4 ms·

"Couldn't disagree more. As a counterargument, consider, for instance, the question of how it would be possible to write history without a connection to news (a

"Couldn't disagree more. As a counterargument, consider, for instance, the question of how it would be possible to write history without a connection to news (and other things) stored to archives?" I agree, to state simply: news becomes history So, my understanding of history is: integral(news)dt + history_reading I'd argue that watching the (news)dt occur also helps me to evaluate the quality/accuracy of the history_reading, to see how the sausage is made. - "Like other purveyors of drugs, producers of news want you to consume more of it." Sure, but also: "Like other purveyors of drugs, producers of _x_ want you to consume more of it." I'm definitely interested in a better method for learning, but if my target is understanding historical context in my lifetime, what is honestly better than contextualizing today's news with (history * yesterday's news)?

jruohonen 3y ago
> what is honestly better than contextualizing today's news with (history * yesterday's news)? A tough question. The issue, I think, is that we cannot reliably reflect/contextualize about today's news/events until it becomes history, i.e. reliability (for a lack of a better term) comes only with distance to past. But now we are already on a dangerous ground because, you know, '84.
- singlepaynews 3y ago
  I'm lost; how does big brother play in? > " think, is that we cannot reliably reflect/contextualize about today's news/events until it becomes history, i.e. reliability" This is exactly my point so far:: the best approximation I have for contextualizing today's news is by examining the diff of today's history and yesterday's news. I'm not confident in my grammar; let me make a graphic: ...................................... ..........|yesterday|Today news...| A ........ | x history.| B ........ | C ...................................... diff(x, reality) ~= diff(A,C) ...................................... Given A, C, and x; my goal is to determine reality, with the assumption that x does not necessarily equal reality. over repeated days: diff(x+1, reality+1) ~= diff(A,C) + diff(A-1, B) + diff(A-2,B-1) ~= integral(diff(A,C))dt So, over time, reading current news allows me to contextualize current news as a function of how it became history in the past; increasing my ability to evaluate >"reliability" of current news. Whatever improvement I'm looking for almost certainly lies in reading history, and comparing to what would have been current news at the time. Is this where you're imagining big brother?
  - jruohonen 3y ago
    "'Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Look to the East.
  - aspenmayer 3y ago
    Here’s a recent example of extraterritorial gag orders targeting news outlets, which would necessarily impinge our ability to read between the lies/lines: https://www.404media.co/reuters-takes-down-blockbuster-hacker-for-hire-investigation-after-indian-court-order/ https://www.404media.co/reuters-takes-down-blockbuster-hacke... I’m “posting too fast” or I’d submit it to HN myself - feel free to do so, dear reader, as it belongs on HN. > “Reuters has temporarily removed the article ‘How an Indian startup hacked the world’ to comply with a preliminary court order issued on Dec. 4, 2023, in a district court in New Delhi, India. Reuters stands by its reporting and plans to appeal the decision,” the editor’s note reads. An archive of the story, hosted on the Wayback Machine, is available here. https://web.archive.org/web/20231116164611/https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-hackers-appin/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231116164611/https://www.reute...
    - aspenmayer 3y ago
      It’s already added as of a few days ago; Algolia seems to have been down around the same time HN was down - last few hours have been spotty but seems back up now.
    - singlepaynews 3y ago
      I see your point; can't the reporting of the gag order itself can also be included in the 'news' training set? I keep coming back to an infinite necessity of news/reporting; definitely read more than just news, but nothing in this thread has pointed me to "stop reading news", as the title directs.
      - aspenmayer 3y ago
        I agree, I don’t agree with the thesis of the OP either
YZF 3y ago
News become part of history but I don't think history is the integral of old news. To think about things maybe dear to us, the history of Apple, Steve Jobs, Amiga, Atari, is very different than the integral of news about those. It is more influenced by people's stories that were never "news". I'm not sure any news about these really constitute a major part of what we'd call the history there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History says "inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation" ... most of what we call news doesn't really involve much in the way of inquiry or investigation. A lot of news is just PR. E.g. the crime reporter in the news knows some guys in the police and they give him some story and he prints it. That's news. Often the history of significant events is discovered over much longer time frames through more serious investigation and research. The events that aren't significant sort of fade away into nothingness. Good journalism, investigative reporting, that provides some insight, seems incredibly rare in any domain. When news stories come out about some technical discovery or science, and you're familiar with the domain, they very rarely are accurate. Like those "cancer is finally cured" stories that pop up every now and then as "news". I guess it's like "reality" shows?
- singlepaynews 3y ago
  > A lot of news is just PR. It seems like the distinction between PR and news as content is clear though, and their conflation is from being published together > News become part of history but I don't think history is the integral of old news. Certainly not; so my mental model can be amended: History ~= integration(old news + X)dt And my question then is what to use as X?
  - YZF 3y ago
    My point was that what you think is news, is actually PR. You might have the image of journalists hard at work in the field gathering news, but most the news you get is actually not that, it's straight out PR. It is not someone observing something, it is some official body sending out PR to journalists. That can be the police, it can be a government, it can be companies, etc. It is published as "news" but is not what you think it is. I think your point is that some PR is officially PR but that's not what I'm talking about.
quickthrower2 3y ago
Hopefully historians rely on more than the various rags throughout time!
- singlepaynews 3y ago
  Agreed, unavoidably the various rags are a subset though?

jruohonen 3y ago

> what is honestly better than contextualizing today's news with (history * yesterday's news)? A tough question. The issue, I think, is that we cannot reliably reflect/contextualize about today's news/events until it becomes history, i.e. reliability (for a lack of a better term) comes only with distance to past. But now we are already on a dangerous ground because, you know, '84.

singlepaynews 3y ago
I'm lost; how does big brother play in? > " think, is that we cannot reliably reflect/contextualize about today's news/events until it becomes history, i.e. reliability" This is exactly my point so far:: the best approximation I have for contextualizing today's news is by examining the diff of today's history and yesterday's news. I'm not confident in my grammar; let me make a graphic: ...................................... ..........|yesterday|Today news...| A ........ | x history.| B ........ | C ...................................... diff(x, reality) ~= diff(A,C) ...................................... Given A, C, and x; my goal is to determine reality, with the assumption that x does not necessarily equal reality. over repeated days: diff(x+1, reality+1) ~= diff(A,C) + diff(A-1, B) + diff(A-2,B-1) ~= integral(diff(A,C))dt So, over time, reading current news allows me to contextualize current news as a function of how it became history in the past; increasing my ability to evaluate >"reliability" of current news. Whatever improvement I'm looking for almost certainly lies in reading history, and comparing to what would have been current news at the time. Is this where you're imagining big brother?
- jruohonen 3y ago
  "'Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Look to the East.
- aspenmayer 3y ago
  Here’s a recent example of extraterritorial gag orders targeting news outlets, which would necessarily impinge our ability to read between the lies/lines: https://www.404media.co/reuters-takes-down-blockbuster-hacker-for-hire-investigation-after-indian-court-order/ https://www.404media.co/reuters-takes-down-blockbuster-hacke... I’m “posting too fast” or I’d submit it to HN myself - feel free to do so, dear reader, as it belongs on HN. > “Reuters has temporarily removed the article ‘How an Indian startup hacked the world’ to comply with a preliminary court order issued on Dec. 4, 2023, in a district court in New Delhi, India. Reuters stands by its reporting and plans to appeal the decision,” the editor’s note reads. An archive of the story, hosted on the Wayback Machine, is available here. https://web.archive.org/web/20231116164611/https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-hackers-appin/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231116164611/https://www.reute...
  - aspenmayer 3y ago
    It’s already added as of a few days ago; Algolia seems to have been down around the same time HN was down - last few hours have been spotty but seems back up now.
  - singlepaynews 3y ago
    I see your point; can't the reporting of the gag order itself can also be included in the 'news' training set? I keep coming back to an infinite necessity of news/reporting; definitely read more than just news, but nothing in this thread has pointed me to "stop reading news", as the title directs.
    - aspenmayer 3y ago
      I agree, I don’t agree with the thesis of the OP either

YZF 3y ago

News become part of history but I don't think history is the integral of old news. To think about things maybe dear to us, the history of Apple, Steve Jobs, Amiga, Atari, is very different than the integral of news about those. It is more influenced by people's stories that were never "news". I'm not sure any news about these really constitute a major part of what we'd call the history there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History says "inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation" ... most of what we call news doesn't really involve much in the way of inquiry or investigation. A lot of news is just PR. E.g. the crime reporter in the news knows some guys in the police and they give him some story and he prints it. That's news. Often the history of significant events is discovered over much longer time frames through more serious investigation and research. The events that aren't significant sort of fade away into nothingness. Good journalism, investigative reporting, that provides some insight, seems incredibly rare in any domain. When news stories come out about some technical discovery or science, and you're familiar with the domain, they very rarely are accurate. Like those "cancer is finally cured" stories that pop up every now and then as "news". I guess it's like "reality" shows?

singlepaynews 3y ago
> A lot of news is just PR. It seems like the distinction between PR and news as content is clear though, and their conflation is from being published together > News become part of history but I don't think history is the integral of old news. Certainly not; so my mental model can be amended: History ~= integration(old news + X)dt And my question then is what to use as X?
- YZF 3y ago
  My point was that what you think is news, is actually PR. You might have the image of journalists hard at work in the field gathering news, but most the news you get is actually not that, it's straight out PR. It is not someone observing something, it is some official body sending out PR to journalists. That can be the police, it can be a government, it can be companies, etc. It is published as "news" but is not what you think it is. I think your point is that some PR is officially PR but that's not what I'm talking about.

quickthrower2 3y ago

Hopefully historians rely on more than the various rags throughout time!

singlepaynews 3y ago
Agreed, unavoidably the various rags are a subset though?