MartinCron

And I just want to get my hands on a new graphics card so I can, you know, play video games.

Claims like "transform your business" or "best pizza in town" are generally considered non-specific puffery and aren't subject to fraud or false advertising enforcements.

Something like "perform n lab tests with a single drop of blood" is a very specific claim.

My wife and I collect cookbooks and cocktail recipe books. There are a handful of writers who have a compelling voice where I read more than just the ingredient list and instructions.

But for some random blog that I find while googling? Never.

A big part of the best wire cutter reviews are the “why you should trust me” introduction. Some of their reviewers really know their stuff, others obviously less so. You can calibrate your expectations accordingly.

Cooks Illustrated is the name of the magazine, and I recommend it to anyone who ever spends time in a kitchen.

Some of the purchases I have made with their guidance have been (trivially) life-changing.

Don’t let the gatekeepers get you down. Enjoy your ebike.

I honestly did not expect that either. It was a throwaway line about contrarianism.

I distinctly remember my childhood when someone once told me that the U.S. civil war was “not about slavery” and how damn good it felt to think that everybody else had it wrong and that I was so smart for my contrarian views.

It does feel good to be an elitist contrarian, but being reality-based is better.

Once my preferred political team is doing things like violently storming the US Capitol, I'll be happy for them to get this treatment.

You do understand the difference between opinion journalism and news reporting?

So your smoking gun is... an opinion piece from 2015 where the host didn’t contradict or challenge the opinions of the guests? I’ve heard lots and lots of unchallenged opinions from guests on NPR, many of them from conservative perspectives. It is not always possible (or even desirable) to be a real-time fact checker in a daily interview show.

So again, an example of bias in actual news reporting?

I didn’t downvote, but I am wondering if this happened. A quick search of NPR transcripts makes me think the last time the mismatch hypothesis was discussed on All Things Considered was in 2012 and it was actually taken seriously (it was the focus of the piece). Perhaps you are thinking of a different public radio show, and inadvertently proving my point that people are unable to differentiate NPR news with other stuff they hear on the radio.

A lot of people conflate "NPR" with "public radio" in general. So your local public radio station may air some things that are "clearly aligned with the Democrats" but as an actual news organization, NPR News is as good as any out there. They take fact checking seriously, they issue corrections when they get things wrong. They take time to put things into historical context and they don't bend over backwards to give "both sides" to debates that clearly don't have two reasonable sides.

If it's so clear, find me a single example of NPR news being aligned with the Democrats in a way that is divergent from objective reality.

Imagine for a moment that you agreed, as a matter of objective reality, the conservative media did stoke baseless election-fraud claims and that those claims motivated D.C. rioters. Would that headline still seem outside the bounds of centrist, fact-based reporting?

Sometimes there is not a clear both sides.

So what is your alternative? Do we need to bend over backwards to appease the guys in “six million wasn’t enough” shirts? How much political legitimacy should we give to people who are all-in on ridiculous conspiracy theories? How much attention to Holocaust deniers deserve? Do flat-earthers deserve equal time in geography class?

Regardless of how well the Capitol is guarded, inciting violence is still a crime.

If I orchestrate a criminal conspiracy to rob Fort Knox, it is still a criminal conspiracy when it eventually fails.

You have the notion of “protected class” backwards. Everyone in this country has the right to equal protection under the law, but private companies are allowed to discriminate except in cases of protected class.

AWS can say “we don’t want Parler as a customer” but they cannot say “we don’t serve black people on our platform” as race is a protected class while being Parler is not.

Unless you're WAY outside the political mainstream, you aren't pigeonholed into platforms like this. And if you are that far outside the political mainstream, holding thoughts and beliefs like "six million wasn't enough" then how much sympathy am I supposed to have?

Parler chose to use AWS for their hosting. When you build your company on someone else's platform, you're explicitly giving them that market power.

Of course, I was responding to the sentiment of "You can't discuss conservative views on (platform x)!" which is generally untrue.

If you're within the mainstream of political debate, you have no problem existing on mainstream social networks.

You can't really "mute" a murderous mob that shows up at the capitol. This isn't about seeing stuff you don't like, this is about a platform being used to directly incite political violence.

I don't really care to try to "solve the problem" that white supremacists have.

Communicating with the community like this is exactly what a developer advocate should be doing.

The right term for that would be MockBook.

“Sprints” are, pretty much by definition, a non-sustainable pace.

If I had a time machine, I would send this comment back to myself a few years ago. Would have saved me a lot of pain from “winging it”.

Thanks for sharing

There is a beautiful irony of an anonymous account complaining about ad-hominem arguments.

Thanks so much for sharing.

...in the TV adaptation anyway, it is one of the best bits of dark humor.