5 ms·

Looking at this article, and the one about the supposed use of falcons as anti-drone measures, makes me think about the whole "fake news" thing. Something abou

Looking at this article, and the one about the supposed use of falcons as anti-drone measures, makes me think about the whole "fake news" thing. Something about how this is the quality of material we choose to promote among ourselves, the need for a critical eye when analyzing news, and how spreading fake stuff must be like shooting fish in a barrel. Not the most joyful thoughts to start a morning!

kgarten 10y ago
Don't understand the downvotes. I had similar feelings (I remember astroturfing articles about how safe nuclear power is after the Fukushima incident on the top of HN).
- Filligree 10y ago
  To be fair, those articles were right. The problem with nuclear energy is not a lack of caution... I'm not sure if Fukushima has caused even ten deaths, total.
  - Jarwain 10y ago
    Maybe not immediately. However, radiation tends to take a while for its damage to appear. Especially since Fukushima is still leaking radiation into the ocean afaik
  - kgarten 10y ago
    I cannot find the article anymore, but there was one about "Why I'm not concerned about Fukushima" (directly after the incident) that was completely wrong (false information about the security infrastructure etc. there) and also saying the incident would be resolved in a couple of days. The other articles also stated very optimistic outcomes related to when the land would be usable again and when the situation would be controlled. Just to remind you: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/08/japanese-nuclear-plant-just-recorded-an-astronomical-radiation-level-should-we-be-worried/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/08... A robot will stop operating in ca. 2 hours with these levels, a robot ... "Nothing to see here, radioactivity is no issue. Fukushima is doing great." This is NOW ... not last year or before. Please come and help clean up, if radioactivity is no issue for you and you feel it is safe to go there. I think Tepco pays quite well. Edit: making clear that the radiation leak with the highest values has been measured a couple of days ago.
    - j_s 10y ago
      Was this the article? Some Perspective On The Japan Earthquake https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319629 Or maybe this one that it links to: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 Archive of the deleted story: http://web.archive.org/web/20110314205955/https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110314205955/https://morgsatlar...
      - kgarten 10y ago
        Thanks so much. Perfect! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 has the text I was referring to. yet, I remembered it was hosted on another website (without comments etc. and no wordpress blog). Read the highest rated comment "The article is mostly correct. ..." No, this article was astroturfing, most of the info was false (especially regarding the security measures in place in Fukushima, ... ).
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      I remember that exact article you mention, because I was posting lots of updates about Fukushima when it happened and being called an alarmist until the scale of the problem became clear. On the other hand, objectors to nuclear power frequently overstate the danger - which is not to say that a meltdown every 10 years is acceptable, but that it's so difficult to get buy-in for any nuclear initiative that it ends up creating a siege mentality whenever something does go wrong. I feel like the problem with nuclear isn't so much the technology itself as the social/organizational failures that compound any operational problem. It does really bother me that when nuclear facilities have minor incidents where the problems are properly identified, solved and documented, anti-nuclear activists still get upset and claim things are being covered up. When success (in safety procedure) is treated much the same way as failure, is it any wonder that actual failures are often poorly handled? I feel this points to the need to abandon adversarial approaches to truth-seeking and public oversight and look for more cooperative ones. Adversarial systems are really easy to game and tend to result in over-simplifications of complex problems which are then exploited in turn. Meanwhile the public - whose general lack of awareness on the scientific details is entirely rational, because we shouldn't all need to be experts on reactor safety in order to enjoy the benefits of electricity - ends up in the situation of not knowing who to believe because there is a lot of bullshit coming from both sides, and opting instead to do nothing, resulting in predictable infrastructural decay.
  - kgarten 10y ago
    13 from the incident alone. not sure how many homeless people died (as they were sent there to clean up the mess) as an aftermath of the incident. Yet, maybe you think that's acceptable. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fukushima-workers-idUSBRE9BT00520131230 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fukushima-workers-idUSBRE9...
  - kgarten 10y ago
    So you think the articles were right? Be careful with over generalization ... What about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 ? Thanks @ j_s for finding the article. Read the HN comments and then read https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20266-how-josef-oehmens-advice-on-fukushima-went-viral/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20266-how-josef-oehme... http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/josef_oehmen_nuclear_not_worried_viral/ http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/josef_oehmen_nuclear_not_wor... ;)
cbgb 10y ago
For the record, I just read about the use of eagles (not falcons, though they are kept at falconries in France) in combating drones in a daily newsletter I highly respect. Here is the article they cite: http://en.rfi.fr/wire/20170220-born-killers-french-army-grooms-eagles-down-drones?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report http://en.rfi.fr/wire/20170220-born-killers-french-army-groo... I guess I don't understand how at least the anti-drone eagles can be considered "fake news."
- OldSchoolJohnny 10y ago
  Do you honestly think a bird is a good solution to deal with what is, to the bird, a whirling blade flying death machine? I also saw people pushing the story about millions of wind powered devices to freeze the arctic, it's just impractical nonsense on the face of it.
  - Tenhundfeld 10y ago
    I think you're using an older definition, wherein "fake news" means unworthy of attention. In recent weeks and months, "fake news" has been used by President Trump and others to mean factually incorrect. Something being a bad idea or stupid or impractical doesn't make it factually incorrect, i.e., does not make it fake news under the new definition. The article asserts several facts, among them: - birds of prey are often already kept near airports to scare birds away from the runway to reduce accidents during takeoff and landing. - the French air force has an experiment running with 4 eagles to train them to attack small drones, in addition to their normal scarebird duties. - the French air force thinks the experiment is promising enough to order a second group of 4 eagles. If those facts are correct, it is not "fake news." It is a silly puff piece about something that is not important, because it will almost certainly never turn into anything beyond an experiment.
    - lstroud 10y ago
      Simply, current definition "fake news" == propaganda
- 10y ago
OldSchoolJohnny 10y ago
I don't understand the downvotes; maybe Hacker News isn't for me anymore.
trollsonson 10y ago
Came in to see fatfucks bashing the article. Was not disappointed.

kgarten 10y ago

Don't understand the downvotes. I had similar feelings (I remember astroturfing articles about how safe nuclear power is after the Fukushima incident on the top of HN).

Filligree 10y ago
To be fair, those articles were right. The problem with nuclear energy is not a lack of caution... I'm not sure if Fukushima has caused even ten deaths, total.
- Jarwain 10y ago
  Maybe not immediately. However, radiation tends to take a while for its damage to appear. Especially since Fukushima is still leaking radiation into the ocean afaik
- kgarten 10y ago
  I cannot find the article anymore, but there was one about "Why I'm not concerned about Fukushima" (directly after the incident) that was completely wrong (false information about the security infrastructure etc. there) and also saying the incident would be resolved in a couple of days. The other articles also stated very optimistic outcomes related to when the land would be usable again and when the situation would be controlled. Just to remind you: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/08/japanese-nuclear-plant-just-recorded-an-astronomical-radiation-level-should-we-be-worried/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/08... A robot will stop operating in ca. 2 hours with these levels, a robot ... "Nothing to see here, radioactivity is no issue. Fukushima is doing great." This is NOW ... not last year or before. Please come and help clean up, if radioactivity is no issue for you and you feel it is safe to go there. I think Tepco pays quite well. Edit: making clear that the radiation leak with the highest values has been measured a couple of days ago.
  - j_s 10y ago
    Was this the article? Some Perspective On The Japan Earthquake https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2319629 Or maybe this one that it links to: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 Archive of the deleted story: http://web.archive.org/web/20110314205955/https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110314205955/https://morgsatlar...
    - kgarten 10y ago
      Thanks so much. Perfect! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 has the text I was referring to. yet, I remembered it was hosted on another website (without comments etc. and no wordpress blog). Read the highest rated comment "The article is mostly correct. ..." No, this article was astroturfing, most of the info was false (especially regarding the security measures in place in Fukushima, ... ).
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I remember that exact article you mention, because I was posting lots of updates about Fukushima when it happened and being called an alarmist until the scale of the problem became clear. On the other hand, objectors to nuclear power frequently overstate the danger - which is not to say that a meltdown every 10 years is acceptable, but that it's so difficult to get buy-in for any nuclear initiative that it ends up creating a siege mentality whenever something does go wrong. I feel like the problem with nuclear isn't so much the technology itself as the social/organizational failures that compound any operational problem. It does really bother me that when nuclear facilities have minor incidents where the problems are properly identified, solved and documented, anti-nuclear activists still get upset and claim things are being covered up. When success (in safety procedure) is treated much the same way as failure, is it any wonder that actual failures are often poorly handled? I feel this points to the need to abandon adversarial approaches to truth-seeking and public oversight and look for more cooperative ones. Adversarial systems are really easy to game and tend to result in over-simplifications of complex problems which are then exploited in turn. Meanwhile the public - whose general lack of awareness on the scientific details is entirely rational, because we shouldn't all need to be experts on reactor safety in order to enjoy the benefits of electricity - ends up in the situation of not knowing who to believe because there is a lot of bullshit coming from both sides, and opting instead to do nothing, resulting in predictable infrastructural decay.
- kgarten 10y ago
  13 from the incident alone. not sure how many homeless people died (as they were sent there to clean up the mess) as an aftermath of the incident. Yet, maybe you think that's acceptable. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fukushima-workers-idUSBRE9BT00520131230 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fukushima-workers-idUSBRE9...
- kgarten 10y ago
  So you think the articles were right? Be careful with over generalization ... What about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318980 ? Thanks @ j_s for finding the article. Read the HN comments and then read https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20266-how-josef-oehmens-advice-on-fukushima-went-viral/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20266-how-josef-oehme... http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/josef_oehmen_nuclear_not_worried_viral/ http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/josef_oehmen_nuclear_not_wor... ;)

cbgb 10y ago

For the record, I just read about the use of eagles (not falcons, though they are kept at falconries in France) in combating drones in a daily newsletter I highly respect. Here is the article they cite: http://en.rfi.fr/wire/20170220-born-killers-french-army-grooms-eagles-down-drones?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report http://en.rfi.fr/wire/20170220-born-killers-french-army-groo... I guess I don't understand how at least the anti-drone eagles can be considered "fake news."

OldSchoolJohnny 10y ago
Do you honestly think a bird is a good solution to deal with what is, to the bird, a whirling blade flying death machine? I also saw people pushing the story about millions of wind powered devices to freeze the arctic, it's just impractical nonsense on the face of it.
- Tenhundfeld 10y ago
  I think you're using an older definition, wherein "fake news" means unworthy of attention. In recent weeks and months, "fake news" has been used by President Trump and others to mean factually incorrect. Something being a bad idea or stupid or impractical doesn't make it factually incorrect, i.e., does not make it fake news under the new definition. The article asserts several facts, among them: - birds of prey are often already kept near airports to scare birds away from the runway to reduce accidents during takeoff and landing. - the French air force has an experiment running with 4 eagles to train them to attack small drones, in addition to their normal scarebird duties. - the French air force thinks the experiment is promising enough to order a second group of 4 eagles. If those facts are correct, it is not "fake news." It is a silly puff piece about something that is not important, because it will almost certainly never turn into anything beyond an experiment.
  - lstroud 10y ago
    Simply, current definition "fake news" == propaganda
10y ago

OldSchoolJohnny 10y ago

I don't understand the downvotes; maybe Hacker News isn't for me anymore.

trollsonson 10y ago

Came in to see fatfucks bashing the article. Was not disappointed.