4 ms·

Misleading title. Boeing doesn't make aircraft engines. This is a GE Aviation design. Which happens to first see service in the Boeing 777X, but there's no rea

Misleading title. Boeing doesn't make aircraft engines. This is a GE Aviation design. Which happens to first see service in the Boeing 777X, but there's no reason to assume it couldn't go into other airframes or even other manufacturer's aircraft. To attribute it to Boeing like that makes no rational sense. More information on GE's site: https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/engines/ge9x-commercial-aircraft-engine https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/engines/ge9x-commercia...

rayiner 9y ago
Reading NYT coverage of any subject you know about is like having a toddler explain to you what she did today.
- mtreis86 9y ago
  Just as reading anything written for laypersons, as an expert in that particular field, will seem.
- bshimmin 9y ago
  Hence the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect: https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/ https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnes...
- tptacek 9y ago
  The NYT has done reasonably, if not perfectly, on surveillance and cryptography topics I know a great deal about. It's substantially better than The Guardian. Also: the quality of the NYT's reporting is far better than any other news outlet: an NYT story is likely to have better sourcing than any competing story.
  - davidf18 9y ago
    As a long-time NYT reader, I can't speak to whether they are better than other new sources, but in areas that I know well, they generally get it wrong, at times leaving vital information out. At other times, they have done well, when they have jouralnsts who are also specialist write articles. For example, some of the articles on nuclear power are co-written by a PhD in physics, but oddly it seems like he is not a contributor on all articles about nuclear power. Many of the medical articles are not full of complete information or an understanding of healthcare and public health. Also, many stories on Israel are lacking context and completeness perhaps in some attempts to be "balanced." For example, the NYT does not discuss that the current Fatah Palestinian administration names childrens schools and streets after terrorists. They don't bring up enough that Fatah pays money to the families of terrorists, both dead and those in Israeli jails. That money they use to pay for terrorists comes from American taxpayers.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Can you provide an example of a story in which those details are relevant?
      - davidf18 9y ago
        Well, for example, many claim that Israel is not ready for peace, but the reality is that since Fatah is still naming children's schoolhouses and streets after terrorists (including the mastermind of the Munich Olympics Massacre (see Spielberg's Munich) and that they are using US funds to pay for families of terrorists in prison they clearly back terror instead of being against it. Until the Palestinians demonstrate their steadfastness against terror, there can be no peace. Also American don't want their tax money funding terrorists.
        tptacek 9y ago
        That's a reason why it's important to you that the Palestinians not openly support terrorism. But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking: can you show us an example of an NYT story about the conflict (or any other aspect of Palestine/Israeli relations) in which those details were needed but absent? It would help to have an idea of what those absent details do to a specific story.

rayiner 9y ago

Reading NYT coverage of any subject you know about is like having a toddler explain to you what she did today.

mtreis86 9y ago
Just as reading anything written for laypersons, as an expert in that particular field, will seem.
bshimmin 9y ago
Hence the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect: https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/ https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnes...
tptacek 9y ago
The NYT has done reasonably, if not perfectly, on surveillance and cryptography topics I know a great deal about. It's substantially better than The Guardian. Also: the quality of the NYT's reporting is far better than any other news outlet: an NYT story is likely to have better sourcing than any competing story.
- davidf18 9y ago
  As a long-time NYT reader, I can't speak to whether they are better than other new sources, but in areas that I know well, they generally get it wrong, at times leaving vital information out. At other times, they have done well, when they have jouralnsts who are also specialist write articles. For example, some of the articles on nuclear power are co-written by a PhD in physics, but oddly it seems like he is not a contributor on all articles about nuclear power. Many of the medical articles are not full of complete information or an understanding of healthcare and public health. Also, many stories on Israel are lacking context and completeness perhaps in some attempts to be "balanced." For example, the NYT does not discuss that the current Fatah Palestinian administration names childrens schools and streets after terrorists. They don't bring up enough that Fatah pays money to the families of terrorists, both dead and those in Israeli jails. That money they use to pay for terrorists comes from American taxpayers.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Can you provide an example of a story in which those details are relevant?
    - davidf18 9y ago
      Well, for example, many claim that Israel is not ready for peace, but the reality is that since Fatah is still naming children's schoolhouses and streets after terrorists (including the mastermind of the Munich Olympics Massacre (see Spielberg's Munich) and that they are using US funds to pay for families of terrorists in prison they clearly back terror instead of being against it. Until the Palestinians demonstrate their steadfastness against terror, there can be no peace. Also American don't want their tax money funding terrorists.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        That's a reason why it's important to you that the Palestinians not openly support terrorism. But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking: can you show us an example of an NYT story about the conflict (or any other aspect of Palestine/Israeli relations) in which those details were needed but absent? It would help to have an idea of what those absent details do to a specific story.