedia pages linking to CounterPunch, around 2,400 linking to the Daily Kos, and around 1,640 linking to AlterNet. (These search results include both articles and talk pages, because Wikipedia’s software does not have a way to confine an external links search to just articles.)
A proposal to deprecate AlterNet was made in April 2019, but the proposal received very little support. One user argued that AlterNet should be deprecated due to the site’s distribution of false medical information—that anthrax can be treated using homeopathy, for instance—meant that following its instructions can cause bodily harm. On the other hand, one of the users opposed to deprecation argued that AlterNet is “valuable for providing progressive viewpoints and reporting or interviews of progressive organizations.” The majority of the Wikipedia articles citing AlterNet are not medical articles, but in light of Wikipedia’s status as the most widely used source of medical information for doctors and patients, allowing citations to AlterNet poses a risk that does not exist for most of the deprecated right-leaning tabloid newspapers and political websites."
So basically you will eventually get a heavily left-wing biased moderation[1].
No thank you!
[1]: https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/internet/wikipedia...
Data for this? Rather people love to consume videos. Instagram, Tiktok, Twitch come to mind immediately. Not just Youtube.
For multi-file find/replace you should check out far.vim: https://github.com/brooth/far.vim
> LunarVim is a great project worth checking out. i'm using it now and recommend it
Haven't tried LunarVim but AstroNvim is great too.
I envy those who claim to do no mistakes at all.
Section 230, in brief, only provides immunity for social media providers from being responsible for the content that is posted by users on their platform. It has nothing to do with internal company policies. Rather, Section 230 actually enables internet companies to moderate content through the Good Samaritan protection.
So, it is actually worse that Twitter was moderating content in majority countries (except USA) where Section 230 wasn't even recognized. Revealing what exactly happened behind the scenes would not be a sufficient reason for litigation.
When Twitter was pulled up in India for its opaque moderation policies, it tried to quote American laws for its defense. In fact, when Jan 6th happened in USA, Twitter was quick to ban accounts of those who took part in the protests. 70,000 accounts were purged from Twitter. However, Twitter refused to ban accounts of those Khalistani terrorists who vandalized the Red Fort on Jan 26th in India and only partially complied with Government of India's orders. This double standard was visible to majority of Indians. So it is not like Twitter actually follows the laws set by the Country it is operating in either. There are multiple instances where Twitter has refused to follow directions by Government of India or by the Courts in India. You can read more about it here: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/have-to-follow-ind...
So yes, moderation policies cannot be opaque. It has to be transparent. The reason for transparency is so that we know exactly why and for what reason was an account banned/shadow banned. If the Government of India sends a legal request for take down of accounts, it has to be complied with. Twitter cannot decide to invoke US laws in India.
Also, read this to understand more about this issue: https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/10/twitter-now-in-compliance-...
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But it doesn't turn away from the fact that the story was suppressed. Real or not.
> This was similar to the non-story of Hillary Clinton’s email server, Russian-hacked DNC emails, etc. of 2016 which turned out to be completely anodyne and routine
At least it got proper coverage. There was no suppression of either the email gate or the Russia gate. Whether it was fake, true, hoax doesn't matter. It got the coverage it was due.
> were rightly skeptical of a tabloid fluff story with no details, corroboration, or expert analysis about a mysterious harddrive
Joe Biden said it was based on a "bunch of garbage". That it was "Russian disinformation". All news media outlets, including Washington Post, carried that forward in all their news headlines and editorial posts (except right wing news media outlets of course). What were the details, corroboration or expert analysis that they went through before labelling the Laptop as "Russian disinformation"?
> Their skepticism turned out to be well founded
I missed the part of their skepticism where they called it "Russian disinformation" and it turned out to be true. Can you highlight to me where it was proved that the Laptop was part of a smear campaign against Joe Biden initiated through "Russian disinformation"?
What Washington Post has finally done is admitted that the Laptop and its contents are real. Now when it comes to the meat of the matter, the actual contents of the Laptop, it hasn't gone through sufficient scrutiny yet. It also hasn't taken into account the whistleblower's account of what dealings the Biden family had with the Chinese and Ukrainians. On who the "Big Guy" was who received the payments; which is mentioned in a March 2017 email conversation between James Gilliar (Hunter's associate) and a Chinese energy firm where he says: "10 held by H for the big guy?". Who is the "Big Guy" here? Who is "H" here? I am assuming H is Hunter and "Big Guy" is Joe Biden. It is still an assumption and can only be proved in some Court of law in USA. But if you aren't even going to give this evidence a chance to see the light of the day you'll never be able to get to the bottom of the Truth.
Now I am not saying any of it is 100% true as it is still under scrutiny by a Grand Jury (though a lot of it is coming out to be true now). I am just saying that the media actively suppressed this information from the general public out of "fears" of it being "Russian disinformation" which still hasn't been proved. Or maybe, just maybe, they did not want their favorite candidate to lose.
Of course this is evident too. And let me quote directly from an Opposition leader in India (whose party/ideology I completely oppose):
"“I have been reliably, albeit discreetly, informed by people at Twitter India that they are under immense pressure by the government to silence my voice. My account was even blocked for a few days for no legitimate reason,” Gandhi said in his letter."
"“For example, in May 2021, my account gained roughly 640,000 new followers. This had been the case for several years until July 2021. Then something strange happened. Since August 2021, the average number of my new monthly Twitter followers has fallen to nearly zero,” he claimed."
Article in question: https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/in-focus/story/rahul-gan...
Now just because I am opposed to his ideology (which is Left-Centrist) doesn't mean I want him banned/shadow-banned from the platform. He has every right to continue to voice his opinions. Now he claims that it was the Government (whose ideology I support) which supposedly interfered and pressurized Twitter to manipulate follower count. I would like transparency on this if my Government, which I support, did indeed do that. Or did Twitter itself decide to shadow ban his account. Or was Twitter doing it legitimately because he had a lot of bots following him and when they banned those bots his follower count decreased. Either ways, I want the facts in the open.
As far as shadow banning content goes. It happens on a fairly regular basis. Open any Tweet that has quite a few comments right now and scroll to the end. You typically have a "Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content". Take this tweet as an example: https://twitter.com/Bob_Mayo/status/1518679097672617990
When you click more replies it shows "Show additional replies". Clicking on it is an innocuous tweet with laughing emoji. But the tweet above it isn't put behind a collapsible card. How many would click on the "Show" button and read those replies that are hidden by default? This is throttling reach a.k.a shadow banning. It is not like there is some abusive word being used in the tweet. It is just laughing emojis.
How? What specifically opens them up to litigation? It is a private company. It can do anything it wants as long as it is within the bounds of law. They have every right to ban anyone. Even on flimsy grounds. The idea here is to expose all the moral wrongs and bring it to the fore. Not that they are legally in the wrong (most cases they aren't). An audit is a good place to start.
Maybe to you. You are entitled to your opinion. I won't censor you for having a contrary opinion.
> owed a fair ranking
Well we are getting it whether you like it or not.
> because no singular definition of fair
Of course there is. If New York Post's tweet about Hunter Biden's story gets blocked, I would like to see Taylor Lorenz's story about LibsofTikTok get blocked in a "fair" system. Since both are doxxing after all.
Excellent. So when is Twitter going to ban Taylor Lorenz for doxxing an anonymous Twitter user LibsofTikTok? This is her tweet right here: https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1516399663305297920
It has been up since April 19th, 2022. Twitter immediately blocked New York Post's tweet.
I wonder why the algorithm is so slow when it comes to Taylor Lorenz? Maybe we'll find out when the code is open sourced. Then we can all legitimately blame "the algorithm" for causing all this divide between the left and right wing in a neutral, faultless, perfect digital town square called Twitter.
Even the laptop has been proven to belong to him.
The onus is on you to prove it isn't Hunters laptop.
Please stop living in this bubble. There have been plenty of reports of Twitter shadow banning speech it doesn't like. It has even suspended accounts multiple times only to reinstate them by saying it was an "algorithm error" or it being "wrongly flagged". In India we regularly see Twitter suspending accounts that have not violated any Indian law.
All because it doesn't align with the left-leaning ideology of Twitter. Even trends are boosted to favor left-leaning news portals over right-leaning news portals (which is visible in the trends section).
An example: https://www.freepressjournal.in/viral/bringbacktrueindology-...
^ This account specifically was suspended a total of 3 times. Ultimately the anonymous account owner decided to come out in the open and open a Twitter account in his real name. He got banned again very recently. In all those instances, there was not even one tweet of his that "crossed the line" when it came to anything illegal. Be it speech, instigation of violence or even a curse word. Nothing at all. The suspension was purely ideological.
Now if you truly want to address this concern of the people, the question obviously would be if it was the algorithm that blocked the article or was it "a guy in a room"? I don't see what is the difficulty in admitting that it was "a guy in a room" because our values/ideology does not align with ideology of New York Post.
When you start to say that it was the algorithm that did it, and that there was zero human interference, without any proof to back up those assertions, then it is much the same as saying that it was a "popup" that triggered when one is caught watching porn. "I did not do it, it was the machine."
Then it becomes even more important to open source the algorithm so everyone can see what is happening internally. It at least puts some doubts to rest. It is better than saying "believe me it was the algorithm not me".
I like the Oppenheimer quote [1].