3 ms·

I too would like people to work to provide content for me for free, which is what you are asking. I'd love it if you enjoyed programming so much that you'd cod

• blfr 6y ago
  I too would like people to work to provide content for me for free, which is what you are asking. The problem is that paid content is bad. It's almost universally a signal of low quality. My Twitter timeline, HN comments, IRC channels, obscure invite-only forums, or nerd/rationalists blogs have demonstrably better information on everything from the pandemic and nutrition to investment and programming than any well-compensated journalists I've ever read. Not to mention humour. They manage to be more accurate, informative, and funnier at the same time. It should be difficult, nigh impossible, but isn't because paid media is terrible. Pandering to their audience, just the fact that everyone have a book in them but not necessarily four, groupthink in the MSM, adverse selection... I don't know the reason but I'm hardly the only one to see it. I'd love it if you enjoyed programming so much that you'd code a database for me, please. I mean, i see little to no upside of the professionalization of computer engineering. Some things are just better done by amateurs, who do it for pure love of programming and for free. Funny since I have half a dozen Windows licenses and use a free Linux distro to respond to you. It was largely written by professionals, sure, but there's still something to your take as well, even if it's a little GPT-like.
  • sofixa 6y ago
    > My Twitter timeline, HN comments, IRC channels, obscure invite-only forums, or nerd/rationalists blogs have demonstrably better information on everything from the pandemic and nutrition to investment and programming than any well-compensated journalists I've ever read. Not to mention humour. They manage to be more accurate, informative, and funnier at the same time. I refuse to believe you. What are your "Twitter timeline, HN comments, IRC channels, obscure invite-only forums, or nerd/rationalists blogs"'s sources? How the f can they provide better information on the pandemic unless you have actual virologists and public health experts actually working on it there? If you don't ( and having them would be pure chance since you can't possibly follow multiple experts from every single domain on the planet )? > It should be difficult, nigh impossible, but isn't because paid media is terrible. Pandering to their audience, just the fact that everyone have a book in them but not necessarily four, groupthink in the MSM, adverse selection... I don't know the reason but I'm hardly the only one to see it. Bullshit. The mere fact that you use the bullsit "MSM" "term" is indicative of your lack of knowledge on the matter. Not only that, the blatant disregard for any traditional media is dangerous on a few fronts - you live in your bubble, you're overly reliant on what information trickles down to you via said bubble, and even if your bubble is magnificent, has all sorts of actual experts in it, and you're actually knowledgeable and intelligent enough to be able to filter and prioritize, your wrong opinion might convince some people that do not have all of the above to follow your example, and that is how you get Q lunatics living in an alternate reality. Furthermore, have you actually recently used any media of good reputation and standing, paid or not? Personally i'm subscribed to the FT, and i have seen tons of stories not readily available through HN, Twitter, etc., and more to the point, in much more depth, usually. There's the occasional not really well written article, which gets compensated by the availability of other sources, but the analysis of professional journalists, with associated graphs, images, direct sources, etc. is IMHO priceless. FT and Fox couldn't be farther apart, yet your ridiculous label "MSM" groups them together. On what grounds? > Funny since I have half a dozen Windows licenses and use a free Linux distro to respond to you. It was largely written by professionals, sure, but there's still something to your take as well, even if it's a little GPT-like. Linux is maintained by professionals, indeed. If the initial amateurs never got any funding to do it full time, it wouldn't have come as far. So exactly counter to your argument?
    • blfr 6y ago
      How the f can they provide better information on the pandemic unless you have actual virologists and public health experts actually working on it there? That's a good question. I don't really know what kind of failure causes mainstream sources to be this bad. Here's Scott with his guess which is... I wanted to say just as good as mine but probably much better! https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-of-legible https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-... I don't get the rant around MSM. There's definitely mainstream media. And while they didn't fall for Q (although I still heard Q mocked in my bubble long before it was in the media), they have their own Russiagate conspiracy theory they're pushing. Here's another article from my bubble if you care. The most dangerous and deranged conspiracy theory of the last four years is the multi-headed Russiagate fantasy: the Kremlin has infiltrated the U.S. Government and controls it through sexual blackmail, Moscow has invaded the U.S. electricity grid and is poised to shut off heat in winter -- the craziest and most moronic shit possible. A 2018 poll found that ⅔ of Democrats — ⅔!! — believe that Hillary really won the election but Russians invaded the voting systems and switched her votes to Trump. https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-kinshasa-interviews-glenn-greenwald https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-kinshasa-interviews-glenn...
      • sofixa 6y ago
        > I don't get the rant around MSM. There's definitely mainstream media. And while they didn't fall for Q (although I still heard Q mocked in my bubble long before it was in the media), they have their own Russiagate conspiracy theory they're pushing. Here's another article from my bubble if you care. Depends on your definition. "Mainstream" as what people watch/read and commonly accept as decent publications with some sort of professionalism and oversight? Certainly, probably every country has them! However, the people using the "MSM" label usually imply that all such media is bad, too biased, wrong, in a secret plot with X, etc. So which is it for you ? If you really do believe that all even remotely popular ( which would include things as diverse as like Fox, BBC, the Guardian, the FT, Washington Post, New York Times, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Mediapart, Der Spiegel, etc.) medias are corrupt/wrong/too biased to pay attention to or anything of the sort, and random bloggers, twitterers, forumers are better than them... I honestly do not know how to proceed. It's obviously a ludicrous notion that isn't and cannot possibly be true and the only possible explanation i can imagine is that you're applying the exaggerated logic based on the shitty US media landscape to the rest of the world. As for Q mocking in your bubble... Great for you, I guess? Maybe professional journalists have more integrity than to popularize a shitty ridiculous conspiracy theory by discussing it. Maybe their usual sources don't include 4chan or w/e. > The most dangerous and deranged conspiracy theory of the last four years is the multi-headed Russiagate fantasy: the Kremlin has infiltrated the U.S. Government and controls it through sexual blackmail, Moscow has invaded the U.S. electricity grid and is poised to shut off heat in winter -- the craziest and most moronic shit possible. A 2018 poll found that ⅔ of Democrats — ⅔!! — believe that Hillary really won the election but Russians invaded the voting systems and switched her votes to Trump. I don't see how that's relevant, at all. We're talking about "mainstream" media, not irrelevant US partisan politics. The world doesn't end at the US border, you know?