3 ms·

There's not really a credentialed source that can tell you what will be inherently speculative. Either it was a clerical error or it wasn't. Sometimes that hap

• JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > There's not really a credentialed source that can tell you what will be inherently speculative There are absolutely quality sources that can walk through the uncertainties and the contexts. A secondary source based on The Daily Mail is not that. (Most ad-only sources won’t have the resources for that.)
  • potsandpans 8mo ago
    It's raining outside and you're looking out the window asking for an expert to give you the context for how damp it is. The FBI says, it's no more damp than it always is. A third party says, this is uncharacteristically damp. A neutral credentialed source gives you uncertainty: we see dampness of varying rates throughout history and you should consider the climate you're in in order to understand how damp it really is. Great. Now what do you do with that? Go outside and determine whether you need a coat. No one will be able to tell you what this means without more evidence.
    • JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > It's raining outside and you're looking out the window asking for an expert to give you the context for how damp it is No, the mountains are misty and I’m asking if it’s snow or a storm. The number of armchair experts on DoJ process on the internet right now may only have been recently matched by the banking experts during the SVB collapses.