11 ms·

Hmm. (1) An article from WSJ. From their reputation, not good. (2) Article about Pig Butchering? Obscure, undefined terminology, really bad writing. That's

Hmm. (1) An article from WSJ. From their reputation, not good. (2) Article about Pig Butchering? Obscure, undefined terminology, really bad writing. That's too much -- refuse to read or pay attention.

OgsyedIE 1y ago
(2) should be split into (2) and (3), surely? Furthermore, the neologism in question has been part of the vernacular for quite a while.
fortran77 1y ago
Forgive me from not posting articles from reputable sources like Mother Jones or Worker's World.
- graycat 1y ago
  Maybe since the Big Bang I'm the only one, but AM one, to be torqued at what I regard as media low credibility and undefined, obscure terminology. Sorry guys but I (1) very much DO want solid information about a range of interests and (2) have a STEM field background that places great emphasis on solid evidence. We don't have to dig into quantum mechanics: Instead there are some common high school standards for term papers that call for claims supported with data with references from credible, hopefully original, sources. Instead I see various attempts at getting reader attention via emotional appeals. Uh, "Breaking news, this just in, experts shocked": Now we have the Internet where before we had news writers with typewriters, typesetters, big rolls of paper, printing plants, distribution trucks, paperboys, etc., twice a day, morning and evening. With the Internet there are lots of sources, cheap means of distribution, .... E.g., recently saw some news, scary drama, about suddenly too high prices for corn. Okay, HOW high are they? How do they compare historically? Can we have some good graphs of credible NUMERICAL data???? Well a little use of Google gave https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps /Agricultural_Prices/pricecn.php with a really nice graph -- numerical data, no drama -- from 2016 to the present. For a fast look at corn prices, nuff said. Point: Commonly the old media pushes drama and is stuck in the past, and now the Internet offers ways to set aside the old media and get solid information. "Media, fun knowing you."

OgsyedIE 1y ago

(2) should be split into (2) and (3), surely? Furthermore, the neologism in question has been part of the vernacular for quite a while.

fortran77 1y ago

Forgive me from not posting articles from reputable sources like Mother Jones or Worker's World.

graycat 1y ago
Maybe since the Big Bang I'm the only one, but AM one, to be torqued at what I regard as media low credibility and undefined, obscure terminology. Sorry guys but I (1) very much DO want solid information about a range of interests and (2) have a STEM field background that places great emphasis on solid evidence. We don't have to dig into quantum mechanics: Instead there are some common high school standards for term papers that call for claims supported with data with references from credible, hopefully original, sources. Instead I see various attempts at getting reader attention via emotional appeals. Uh, "Breaking news, this just in, experts shocked": Now we have the Internet where before we had news writers with typewriters, typesetters, big rolls of paper, printing plants, distribution trucks, paperboys, etc., twice a day, morning and evening. With the Internet there are lots of sources, cheap means of distribution, .... E.g., recently saw some news, scary drama, about suddenly too high prices for corn. Okay, HOW high are they? How do they compare historically? Can we have some good graphs of credible NUMERICAL data???? Well a little use of Google gave https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps /Agricultural_Prices/pricecn.php with a really nice graph -- numerical data, no drama -- from 2016 to the present. For a fast look at corn prices, nuff said. Point: Commonly the old media pushes drama and is stuck in the past, and now the Internet offers ways to set aside the old media and get solid information. "Media, fun knowing you."