berniepebbles's comments

What’s wrong with new News channels?

If we maintain the status quo, we’ll have cronies like Jeff Zucker taking the reigns of an established (fake) news organization, pushing propaganda that’s convenient for their world view all while claiming to be objective.

Refer to the CNN exposed / Jeff Zucker tapes if you’re curious to learn about how CNN decides what the narrative is.

I didn’t claim conspiracy, but the media doesn’t decide elections.

Trump is definitely an outsider.

Let’s be honest, these are activist sources who all happen to be left leaning.

Could you elaborate how fox is worse?

Is this because you disagree politically or because they’re “beyond the beyond, they’re way worse” or whatever thoughtless, meaningless comment Was typed?

I'd say a link to snopes.com is a less than brief search.

People should steer away from fact checkers. It's a lazy way to confirm your own opinion.

These should be avoided. Ranking articles? How about visiting the sources and reading what they have to say instead of taking peoples word for it. I always call bs when left leaning sources, who are just as opinionated as the right leaning sources, are closer to “neutral” than the right leaning sources are to neutral. It paints a picture that right leaning sources are “closer to the extremes” when I believe the opposite is true.

1. How do you select your sources? *edit grammar

2. How do you decide whether to label a source as left, or moderately left? What is the political spectrum?

A. What would you assign brietbart news? B. Why wouldn’t you give new york times a “objective” tag? (That’s what they claim to be. /s)

I think new york times is as far left as vox. Your website seems to paint them as moderately left.

It’s valuable when fellow HN users highlight questionable details buried in User Agreements (UA). Thank you!

It would be great to hear a response from the founder on this point.

Does Github’s UA have the same requirement for all of their users software?

The climate is ever changing.

Is it possible it is the driest year on record for reasons outside of human impact?

Do we understand weather patterns enough to be confident in the conclusions?

Could the driest year on record be a random event?

This author seems to be reaching a conclusion first, then finding data to support that conclusion. Any time there is a superlative, we can conveniently apply the climate change label to it.

How about some humility?

I try to take these in good faith, but the author’s bio descriptions and stated employment at left leaning organizations are also reasons I approach this with skepticism.

It depends... When asked by regulators, 5% market share. When asked by customers, 35% market share.

Joking aside, Peter Thiel has great commentary on how companies avoid the monopoly label by claiming to be part of a larger community. A classic example is that Google search has at least 70%+ market share. However, when asked by regulators, they’re a “tech company” with many competitors and have a significantly lower market share.

This is promoting victim culture. Many red flags and many GoFundMe links.

If you can’t afford a lifestyle, move. If you can’t afford the lifestyle, but continue to live there, don’t create a gofundme and craft a sob story highlighting your negligence.

On a positive note, you can get a job, graduate high school, and not have kids out of wedlock (dogs are not cheap either). You have all 3 of those going for you. You are tougher than you think.

You should reject all of those GoFundMe dollars or have a plan to repay people who donated.

Here are the factors that come to mind regarding the popularity of vape pens.

1) Availability Bias - The weed pen can be on your desk or in your pocket. Coca Cola exploits this human misjudgement, and that's why you can have Coca cola all around the world. The takeaway is that you're more likely to consume because it is there.

2) Mobility - It's mobile, unlike a bong. Get high right before your favorite song at a concert. Whip out the vape pen.

3) Stealth A) (Form Factor) - I think these are becoming popular with teenagers primarily because, if a teenager wants to smoke in their parents house, and avoid detection from their parents, a vape pen is less obvious. The pen is objectively easier to hide than a flower setup.

B) (Stench) Vape pens don't smell as much. I've seen signs on businesses refusing service due to the marijuana stench on customers. People even smoke vapes in public and it's indistinguishable from vaping tobacco unless closely inspected or smelled. (The smell from vape pens exists, it's less noticeable than flower.)

4) Convenience - The steps to smoke a vape pen (push of a button and inhale) are simpler than the process of smoking out of a bong. We're dealing with stoners here! (Not all stoners are lazy, but many stereotypes are loosely based on truths.)

I think the value it adds is subjective. In my opinion, it is a fact that further describes the individual. In fairness, it may not be the most relevant point.

We have to appreciate that his place of birth it is a fact, whether one thinks it preloads preconceptions or not.

Edit: "whether you think" -> "whether one thinks"

You can’t even mention someone’s place of origin in our politically correct world without a racist accusation.

The above suggestion is a shame. It appears to be a victim “woke” mentality.

Is it possible Bloomberg was describing where the individual was from for reasons outside what you suggest?