|
It'll start on Zoom. e: In 1827, an argument between Hussein Dey, the ruler of the Ottoman Regency of Algiers, and the French consul got way out of hand. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 14:26 on May 6, 2020 |
#
?
May 6, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
sassassin posted:That makes me less inclined to trust that scientist's judgement tbf.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
We can start a weekly booing for bad things on say a Monday night
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I wouldn't trust one who claims to have a general analytical solution for three-body problems. Unless they all went to the same house this is more like a transfer of a body from the sphere of influence of a second body to that of a third. I wonder if there was an impact event.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 14:29
|
|
|
Ash Crimson posted:I think people might revolt/riot not in this country. not in this life.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
XMNN posted:I think based on the axes that the red line represents the official death toll up to the 4th of May (29,427 announced yesterday would put it over the Italy line) and the circle is the number of people who have died after testing positive by the 5th of May. Because the dot at 32k includes some number of care home deaths, which are not included at any point on the line. If they joined the May 5th dot to the line, it would look like there was a huge overnight spike in deaths, which there wasn't. But they also can't redraw the line to factor in the additional deaths because that would take guesswork on their part, and the line is drawn from official sources.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 14:41
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It's a strange situation when Google and Apple are saying "here's a decentralized solution that we're providing pro bono" and the government are saying "no that won't do at all here's our broke brained potentially illegal under the GDPR shitsack solution made by rank amateurs." Google and Apple have full control over the operating systems. Ain't no way they're gonna let governments muscle in on their turfs. Their cooperative app is a cudgel against anyone trying to gently caress with their OS with mandatory installations of software.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
Red Oktober posted:I think it'll take a good minute to get there though. Riots generally come out of existing protests, and if people are inside and not joining up for a protest it's hard to see how a riot will start. People would love the excuse to get out there. Last major riot we had across the country started at a funeral in London, only takes a wee spark to set everyone off. I reckon that's the true risk they're trying to play against, how to get the economy started again without the country smashing everything to bits. Those chill days of the 2011 riots, occupy movement having tents up in cities here and there, Moves Like Jagger played on every bad radio from here to eternity. I'm like one of those FBPE people but instead of the olympics, an eternal riot.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Google and Apple have full control over the operating systems. It's also probably a lot easier and legally less problematic, but it still feels strange that Google and Apple are looking like the good guys against the NHS (because of the App Mancock brain team).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It's nice of them to go with a decentralized app with strong privacy though. With no need of actually having good intentions. They're just competently defending their business interests. That's the time we live in. Where just greed without incompetence or malice is commendable.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
There won't be any riots in a country where so many people are addicted to the taste of boot polish.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PraxisCast/status/1258037241810694145?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:18
|
|
|
Lost your job? Well you should be in a sustainable business then. Government's not here to help you lounge about. That's only for nonces, landlords, and loving corporate tax evaders.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Because the dot at 32k includes some number of care home deaths, which are not included at any point on the line. If they joined the May 5th dot to the line, it would look like there was a huge overnight spike in deaths, which there wasn't. But they also can't redraw the line to factor in the additional deaths because that would take guesswork on their part, and the line is drawn from official sources. I think that the line includes data for care homes at least in England as it appears to be tracking the data from here, which "includes all deaths previously reported by NHS England, but also includes other deaths of patients who were confirmed cases, whether they died in hospital or elsewhere." after they changed it on the 29th I actually think the title of that chart is very wrong, because the line would seem to include everyone who died after being positive quote:All the deaths data shown on this website are deaths of people who have had a positive test result confirmed by a Public Health or NHS laboratory. it looks like the higher number is a "reuters calculation" of the ONS numbers for England and Wales (which are based on COVID on the death certificate, not tests), plus other figures from Scotland and Northern Ireland, cf bizarrely I cannot find the 29,648 number anywhere. The ONS website has 27,356 deaths in england and wales by the 24th and the download lists 26,013 for england and 1,285 for wales which add up to 27,298?? either way, the number they're using for the circle explicitly goes up to the 24th of April so I have no idea why you would put it as the data point for the 5th of may I'm not sure if I'm being dense or if this genuinely doesn't make sense, and I should probably at least pretend to do some work now also did you know the UK press is the least trusted in europe?  e: OK 29.648 is the number of people who died before the 24th of april that were recorded up to the 2nd of may, so I was at least partly just being dense (I was adding up the columns for people who had died before the 24th of april recorded up to the 24th of april) XMNN fucked around with this message at 15:34 on May 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:26
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:There won't be any riots in a country where so many people are addicted to the taste of boot polish. Everyone says that about their country until the riots start happening. They're unpredictable, but that's not the same as being impossible.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
XMNN posted:also did you know the UK press is the least trusted in europe?  that collapse between 2018 & 2019What caused that i wonder? E: it's actually slightly heartening to see this but why won't the papers die already  this one graph is the only thing that needs to be posted in response to any of those twitter accounts crying "p-please buy our paper  "
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
XMNN posted:also did you know the UK press is the least trusted in europe? It doesn't surprise me because our press are unashamedly partisan in the most transparent ways possible but it does surprise me because if people don't trust the press then why the gently caress are they still shovelling The Mail into their brains?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:
Worth remembering that it was the Tories who mostly profited from it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:It doesn't surprise me because our press are unashamedly partisan in the most transparent ways possible but it does surprise me because if people don't trust the press then why the gently caress are they still shovelling The Mail into their brains? Which is up there with "advertising doesn't work on me."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
Presumably that graph is describing that people do not trust "the press" as in "all the other papers except mine" which is a perfectly reasonable outcome for an extremely partisan press.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Lost your job? Well you should be in a sustainable business then. Government's not here to help you lounge about. That's only for nonces, landlords, and loving corporate tax evaders. I can understand the ideological stance of being against 'hand outs'. I don't agree with it but I understand it. But all the people saying this poo poo seem to have forgot there's a pandemic. It's like they think it's over but people are still staying at home for fun. If easing the lock down isn't done correctly it'll gently caress things up way worse than having to pay people for another couple of months. They literally can't think more than a week ahead.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
to be fair, the UK is near the bottom on all of the charts in the report so we're generally fairly distrustful, but that is still the highest distrust score for all sources listed and by far the worst for traditional media 44% trust and 43% distrust radio 37% trust and 55% distrust TV 19% trust and 67% distrust "the internet" 11% trust and 72% distrust social media you have to sign up to the ebu to download the report for some reason https://www.ebu.ch/publications/research/login_only/report/trust-in-media do I get to be a eurovision judge now?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:
The papers really are not really printed for you, they’re either open letters to the ruling elite or astroturfing public sentiment Even If the sun lost money I doubt Murdoch would shut it down
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
Jel Shaker posted:The papers really are not really printed for you, they’re either open letters to the ruling elite or astroturfing public sentiment Yeah papers will absolutely be run at a loss if they generate influence for their owners other interests, including cultural interests. It's not all about financial viability, to destroy the press you have to get them taken out of cafes and buses and off the BBC news programs and then they'll die. Until then all we can do is try to generate different media ecologies that people listen to instead.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
Lol, what is even the point in asking if people trust "the internet"?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
Do you trust the information on that internet? You know, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the World Health Organization, InfoWars, forwarded chain emails, Oxford MSDS Database, Usenet, Spiked Online, that sort of stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
I mean it only makes marginally more sense than trusting "the press" outside of a marxist framework.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
Can't believe all these people are staying at home not working, why aren't they going out and getting new jobs??
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:Lol, what is even the point in asking if people trust "the internet"? Yeah it's a bit broad isn't it. Same with "social media". Like, do I trust any old shite that my boomer relatives post on Facebook? Obviously not. Do I trust what Journos post on Twitter? Depends which journo, generally not. Do I trust the aggregate information I receive via social media, via my carefully curated feed, to give me an overall generally accurate picture of what's going on in the world/UK, after being passed through some actual critical analysis on my part? Pretty much. More so than I trust the papers or TV or other media. Still, if I had to give a yes/no answer as to whether I trust "social media" I'd have to think "Do I trust social media to give a generally accurate picture of what's going on to one of my boomer relatives who is more likely to follow random celebs and take what's presented to them at face value", and the answer would be no. Still, begs the question if so many people distrust the media, how does it still have such a massive effect on people's voting? Can only assume it's a combination of this: OwlFancier posted:Presumably that graph is describing that people do not trust "the press" as in "all the other papers except mine" which is a perfectly reasonable outcome for an extremely partisan press. and this: Guavanaut posted:Because "it's all bollocks anyway, I only read it for the sport." E: Guavanaut posted:Do you trust the information on that internet? You know, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the World Health Organization, InfoWars, forwarded chain emails, Oxford MSDS Database, Usenet, Spiked Online, that sort of stuff. LMAO
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Can't believe all these people are staying at home not working, why aren't they going out and getting new jobs?? Because they're scroungers, lazy, shammers, eating too much avocado toast washed down with croissants and I bet they've all got plasma screen tvs and Sky too. And I bet they're all single parent mothers too.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Kind of like asking "do you trust a table saw" In the sense that no you probably shouldn't but you still use the thing carefully.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Do you trust the concept of information? What does it mean to "know" something and can mere words express truth? In your opinion, is truth doing a good job, a bad job, or don't know?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
"do you trust X" questions are standard social statistics fare, btw as a question format it is asked of various institutions all the way back to the 1950s it isn't intended as "tell me your deep and sophisticated methods of critically analyzing the evening news, citizen" but as a barometer of, roughly, "do you regard X as a reliable authority in social narratives, yes or no". If you, personally, have a deeper answer than yes or no, then you are noise in the results - the interesting part is only trends across time or comparison between various values of 'X'
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
WhatEvil posted:Yeah it's a bit broad isn't it. Same with "social media". Like, do I trust any old shite that my boomer relatives post on Facebook? Obviously not. I mean, you essentially just said here that you'd answer "no" to the social media question because while you trust your favoured social media sources you don't trust what is in the ecosystem in general. That is very much like a newspaper reader saying that they trust the paper they like but all else is trash so newspapers as a whole are untrustworthy. So yeah, I definitely think it isn't a stretch to think that that dynamic is at play in the answers across the set of questions in that survey. ronya posted:"do you trust X" questions are standard social statistics fare, btw Munin fucked around with this message at 16:31 on May 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
i trust my twitter faves and mighty allah
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
Munin posted:I mean, you essentially just said here that you'd answer "no" to the social media question because while you trust your favoured social media sources you don't trust what is in the ecosystem in general. That is very much like a newspaper reader saying that they trust the paper they like but all else is trash so newspapers as a whole are untrustworthy. That is a good point. Still, there are good and bad sources of info on the internet and social media and if you're making a conscious effort to evaluate which is which and also paying attention to a variety of sources then I think that's about as well as you can do. As compared to a person who typically reads one paper, and/or watches one news channel it's usually gonna be better.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:37
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Do you trust the concept of information? What does it mean to "know" something and can mere words express truth? In your opinion, is truth doing a good job, a bad job, or don't know? ronya posted:"do you trust X" questions are standard social statistics fare, btw Do I trust the internet? If I'm looking for a safety datasheet or the melting point of sodium benzoate or what process is used for the modern synthesis of acetaldehyde, or who the current President of Botswana is then sure, I know which sites are going to be reliable for that and which aren't, and it's probably more likely to be useful and up to date than the local library or asking a friend or hoping that what I want is in the paper or a trade journal this month. Does that mean that I trust everything that I read on the internet?  no.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Munin posted:Yeah, but it doesn't actually really mean anything unless you have some sort of insight as to why trust is growing or being eroded. yup... one would have to resort to more detailed (and also much more expensive-to-gather) data, like paid panels or focus groups it's still good to have a high-level gloss... simply because it can be so seductively attractive to believe in high-level glosses that are just flatly untrue by massive degrees. It forces us to have at least one epicycle in our fevered sketches, rather than blissfully unbounded imagination
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
crispix posted:In that case make sure you never listen to Radio 2 between 12 and 2 Even if you listen to Radio 6 exclusively you still have to hear his voice, thanks to Mr Shaun Keaveny.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
sinky posted:Boris is only 5ft 9 Is he bollocks, I'm 5'9 (5'10 on a good day) and I was a good 2 inches taller than him when I was working at the Torygraph in the 90s (in the kitchen before anyone updates wall.xls too quickly), and unless coke has HGH in it he's not got any bigger since then.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 16:45
|
|
