esja

28 ms·

301.
by esja 6y ago
Aperocky said "right now". And right now, the situation in Europe is objectively worse than the USA.
302.
by esja 6y ago
This is not correct. If you adjust for population size, most of highly-developed Europe is doing much worse than the USA right now. That includes Germany, Switzerland, etc.
303.
by esja 6y ago
I don't think that's the issue here. If you run a business that relies on these services, you now have to consider an operational risk which never existed before. Namely, that the employees of many tech companies seem to have boug
304.
by esja 6y ago
Everyone knows this policy can’t be neutrally applied, and won’t be. The ideological beliefs of the censor will influence what is censored and what is ignored. Are there any good alternatives to Mailchimp which aren’t headquartered in the U
305.
by esja 6y ago
Perhaps the government should start building digital infrastructure. As they did with roads, telecoms, etc.
306.
by esja 6y ago
+ Rachel Maddow
307.
by esja 6y ago
Most of the major papers published false (and hence unverified) claims from the Steele dossier before the 2016 election. Buzzfeed then published it in full in January 2017. Look it up, it’s easy to find examples.
308.
by esja 6y ago
Perhaps not by the Russian government, but interestingly the dossier’s primary sub-source (responsible for assembling the claims from other sources) was a Russian, Igor Danchenko, who had previously been investigated as a potential Russian
309.
by esja 6y ago
How did they treat the “suckers and losers” story? What about the (criminally) leaked tax returns? What about the Melania phone call that was leaked by a “friend”? And last time around, how did they handle the claims that were leaked from t
310.
by esja 6y ago
Lawfare (and Ben Wittes in particular) misinformed a hell of a lot of people about Russiagate. They aren’t any sort of model of journalistic responsibility.
311.
by esja 6y ago
Tech censorship is extremely relevant to many people here, both professionally and personally.
312.
by esja 6y ago
The Financial Times is on the same path into narrative-first fantasyland, it's just happening a bit slower as they still have a captive audience for their (excellent) markets coverage.
313.
by esja 6y ago
How is it not viable? If every person who went to a BLM protest also made friends with one police officer, don't you think that might be extremely effective?
314.
by esja 6y ago
I agree, but the problem with the FT is that they’ve stopped capturing the whole zeitgeist on some topics. Telling half the story all the time leads to the sorts of surprises that financial market participants really don’t like. It’s a very
315.
by esja 6y ago
As a long-time FT subscriber (over a decade, with my own money), I believe this is no longer true. They have become very woke over the past few years and are extremely selective in their political reporting and the slant they put on things.
316.
by esja 6y ago
The Financial Times is absolutely biased on certain topics, for example US politics where they are extremely anti-Trump. It’s not that I want them to be pro-Trump, I’d just like to be accurately informed about him, given he’s one of the mos
317.
by esja 6y ago
Anyone who enjoys Sowell's perspective and is interested in (and irritated by) modern politics should also take a look at "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy".
318.
by esja 6y ago
A timeless classic. Along similar lines I'd recommend "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America", by Daniel Boorstin (former Librarian of Congress).
319.
by esja 6y ago
I've subscribed to the FT for over a decade and I think you are giving them way too much credit here. They took a very clear anti-Brexit stance and that coloured their publishing. They have done the same with Trump to a frankly embarra
320.
by esja 6y ago
As a long-time subscriber I recommend very strongly against putting all your eggs in this basket. They are good on certain topics but have major blind spots. See my comments elsewhere in this thread.
321.
by esja 6y ago
It's gotten a lot worse since January. I've subscribed for over a decade, and for the first time am questioning whether I should keep paying to be misinformed. It's very strange as FT subscribers often have money at stake and
322.
by esja 6y ago
As a long-time subscriber I think it's more accurate to say they are selectively focused on economic issues. They publish plenty of non-economic pieces which align with their view of the world.
323.
by esja 6y ago
I don't agree. I've paid to subscribe to the FT for over ten years, and used to subscribe to the Economist before letting it lapse. They are not neutral and especially in the case of the FT, this has gotten a lot worse in the last
324.
by esja 6y ago
Haven’t you heard of DredMorbius’s Law of Eponymity?
325.
by esja 8y ago
I recruit in this area and wish you all the best. One piece of advice: change your name. In my experience the sharpest minds are intellectually honest to a fault, and would rarely describe themselves that way.
326.
by esja 10y ago
In many cases the reverse is true: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox
327.
by esja 10y ago
For me, Fake Plastic Trees came to mind immediately. Devastatingly sad, but impossible (today) to teach a machine to understand why.
328.
by esja 10y ago
Where do the people who can no longer afford the high end go? And what about the people they displace when those people move into the "medium end"? There is only one market for housing - over-paying at the top end causes a ripple
329.
by esja 10y ago
That experience is almost a rite of passage for Londoners :-)
330.
by esja 10y ago
"Human error is the cause for all accidents"... because until now, only humans have driven cars. Once computer programs are driving cars, this will change.

More ›