8 ms·

When the headline is asking the audience, the answer is usually no.

nomel 4y ago
For reference, it's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
- ARandomerDude 4y ago
  We all know by now...
  - nomel 4y ago
    Perhaps a fresh concept for you then: https://xkcd.com/1053 https://xkcd.com/1053
23B1 4y ago
Article: “It must be emphasized up front that there is no official confirmation that the image was taken at Volkel Air Base, that the bent B61 shape is a real weapon (versus a trainer), or that the damage was the result of an accident (versus a training simulation).” Headline writer/editor: “Hold my beer”
- vintermann 4y ago
  "There is no official confirmation" isn't especially noteworthy, when they simultaneously boast that they would never, ever officialy confirm something like that if it was true. My bet is most of the editors publishing this story called to ask if it was OK to publish first, and got a yes. They call it a "limited hangout". Better that a reputable source publicizes it with a ton of caveats about how unverified it is, than that someone more hostile finds it out first.
  - tremblane 4y ago
    Trying to remember the specifics of the training we got when I was in the US Air Force on the rules concerning nukes. This is the gist of it: Above all: Don't lie. The default is "neither confirm nor deny". For example: somebody asks if there were nukes on the plane that just crashed? Can't say. Even if you know there weren't, you can neither confirm nor deny. You MAY deny if it would benefit safety. For example: someone started a rumor there was a nuke on a plane that crashed nearby and panic/riots are starting. An official statement saying there was no nuclear material involved could help settle things down. You MUST confirm if there is a safety concern. For example: There really was a nuke on the plane that just crashed nearby and people need to evacuate ASAP. Get that confirmation out now and get people away from the situation. In other words, when it comes to nuclear things with the US military, "no official confirmation" means exactly nothing, other than there is/was no public safety concern. edit: I never looked at the regulations, this was just told to us in tech school. But I just looked it up and there actually is a reg for that:https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/523016p.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do...
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > Above all: Don't lie. > The default is "neither confirm nor deny". For example: somebody asks if there were nukes on the plane that just crashed? Can't say. Even if you know there weren't, you can neither confirm nor deny. "Can't say" is a lie (as it is physically possible to say). "I have been ordered to say 'Can't say', even though I actually do know the truth" would be not lying. Not that it matters because no one really cares about fine-grained, actual truth, I'm just pointing out a neat part of our righteous, democratic culture. > In other words, when it comes to nuclear things with the US military, "no official confirmation" means exactly nothing, other than there is/was no public safety concern. If one was to pay attention to official US announcements over the years, one might realize that "no official confirmation" in the above could be replaced with anything and remain correct, due to their long, diverse track record of lying and getting caught. Of course, everyone lies, it is a fundamental part of our culture and "getting things done", I'd just rather we stop representing ourselves as being something other than what we really are.
- bragr 4y ago
  >there is no official confirmation that the image was taken at Volkel Air Base, that the bent B61 shape is a real weapon (versus a trainer), or that the damage was the result of an accident (versus a training simulation) Even if it was at Volkel, and it is a real weapon, there's no confirmation that it contains a physics package, so there may be no "nuclear" risk, even if the weapon is badly damaged. I suspect if the core was inside, and there was a chance of it being damaged, they'd all be wearing a lot more safety gear, as plutonium is quite toxic aside from the radioactive risk.
  - thrill 4y ago
    Exactly.

For reference, it's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

ARandomerDude 4y ago
We all know by now...
- nomel 4y ago
  Perhaps a fresh concept for you then: https://xkcd.com/1053 https://xkcd.com/1053

23B1 4y ago

Article: “It must be emphasized up front that there is no official confirmation that the image was taken at Volkel Air Base, that the bent B61 shape is a real weapon (versus a trainer), or that the damage was the result of an accident (versus a training simulation).” Headline writer/editor: “Hold my beer”

vintermann 4y ago
"There is no official confirmation" isn't especially noteworthy, when they simultaneously boast that they would never, ever officialy confirm something like that if it was true. My bet is most of the editors publishing this story called to ask if it was OK to publish first, and got a yes. They call it a "limited hangout". Better that a reputable source publicizes it with a ton of caveats about how unverified it is, than that someone more hostile finds it out first.
- tremblane 4y ago
  Trying to remember the specifics of the training we got when I was in the US Air Force on the rules concerning nukes. This is the gist of it: Above all: Don't lie. The default is "neither confirm nor deny". For example: somebody asks if there were nukes on the plane that just crashed? Can't say. Even if you know there weren't, you can neither confirm nor deny. You MAY deny if it would benefit safety. For example: someone started a rumor there was a nuke on a plane that crashed nearby and panic/riots are starting. An official statement saying there was no nuclear material involved could help settle things down. You MUST confirm if there is a safety concern. For example: There really was a nuke on the plane that just crashed nearby and people need to evacuate ASAP. Get that confirmation out now and get people away from the situation. In other words, when it comes to nuclear things with the US military, "no official confirmation" means exactly nothing, other than there is/was no public safety concern. edit: I never looked at the regulations, this was just told to us in tech school. But I just looked it up and there actually is a reg for that:https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/523016p.pdf https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do...
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Above all: Don't lie. > The default is "neither confirm nor deny". For example: somebody asks if there were nukes on the plane that just crashed? Can't say. Even if you know there weren't, you can neither confirm nor deny. "Can't say" is a lie (as it is physically possible to say). "I have been ordered to say 'Can't say', even though I actually do know the truth" would be not lying. Not that it matters because no one really cares about fine-grained, actual truth, I'm just pointing out a neat part of our righteous, democratic culture. > In other words, when it comes to nuclear things with the US military, "no official confirmation" means exactly nothing, other than there is/was no public safety concern. If one was to pay attention to official US announcements over the years, one might realize that "no official confirmation" in the above could be replaced with anything and remain correct, due to their long, diverse track record of lying and getting caught. Of course, everyone lies, it is a fundamental part of our culture and "getting things done", I'd just rather we stop representing ourselves as being something other than what we really are.
bragr 4y ago
>there is no official confirmation that the image was taken at Volkel Air Base, that the bent B61 shape is a real weapon (versus a trainer), or that the damage was the result of an accident (versus a training simulation) Even if it was at Volkel, and it is a real weapon, there's no confirmation that it contains a physics package, so there may be no "nuclear" risk, even if the weapon is badly damaged. I suspect if the core was inside, and there was a chance of it being damaged, they'd all be wearing a lot more safety gear, as plutonium is quite toxic aside from the radioactive risk.
- thrill 4y ago
  Exactly.