drphungky

Don’t mention landlords, unless followed by “… deserve the guillotine.”

What @[email protected] said below, but instead I’d recommend You Need A Budget (YNAB). YNAB is amazing, and despite not liking paying for subscription services, I keep using it and not getting firefly (and I do self host my own things). It’s like $100 a year and will save you far more than that if you use it correctly. Check them out: http://www.youneedabudget.com

Make sure to read their intro stuff on why they recommend doing things the way they do, as active budgeting isn’t for everyone.

Oh man, Street Complete is very cool, thanks! I always wanted to contribute to OSM but found it a bit daunting. This is like Pokemon Go but useful!

Hear hear! The government should completely get out of marriage and leave it to religion, or completely go in on encouraging marriage (actually domestic partnerships) between whoever if we think it’s going to be good for communities. Before Obergefell I would’ve said marriage is old, let religions have it. Encouraging people to take part in their community, have close ties with benefits like hospital visitation, tax breaks, etc should all be domestic partnership based, and we should’ve made everyone get domestic partnered - marriage should have conferred no civic benefits. As is, we have a weird hybrid religious and civic thing called marriage but at least everyone has access now.

But yeah as far as encouraging families we should do the same incentive wise with having kids and immigration to help with our birth rate problems, and continue trying to make home ownership more affordable (and more varied - looking at you missing middle housing) and encouraging it to again, incentivize investing in local communities. Civic policy like this stuff gets jumbled and we should be more clear about what we want to incentivize and why.

I am shocked I had to scroll this far to find someone saying this stuff exists. Literally look around on Lemmy, check the comment section of the Washington Post, like half of TikTok, a huge portion of twitter, etc. All of it full of angry radical liberals, actual communists, people crying for guillotines, deriding uneducated hicks and rednecks. Mocking all christians instead of just the fundamentalists, constantly deriding white men for existing, even just dumb infantile names (e.g. Repug-licans). Literally last night at my local college, some portion of protestors started calling for lynching college administrators. Now I’m not saying pro-palestinian protests are full of those people, just like the average liberal would be pretty ok with universal healthcare but miiiight not favor seizing the means of production or banning landlords. But even though these people are a minority, they’re just like the crazy right wingers - they are loud, and paint with the same wide brush that hardcore conservatives do, just using a different color.

And I want to be clear, this isn’t some enlightened centrism bullshit where I’m saying “both sides suck.” I am actually very, very left wing (though on Lemmy sometimes it seems like that makes me a moderate because I’m not calling for guillotining the rich, but I digress), and I probably agree with 90% of the angry people’s actual policy views. But at least anger and vitriol wise, and even a tiny portion of radical policy-wise, the fringe of “both sides” do kind of suck. Not everyone who is angry fits that profile (certainly I get angry thinking about climate change, but I’m not out there telling everyone who drives a truck they’re evil). But many people like that absolutely exist, and OP not seeing them likely is a result of our fractured echo chamber world, certainly not because they aren’t there and angry.

I just got one of these the other day. I picked up an Nvidia Shield because I was tired of my shitty Samsung TV not being able to stream Plex correctly and Google is the only data devil I’ve made a deal with. I hadn’t watched much YouTube on it I guess until last night and I couldn’t believe how many ads I saw.

Holy. Shit. YouTube has ads in the middle of fucking videos now? And then I paused and saw another ad and about lost my shit. Immediately looked up how to adblock on Android TV. Jesus it’s invasive.

This is wild. I even thought lasagna was worth the minimal effort before, but I just got KitchenAid attachments for Christmas and it’s insanely easy. You mix the dough in the bowl, and then flatten a couple times, run through the slicer, put in the water and it boils way faster than dried. It’s also so so much better than dried.

I’m with you on like, ravioli though. Also we occasionally made wide rice noodles from scratch for Thai cooking and while they’re not technically hard, they’re very labor intensive and time consuming. The problem is the difference between them and dried is night and say - dried wide rice noodles arent even really worth eating. Finally found a shop that sells them fresh though so we are golden.

Totally hear where you’re coming from, and I think in a perfect world, a journalist could recuse themselves of reporting on things where they are hopelessly biased (see Cuomo incident before the later revealed stuff), but I still argue the goal should be to examine and eliminate biases as much possible, and avoid the appearance of minor ones unless they are somehow damning. The introspection necessary to examine your own biases rather than just avoid them helps make you more capable of being more impartial overall, in my opinion.

I think there’s real debate on if through such a concerted effort to not give into to one’s own biases, you swing too far and start favoring the opposition, but that happens with anyone trying to avoid appearances of impropriety. Not giving your kid the starting pitching slot even if he deserves it because you’re the coach, a judge not accepting a free ride to a conference everyone else gets, etc etc.

Then you get a spot writing op-eds so you can dunk on strawmen who don’t have the reach or voice to argue with you!

You’re literally advocating for what is essentially approved propaganda. That you think there is an objectively correct bias terrifies me, and if you had sense, it would terrify you too.

No, there is no “correct bias”. No bias is the goal. In fact, the goal is to be beyond even an appearance of bias. That’s the only way you can be trustworthy. That’s why the Times doesn’t let their writers sign open letters. That’s why they can’t join lobbying orgs and don’t give money to political candidates. These are just sacrifices you make if you want to be a hard news journalist. Same as having to watch what you say if you’re a spokesperson or CEO, same with having to stay fit if you’re a firefighter, same with a ton of jobs that have requirements that you may find unreasonable but are widely accepted because they’re good for the job and the industry.

There is no such thing as objective truth, just perception and bias, and you truly believe it’s not okay to speak out against genocide?

You wanna talk about terrifying. This sentence is terrifying. No such thing as objective truth?! You’ve bought into the fake news, alternative facts propaganda being pushed for the last decade.

-Trump said x.

-Israel did Y.

-The president released a statement saying Z.

-A rocket exploded at a hospital in Gaza, it is unclear at the moment who fired it

-Here is an investigative report featuring video highlights, statements, and photos piecing together what likely happened in that rocket explosion

These are objective, unbiased facts. It obviously gets stickier when you start talking about what facts to report. Then you start talking about reporting on commentary on facts by people and orgs with clear biases themselves. Usually (or at least historically) journalists could cover their bases by finding both sides of an argument , and letting those players describe and clarify the facts themselves.

This is where the whole modern argument comes in over modern journalists giving too much weight to countervailing theories or crackpots in the interest of appearing unbiased. You may have heard it described as “both sides” reporting. For a long time, this was by far the best way to report facts, appear unbiased, and make sure everyone was heard and reported on. But recently there have been HUGE debates within journalism over how to report on say, climate change, when the vast vast majority of scientists say that it’s happening, and it’s man-made, and offer more and more conclusive studies supporting that. You can still find a few crackpots, but at what point are you choosing facts (“this crazy org said this about the new study”) that themselves create a bias? Since climate change has been seen as a political issue for years, journalists have been worried about appearing unbiased, because a sniff of impropriety can drive people away from mainstream media and to the newer, very biased, lacking in ethics orgs. They started shifting away from this, and now people are both leaving unbiased news and those unbiased sources remaining are STILL getting hammered by media critics and commentators on the “both sides” narrative issues.

The point, though, is that people deeply care about and deeply debate this stuff on the margins. How do we best remain and appear unbiased? How do we best inform and explain current events? And then they debate this stuff at the margins because there are different opinions on it. But no one is saying news journalists should be able to sign petitions and open letters. It is so far outside of acceptable that I bet you could poll newsrooms at the Times, Post, Tribune and not get a single journalist who thinks going on public record about current events should be A-ok.

I hope the history books of the future describe the atrocities of the present, because clearly we can’t rely on the news.

If you’re not aware of these very basic ethical and functional debates in journalism, that are covered and discussed ad nauseum in papers of every slant and those in the middle, my guess is you’re just not consuming much news. It’s impossible to miss this stuff. So I can’t imagine you’re going to pick up history books if you’re missing this stuff as it’s happening.

Thank you! It’s crazy to me that people can’t understand appearance of bias and why a paper would want to avoid it. Do people not work in industries with professional ethics? There are whole courses taught in this stuff when getting a degree in journalism, it’s debated in newsrooms and by editors, even in op-eds writing commentary about the news. Did people just fall asleep during the Trump years as people were figuring out how to handle that?

You know what terrifies me? Someone saying, unironically, “there is no such thing as objective truth, just perception and bias.” Russian disinfo and the Trump campaign appear to have won - we live in a post truth society where not only do facts not matter - they don’t exist. Why bother reporting only on them?

You literally can police people’s bias if they want to be a good journalist. That’s why the NYT has a clear policy on this stuff, that she violated twice! Some people can’t control their biases or don’t want to, and that’s fine. They don’t get to be journalists at organizations that have to maintain strict impartiality.

Also, if you think the newsroom doesn’t have deeply debated guidelines and rules on how and when you use the label terrorist vs freedom fighter, or how to avoid using either term, you’re kidding yourself. This is why editors exist.

It’s wild that we live in such polarized times that every single comment in this thread is talking about how this is wrong because of some variant of “she’s being fired for calling it like it is.”

That’s not what happened. She was fired (forced to resign, same difference) because she went on record with a political viewpoint and made value judgements. YOU DONT GET TO DO THAT AS A JOURNALIST. It doesn’t matter if she’s right (she is, in my opinion, before someone accused me of supporting apartheid and misses the point). What matters is she has taken away any appearance of being unbiased, both for her and by association for the paper. It’s crazy damaging and the Times should have fired her instead of letting her resign. This is like journalistic ethics 101. My parents were both journalists and wouldn’t even talk to me about who they voted for - and they weren’t even in hard news.

I know these days there are so many biased news agencies and lots of opinions masquerading as news, but for hard news agencies this kind of thing does not, and should not fly. The woman was dumb and I hope she was ready for a career writing op-eds and being a partisan talking head, because she’ll never write hard news at a reputable source again.

I know it’s just conventional wisdom, but among those who look back and forward and think about this stuff, it’s been common conventional wisdom for a century that 20 years is an exceedingly long time for change.

I like Bill Gates’ quote the best, “People often overestimate what will happen in the next two years and underestimate what will happen in ten.”

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/01/03/estimate/