chiefofgxbxl

  Location: United States (New York State)
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: No
  Technologies: JavaScript, React, Vue, Node.js, Python, PostgreSQL, Nuxt, GCP, Docker, CI/CD, web extensions, spaCy
  Résumé/CV: https://greglang.me/resume/
  Email: langgb@clarksonalumni.com

Full-stack software engineer with about 10 years of professional experience. My career started out in Dept. of Defense contracting work, focusing on Python and Node applications for data processing and visualization, and natural language processing. I then transitioned into a NYC-based startup on a small engineering team of five building a sales consulting platform, where I contributed on all aspects of the application (frontend, backend, database, GCP/deployment, CI/CD, security, Sentry, SAML/SSO, onboarding, emails, Salesforce integration, and more).

I've also built side projects, including: Vision Zero Reporting (https://visionzeroreporting.com) which earned 3rd place on Show HN and served as a panelist at the Vision Zero Cities conference; and Trash Panda (https://trashpandaextension.com/), a browser extension that removes social metrics from the web, including like counts, number of subscribers, views, followers, etc.

  Location: United States (New York State, EST timezone)
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: No
  Technologies: JavaScript, React, Vue, Node.js, Python, PostgreSQL, Nuxt, GCP, Docker, CI/CD, web extensions, spaCy
  Résumé/CV: https://greglang.me/resume/
  Email: langgb@clarksonalumni.com

Available immediately for full-time, part-time, or contract work!

Full-stack software engineer with ~10 years of professional experience. My career started out in Dept. of Defense contracting work, focusing on Python and Node applications for data processing, visualization, and natural language processing. I then transitioned into a NYC-based startup on a small engineering team of five building a sales consulting platform, where I contributed on all aspects of the application (React frontend, Python/sqlalchemy backend, SQL database, GCP/deployment, CI/CD, security, Sentry, SAML/SSO, onboarding, emails, Salesforce integration, and more).

I've also built side projects, including: Vision Zero Reporting (https://visionzeroreporting.com) which earned 3rd place on Show HN and served as a panelist at the Vision Zero Cities conference; and Trash Panda (https://trashpandaextension.com/), a browser extension that removes social metrics from the web, including like counts, number of subscribers, views, followers, etc.

  Location: United States (New York State)
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: No
  Technologies: JavaScript, React, Vue, Node.js, Python, PostgreSQL, Nuxt, GCP, Docker, CI/CD, web extensions, spaCy
  Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L1kJZ3wP9RezhQvVhgEXTm6JXj9hmgG3/view?usp=sharing
  Email: langgb@clarksonalumni.com

Full-stack software engineer with about 8 years of professional experience. My career started out in Dept. of Defense contracting work, focusing on Python and Node applications for data processing and visualization. I then transitioned into a NYC-based startup on a small engineering team of five building a sales consulting platform, where I contributed on all aspects of the application (frontend, backend, database, GCP/deployment, CI/CD, security, Sentry, SAML/SSO, onboarding, emails, Salesforce integration, and more).

I've also built side projects, including: Vision Zero Reporting (https://visionzeroreporting.com) which earned 3rd place on Show HN and served as a panelist at the Vision Zero Cities conference; and Trash Panda (https://trashpandaextension.com/), a browser extension that removes social metrics from the web, including like counts, number of subscribers, views, followers, etc.

  Location: United States (New York State)
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: No
  Technologies: JavaScript, React, Vue, Node.js, Python, PostgreSQL, Nuxt, GCP, Docker, CI/CD, web extensions, spaCy
  Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L1kJZ3wP9RezhQvVhgEXTm6JXj9hmgG3/view?usp=sharing
  Email: langgb@clarksonalumni.com

Full-stack software engineer with about 8 years of professional experience. My career started out in Dept. of Defense contracting work, focusing on Python and Node applications for data processing and visualization. I then transitioned into a NYC-based startup on a small engineering team of five building a sales consulting platform, where I contributed on all aspects of the application (frontend, backend, database, GCP/deployment, CI/CD, security, Sentry, SAML/SSO, onboarding, emails, Salesforce integration, and more).

I've also built side projects, including: Vision Zero Reporting (https://visionzeroreporting.com) which earned 3rd place on Show HN and served as a panelist at the Vision Zero Cities conference; and Trash Panda (https://trashpandaextension.com/), a browser extension that removes social metrics from the web, including like counts, number of subscribers, views, followers, etc.

I'm building a freemium browser extension (https://trashpandaextension.com/) that primarily removes "social metrics" (number of likes, subscribers, views, friends, etc. you see on websites) and sales tactics (20 people have this in their shopping cart, limited time offer, -78% sale!, etc.).

It's also a hodge-podge of other annoying things I want removed on the web, like when articles have pull quotes that repeat what they just wrote one paragraph ago, or when sites block the ability to paste passwords.

The extension is available for Firefox and Chrome/Vivaldi, but it has a lot more development to get it where I want it.

Would appreciate any feedback and tips on both the extension itself as well as advice on monetization.

https://trashpandaextension.com/

They don't think they can handle more work with fewer workers. It's just a profit squeeze, and someone else pays the price.

> renters get the same one vote per person as everybody else

It's not just directly voting for a city councilor, planning board member, etc. that counts. Showing up to public meetings to show support or disagreement with something can do much to pressure those elected officials. But renters are going to have a much more difficult time showing solidarity for pro-development action, not only because of the difference in socioeconomic status (e.g. living paycheck to paycheck vs. a homeowner who has a stable, white-collar job).

1. Homeowners can shoot down a proposed development by demonstrating a strong response against threats on just their street or block. As long as homeowners defend their turf locally, and it can be counted on them to do so across town, they win. Renters, on the other hand, have an asymmetrically difficult battle: pro-development individuals need to show up to all the proposed-development meetings, not just one for a particular street or block, if they want to expand housing.

2. Homeowners are probably much more strongly driven to show up because the focus is on what they lose. Character of neighborhood, traffic, safety, noise, etc. and the threat against the status quo seems more likely to trigger that visceral defense mechanism. Renters probably focus on what they gain: affordable housing, access to new communities, etc. My intuition is that the perception of losing something is a greater call to action than the possibility of gaining something.

3. Homeowners are well-defined and known individuals. They already exist, and their turf is already developed. Renters, on the other hand, are an abstract group of people who may or may not even move in, should something be built. I currently rent an apartment - but will I show up to a neighboring town's planning board meeting to voice my support for some proposed apartment complex that's still in the early stages, could flop at any point, and even if it succeeds I may not even move there? The renters of a future complex may not even know who they are yet, if they aren't adamant on moving in there should a place be built.

4. There's strong stigma against renters, to the point of being demeaning and tribal. A local council near me voiced their opposition to building more affordable developments, and the chairman said he was concerned about "derelicts" (exact word) moving in to the neighborhood and said if they built more affordable units, you'd see a rise in street drug vendors, threatening the local children. How can renters and low-income earners combat such ridiculous accusations when local leaders cast them as criminals, just because they can't afford to buy a median $400,000 house?

Your comment ignores so much of the asymmetric power dynamic between owners and renters.

I lived in Highlands Ranch, CO for roughly half a year, and man the suburban sprawl in anything outside of Boulder is on steroids. My impression of Colorado is that it's a "hot" place to be right now (very much hyped as the place to escape to), but that will in time be expended as housing costs skyrocket and no new housing can be built because everything is interconnected by a 6-8 lane highway.

Reference: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Highlands+Ranch,+CO/@39.55...

> For example, at the grocery store, a theoretical eight-pack of bottled water costs $3.00. A theoretical 32-pack of bottled water costs $5.00. But no older person can lift a 32-pack of water. So to get 32 bottles of water, an older person has to pay 140% more just because they made the mistake of not dying young.

The grocery store I go to (large regional brand) has for the last few years been asking people at checkout if they need help carrying their groceries to their car. Some packaging is ridiculous (remember people having to go to the hospital and get stitches over clam-shell packages?), but I can't imagine an elderly person wouldn't get help carrying a heavy item if they asked for help - people want to be good Samaritans.

I see similar arguments with vehicle prices, where vehicles are more expensive, but they are higher build quality, have more features (heated seats, blind-spot warning, etc.), so it's not technically correct to use the term "inflation" since the product is different.

But it still feels wrong to say that this isn't a concern and to dismiss it with that argument, since people still need entry-level options, even if we tout the new bells and whistles we've added to the houses or vehicles over the past few decades.

Saying "housing prices are ridiculous" followed by, "but you get more features!" is no consolation to the family looking to get their foot in the door of the housing market.

The analogy to pacifiers may be overly condescending (equating adults to children), but in general I have adopted the view that smartphone usage in public is essentially second-hand smoke, and that hopefully within the next 1-2 decades the public will finally begin to recognize this as widespread addiction and begin setting some limits.

I got into computers when I was in early elementary school, and that began my track toward exploration and software development. There's no doubt that my mom's worries of me being addicted to the computer were absolutely true - entire summers were spent on the computer.

What's different about computer addiction and smartphone addiction is that computer usage is more limited in where you can do it. My computer-addicted young self would not have been able to whip out a desktop computer at a restaurant, barbershop, or waiting in line to pick up an order. But with smartphones essentially being "pocket computers", people can use them anywhere - even driving.

I do believe in personal choice, so I don't want to be heavy handed, but I imagine our society will need to grapple with this problem. I see couples on dates with each other in restaurants, both on their phones nearly the entire time scrolling through endless feeds. I watch sports events where any small break in play people need to pull out their phones. There is no presence anymore, and public space (along with suburbanization) has rapidly eroded over the past 10-15 years since smartphones were invented. Now commercials for phones/5G normalize the idea that you should be able to download/stream a movie on your phone walking down a sidewalk.

There's a balance that needs to be struck here, and it's going to be difficult to reach because we're still relatively in the infancy of these fancy electronic gadgets. Particularly in the US where individualism and personal choice is so deeply part of our culture, it will be difficult to restore the public space so that we can come to expect if you go out in public, people are actually... present and there. But somehow we eventually came to the same conclusion with banning smoking in restaurants et. al.

This article is about petroleum-derived products, and cutting your carbon footprint by choosing alternatives.

One thing I can't shake about the EV "revolution" is that it's going to require a massive expansion of our renewable energy capacity, like solar and wind, but we also need that renewable energy for other things, like household energy usage. If we were rational and serious about making the biggest impact, we would reduce car dependency so the green electricity we generate can go to less wasteful means. It seems incredibly wasteful to massively build out green energy to continue to prop up a system where we all drive several-ton hunks of metal one mile to grab a coffee at a drive-thru.

I see stock pictures of traffic jams [0] and just think that EVs are a green "band-aid" to cover up a wasteful lifestyle.

[0] https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/traffic-jam-in-los-ange...

Also worth adding that wealth doesn't need to mean owning more material possessions. Wealth can take the form of knowledge, opportunities, increased quality of life, etc. Think educational wealth, mental wealth, spiritual wealth, etc.

Less can also be more. How wealthy is an elderly person who requires multiple prescription drugs, nurse/home-care, etc.? Sure they might have acquired money during their life to pay for these things, but that also means they are dependent (read: not free) on a lot of things too. Dependency is a sort of anti-wealth.

Besides the high-tech hype, there's also the economic absurdity behind all these proposals. The average American household already spends 1/6th of its income on (car) transportation. These VTOLs are cars on steroids, with even more modes of failure and imaginably more regulation. I assume they would do a ride-sharing / taxi business model, but even then... the average person won't be able to afford a ride in one of these because the average American can't even keep up with ordinary car payments.

It's depressingly comical to see these futuristic pitches when the reality is there won't be any customers left because the middle class will be completely gone in near time. People need to have money in order to spend it.

Question about Firefox's future and Mozilla's corporate leadership:

Last week I made a slide deck and 20 min demo video of some features I feel like are fundamental to web browsers that none of them have. I think Mozilla is - in principle / on paper - the best organization to embody the principles that my ideas espouse.

The general HN attitude toward Mozilla seems to be that it's a leadership issue.

Is there any hope that I could send my pitch/demo-video and be heard out? Is there any hope that Mozilla can revive itself, or, if the problem is in fact bad corporate leadership, is the organization essentially doomed with no recourse?

What's genuinely odd is that universities offer something of value that towns and (small) cities should be able to: providing anyone (not just students) a human experience.

I do agree with you that there are societal norms to dump large sums of money into college, but will also point out that many of the things people enjoy from their college experience are things that are - in my judgment - becoming increasingly difficult to find in American society: namely, being able to form social connections that are deeper than the measly platitudes and shallow experience of water-cooler conversations at work.

The fact that colleges are able to command tens of thousands of dollars per year should tell us something about what their campuses are offering that general society and its structure is unable to provide.

The paragraph text is also difficult to read on top of the page background pattern. Maybe add a white background to the text?

I'm open to discussing job opportunities. I have 5+ years software development experience, mostly in DoD contracting. I built a natural language processing application (visionzeroreporting.com) in just 8 weeks; it made 3rd place on Hacker News a few weeks ago!

Location: NY state, USA

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Maybe (USA north east, NY/MA/VT/NH)

Technologies: Node.js, Python, Java, C#, .NET framework, Angular, Vue.js, React, RESTful APIs, AWS, Heroku, Loopback, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Docker, Tensorflow/Keras, D3.js

Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/168rKIC8ua7l9oNOO7lX-TaEjZi5...

Email: langgb {at} clarksonalumni {dot} com

"...the bill reflects a growing realization that competition laws, like the Sherman Act of 1890, which prohibits anticompetitive agreements and attempts to monopolize markets, need to be updated for the digital era. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)"

... exactly.

> looks like it’s leetcode time Haven't searched for a job in a few years, but would consider based on TC.

Are all these good-paying software jobs behind the "leetcode firewall", even for non-FAANG? I guess my willingness to practice on leetcode would be partly driven by potential TC reward, but I really would like to be judged on the merits of the development I've already done for previous companies instead of having to memorize solutions to esoteric problems I'm never going to have to solve on the job.

What's the consensus on the tech market being really hot right now? Does that imply a potential crash in the future, or simply a "cooling down" or plateau-ing? Can anyone point to some commentary on future expectations, beyond the immediate salary bumps we can get today?

Thanks! Comparison between news outlets is on the radar, once I improve the tool based on feedback from this Show HN.

My backend uses spaCy (NER/NLP), textacy [1] for extracting subject-verb-object triples, and coreferee [2] for coreference resolution.

I did build a custom spaCy model for which I manually annotated over 700 crash-related news articles in Label Studio [3]. This custom model identifies counterfactuals, framing (e.g. thematic elements), and what's called CARLIKE, because vehicles can be referred to in so many ways (year-make-model, year-model, color model, generic terms like pickup/sedan/truck, nicknames like Chevy instead of Chevrolet, etc.

Coreference resolution was probably my favorite part of the NLP analyzer. For example: "A woman was injured after being struck by a vehicle. She was walking on Washington Street when the incident took place." Now we can identify "woman" as a pedestrian because "she" was walking. Implementing that coreference resolution felt magical, because now the tool can pick up so many more issues that it couldn't before when it only looked at individual sentences.

I'll be writing an in-depth article about my implementation and journey, and I'll be sure to shoot you an email to chat with you some time.

[1] https://github.com/chartbeat-labs/textacy

[2] https://github.com/msg-systems/coreferee

[3] https://labelstud.io/

Thanks for your feedback!

I certainly have a lot more work to do over the next few weeks to improve the tool, and I think much of your comment will be addressed once I place a lot more weight on Framing (see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28842314).

For your "driver hit the cyclist" example, I would like to avoid confusion that there was a physical altercation like a fist fight between the driver and cyclist. However, I stand by the sentence structure, because I don't want to personify or give agency to vehicles (e.g. "vehicle hit the cyclist") when it's the driver who is in control, and focusing on driver calls into question more thematic elements like distracted driving, speeding, visibility and lighting conditions, etc.

Is there a way you'd recommend rephrasing "driver hit the cyclist" to satisfy both our suggestions?

> Calling them "editorial anti-patterns" because they don't frame the discussion how you would like it to be framed is

To be clear, I'm not trying to force my desired framing on authors or inject bias into articles. I am simply working off of the research I've seen, such as Editorial Patterns in Bicyclist and Pedestrian Crash Reporting [1] and all the other citations in that paper, that there is a very real and measurable effect on the language used in these articles and the readers' perception on blame and preventative measures.

However, I am certainly thinking about the feedback I've received from everyone in this thread.

> If you want to improve road safety, you could also recommend report on the maintenance status of the vehicle (e.g. were the brakes well-serviced?).

That sounds like an interesting idea. I know that vehicle status can contribute to crashes, and legislation has been enacted to improve this. For example, all vehicles now require tire-pressure monitoring system (TPMS) because improper tire pressure was leading to lots of crashes. Back-up cameras are required because people, particularly small children, were being run over when in reverse. States have different requirements for periodic vehicle safety inspections (in New York State where I live it's once per year).

If a crash is being reported involving older vehicles, maybe journalists could mention if those vehicle predate certain safety mandates. For example, vehicles before 2007 in the U.S. may not have TPMS [2]

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330975590_Editorial...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire-pressure_monitoring_syste...

Thanks for linking this issue, and I'll certainly look into it. I agree with your analysis on Twitter: manually annotating the article should yield the following issues:

1. Focus: she was struck by a Toyota Corolla (emphasis is placed on the VRU)

2. Object: she was struck by a Toyota Corolla (agent is referred to as an object, rather than a person, e.g. driver of the Corolla)

3. Object: a 2010 Toyota Corolla being driven by a 29-year-old Brookline man, was driving east (again, the wording personifies the vehicle instead of assigning agency to the driver heading eastward)

I will need to debug this particular example further, but it appears the "2010 Toyota Corolla" and "Toyota Corolla" are not being classified as CARLIKE, a label I trained an NER model on to help deal with all the ways you can name a vehicle: year-make-model, make-model, year-model, model, model-ish, generic terms like truck/pickup/pick-up etc., short-hands like Chevy instead of Chevrolet, etc.

Furthermore, the tool is not identifying "woman" as a VRU. It's a little bit ambiguous because while "[she] entered the roadway", it's not 100% clear that means she is a VRU: a driver/vehicle can enter a roadway too.

Thanks for alerting me to this - that sentence is itself fine, and the tool is incorrectly marking it as problematic. I'll debug that!

Respectfully, I think you're demonstrating the sort of thinking the corpus of research surrounding this seeks to shine a spotlight on: blaming the victim, rather than focusing on safe and forgiving design.

Should our built environment be such that falling down in public should end your life? Do people deserve to die simply because they want to cross the street? Why do we design residential neighborhoods where parents are afraid of letting their kids play outside due to traffic? Do drivers of 4,000+ lbs of steel and glass bear greater responsibility than pedestrians and bicyclists.

In the article you mention with the woman falling into the street, the article makes no mention of street design. Further, emphasis is placed on the victim, but nothing is said of the driver.

- What is the speed limit on that road? Fast-moving vehicles will require faster reaction time and longer stopping distances. Maybe areas that mix traffic with VRUs need to be reworked.

- Did the driver appear to make any effort to stop? If so, why doesn't the article mention it if they already have video evidence? If not, did the driver not see the woman? Was the driver distracted?

- Did poor illumination contribute to this collision? (If so, that's a design element: street lighting).

> I gather that the intent is not to make the reporting more neutral or accurate, but to change the framing in a direction that vision zero finds more appealing.

I'm posting this to demonstrate my work and seek honest and meaningful criticism to improve the tool and help improve public discourse around a public safety matter that is killing 30k-40k people per year in the U.S., and injuring millions. You can avoid the underhanded and snarky quip.

Thanks for the feedback.

There seems to be some conflict with how to define "counterfactual". Merriam-Webster defines it as "contrary to fact" [1], so that comes down to a statement being either true or false. But the way I'm using it (and the research my work is based off) aligns more with the Cambridge dictionary usage: "thinking about what did not happen but could have happened, or relating to this kind of thinking" [2]. Further, Stanford Philosophy states, "Modal discourse concerns alternative ways things can be, e.g., what might be true, what isn’t true but could have been, what should be done. This entry focuses on counterfactual modality which concerns what is not, but could or would have been." [3]

> If you have word from the police that the driver was not found to have any alcohol or if the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, those are simply facts, not counterfactuals.

I do believe these are counterfactuals, consistent with definitions from [2] and [3]. For example, if a bicyclist is hit and killed and the news article states the fact he wasn't wearing a helmet, sometimes it feels like the article is insinuating that if the bicyclist had been wearing a helmet, he would have survived. Of course, we cannot know that without investigating how fast the driver was going, how heavy the colliding vehicle was, etc. Some of those crashes are simply unsurvivable. The article espouses a "what could have been" thought. Please feel free to disagree, but provide links so I can read more.

> You can't logically call a pedestrian hit an accident until other hypotheses have been ruled out

I agree, but it seems that journalists take a different view. They see "crash" as intentional (i.e. you used your vehicle to murder someone), and that's why they use the word "accident". The way I see it, accident implies the incident was unforeseeable and unpreventable. I also think "accident" requires a higher burden of proof: just like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares, I think all accidents are crashes, but not all crashes are accidents. In the absence of a conclusive police investigation demonstrating complete unavoidability, the word accident should not be used.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterfactual [2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/counterf... [3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/counterfactuals/

This is the key point of the research and the tool I built, and clearly I still have some work to do on making this clear on my site:

The objective is not to shift blame from one party to the other, even if its shifting from VRUs to drivers. The important thing is that we emphasize that all car crashes have a cause and known solutions! Nearly all news articles miss this point, and tend to place blame (even inadvertently) on the parties involved rather than discuss how to prevent future incidents from happening.

This is a great question and I agree with you entirely.

Ultimately, Framing (thematic vs. episodic) is the most important consideration for these articles. It's important for articles to discuss road design, safety initiatives, etc. in order to equip readers with the knowledge necessary to get governments to act.

However, Framing is also the most difficult pattern to detect simply because there are so many different thematic elements you can discuss, and many different ways to say each one. Here are a few examples:

- This is the 3rd pedestrian fatality this year.

- Residents have long complained about people racing down their street.

- Washington St. has had a long lasting problem with weather-related crashes.

- According to the NHTSA, there are X crashes per year related to prescription drug-induced drowsy driving.

- Street width directly correlates with driving speed, which in turn increases the time needed to react and brake.

I'm relying on manually annotated articles (700+ so far) and a custom-trained spaCy model to detect these elements, and the accuracy of that model depends on having enough training data. Since thematic elements are so rare in real-life articles, I'm having a difficult time providing enough training data. Hence why the tool emphasizes the other editorial anti-patterns, for now, but this will change once the Framing reporter gets better.

Anyone have any suggestions for augmenting my training set for thematic elements?

Hi HN,

I built "Vision Zero Reporting" (https://visionzeroreporting.com), a tool to detect editorial anti-patterns in local news coverage of car crashes.

Maybe you've noticed that local news articles about car crashes, especially those that involve "vulnerable road users" (VRU) such as bicyclists and pedestrians, tend to employ language that seems to blame the victim or only discuss the incident as an isolated event, rather than in context that crashes are preventable and are caused by specific reasons.

This tool is meant to help news publishers check their articles and learn the anti-patterns to avoid.

Here's a brief explanation of the problems my tool checks for:

1. Focus - Readers find the focus/subject of the sentence more in control of the situation, and hence more blameworthy (e.g. "A pedestrian was struck by a driver" VS "A driver struck a pedestrian").

2. Agency - Some sentences lack an agent altogether, which places more blame on the recipient (e.g. "A bicyclist was hit." VS "A bicyclist was hit by a driver.")

3. Object-based reference - Pedestrians and bicyclists are almost always referred to using people-based language, but drivers are referred to using object-based language 81% of the time [1] (e.g. "The vehicle fled the scene" VS "The driver fled the scene"). This language personifies and gives agency to vehicles rather than their drivers.

4. Accident - Accident is the most-used term in articles to describe the incident (47%). This term is being phased out by some news agencies because the word implies a sense of inevitability or that it happened purely by chance, when we know why car crashes happen and can take preventative action.

5. Framing - (still in beta) Articles employ an "episodic" frame, meaning they describe crashes as isolated incidents. Only 6% (!) of articles use "thematic" framing [1], meaning they contextualize the event by discussing road design, number of recent crashes in the area, quote experts, educate readers about road safety initiatives, etc.

6. Counterfactual - (still in beta) Counterfactuals are true statements, but imply the outcome could have been changed had the victim acted differently. While reporters may see these statements as sticking-to-the-facts, we've discovered in 700+ manually-annotated articles that counterfactuals almost always shift blame toward the victim (A bicyclist was struck; he wasn't wearing a helmet. It was dark outside, the biker wasn't wearing reflective clothing, and the driver told police he didn't see the bicyclist until it was too late.) Notice that all of these statements may be true, but goes hand-in-hand with the Framing issue discussed above: the bicyclist was hit, but is that because there is no protected bike lane? It was dark outside, but is road visibility a municipal obligation?

I'm looking for constructive feedback to make this tool better!

My work is based primarily on the following research papers (and I've already shown the tool to the authors - they loved it!):

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330975590_Editorial...

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337279845_Does_news...