Digging a little -- an article (from 2009) about an interview (2005) that paraphrases the interviewee is a little suspect. Chomsky's take on the interview, in his words: "Even when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I take no responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they appear."
I dunno, that example is at least 3 steps removed (interviewer, editor, article writer) from a source that already speaks plenty clearly and doesn't need much more than to be read honestly.
Here's a start: Understanding Power has a PDF of all the sources in the footnotes of the book by the same name. Or, if you're really looking for voluminous elaboration, this purports to be a list of source references, sorted by publisher, with links to the books.
someone who can explain how the world really works.
And that person is?
This looks to be more an endorsement of moderation principles and rules, not determining truth of comments.
For the difficulties in determining what's true, see the kerfuffle about Media Bias Fact Check.
There's certainly a history of Unix and Unix-like forks; which is rather simple compared to the Linux distro forks (go right to the big pic).
There is something to this; however, there are historical examples of rather quick progress. FDR for one (public work projects and infrastructure, financial reforms, regulations, social security, etc.), when old and young, the president, government employees, the whole general public (with some exceptions), held to popular principles of egalitarian fairness against the few unconscionably rich. A time of tasty pills.
CDC Covid data, as of June 29, 2024.
Huh, that's so, it was there last January. It used to follow this paragraph (still there today anyway), which contains a similar criticism with citation:
It is widely used and has sometimes been criticised for its methodology.[4] Scientific studies[5] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[6] with NewsGuard[7] and with BuzzFeed journalists.
So if those are considered fact-based, there's no need to delve further.
However, Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as "generally unreliable", recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia's neutral point of view.
I haven’t read the graphic novel of the Handmaid’s tale, but I don’t know if I would read the book to 14 year olds.
This reads like the ugly kind of censorship. Where: 1) without knowledge of the graphic book, calling for its universal removal from school libraries. 2) not knowing if 14 year-olds should read it, ban it (i.e. ban all books that can't be read by the youngest library patron; a notion few books could survive). And 3) belittling people (calling those who disagree with uninformed censorship "ass-mad up the wazoo").
Now there is a little nuance to the post, but it's outweighed by crude assessments.
Or as Dijkstra puts it: “asking whether a machine can think is as dumb as asking if a submarine can swim”.
Alan Turing puts it similarly, the question is nonsense. However, if you define "machine" and "thinking", and redefine the question to mean: is machine thinking differentiable from human thinking; you can answer affirmatively, theoretically (rough paraphrasing). Though the current evidence suggests otherwise (e.g. AI learning from other AI drifts toward nonsense).
For more, see: Computing Machinery and Intelligence, and Turing's original paper (which goes into the Imitation Game).
It's tricky to talk about hardly anything in a forum where you can't say "it's more than that."
When it comes to food, a growing portion of humans are hungry or headed toward hunger. It's not the only concern, water, food, shelter, all the basic Maslow's necessities are getting harder to come by. Harder each month. There's plenty of other concerns: corporate, government, education, and even scientific corruption, greedy billionaires; which are each and together still only part of the problem. The problems are systemic, and that right there is why you can't talk about any one thing without recognizing there's so much more. Calling it "tinfoily" is dismissing how immediately vital food prices and availability are, even while there are many other important issues. And the way the media selects and times articles is another one of those.
Oooooh, okay, I misread. Apologies.
The "running joke" used by millions for serious and playful projects? [edited for punctuation]
Used to know someone who looked for cars around a restaurant, or long lines waiting to get into a tiny cafe, asked wait staff for interesting places they liked to go; went into non-chain stores where locals shopped (off the main streets); asked walkers and service station workers for directions. Always had wild stories about what happened, if you could get past their private nature. Weird fucker, unpredictable, never could get used to'm. Likeable enough, though.
Let's extend this thought experiment a little. Consider just forum posts; the numbers will be somewhat similar for articles and other writings, as well as photos and videos.
A bot creates how many more posts than a human? Being (ridiculously) conservative, we'll say 10x more.
On day one: 10 humans are posting (for simplicity's sake) 10 times a day, totaling 100 posts. Bot is posting 100 a day. For a total of 200 human and bot posts; 50% of which are the bot.
In your (extended) example, at the end of a year: 10 humans are still posting 100 times a day. The 10 bots are posting a total of 1000 times a day. Bots are at 90%, humans 10%.
This statistic can lead you to think human participation in the Internet is difficult to find.
Returning to reality, consider how inhuman AI bots are, with each probably able to outpost humans by millions or billions of times under millions of aliases each. If you find search engines, articles, forums, reviews, and such are bonkers now, just wait a few years. Predicting general chaotic nonsense for the Internet is a rational conclusion, with very few islands of humanity. Unless bots are stopped.
Right now though, bots are increasing.
Exactly. A more accurate headline would be "Americans are Falling Behind on their Income."