Another hypothesis to test would be if the radiation is being used as a catalyst somehow.
E.g. Could be denaturing something else, unlocking a previously inaccessible energy source. Possibly some radiochemistry creating a new food source for the fungus too.
It's about the careful wording, about who gets to be on the spotlight, about who gets to call the other side a tyrant, an evil state, about saying things like "regime change" and no-one batting an eye. Slowly, but surely, you form an opinion as to who the bad actor is as you've seen or read about its bad behaviour (but not of the behavior of the other party)
Most interestingly, it's about who holds the microphone and is allowed to say whatever they want, unquestioned.
In a meta sense, yes, but in practice it’s mostly just a large collection of journalists and editors, real humans, working in a chaotic information space where there’s a large variety of angles and sources being put out at all times depending on the context.
It’s equally easy to cherry pick this sort of thing to build a narrative of some ulterior agenda. Especially given the high pace that news demands in the social media age.
What gets covered could simply be who a journalist happened to talked to the past week or what is trending on social media that will get clicks.
This is the kind of comment that at first glance seems measured and well-phrased. I’m sure it depicts a common situation in journalism too, after all they’re just humans like the rest of us.
The problem here is the enormity of what is actually going on in Gaza: a slaughter and a terror campaign we haven’t seen the likes of since Pol Pot. It is not two sides in disagreement, each jostling for attention on roughly equal terms, each somewhat right and somewhat wrong. Two years in, we’re well beyond that and the only thing that matters is that one side is sadistically slaughtering the other and the world is pretending it’s not happening.
> What gets covered could simply be who a journalist happened to talked to the past week or what is trending on social media that will get clicks.
Do you believe this with regard to what is happening in Israel/Palestine?
The chaos of information and what is truth is only bubbled up when 1) there's very few journalists in the area or 2) all the journalists are being killed or 3) there's no journalists and only special interests.
Consider that even if it was a "narrative" which at this point is controlled by social media, as it stands it seems to be: "these people are evil, they should be killed, sorry not sorry about the babies" or "these people are committing genocide, this bad."
Call me crazy, but neutral journalists should not be calling either side "evil". They should be reporting what each side does and let the reader draw their own moral conclusions.
and that's why you don't listen to only a single source of news.
Find multiple, ideally both geographic as well as political alignment.
Learn to discern what is a fact, and what is opinion presented as fact, and learn to read critically - such as question if there would be any omissions, or misrepresentations of facts to make persuasions. Learn to dissect the works, such as dramatic music and literary methods of persuasion, and how it affects the reader's perceptions.
All of this was taught in highschool literary criticism classes - just on old books and such, rather than modern material. But the same exact lessons could've been applied. Except people merely either half-assed those classes and use cliff notes, or just straight skipped them - leading to today's world where most adults are unable to critically examine the media they consume.
Sure, as a consumer, that is what you should do. But the issue at hand is that the BBC and its employees hold the BBC to a journalistic standard that it does not meet (according to those employees).
> and that's why you don't listen to only a single source of news.
> Find multiple, ideally both geographic as well as political alignment.
Easy to say in the abstract, harder to do when many "credible" sources toe the line and the ones that don't are discredited as "state sponsored news" or worse.
> Easy to say in the abstract, harder to do when many "credible" sources toe the line and the ones that don't are discredited as "state sponsored news" or worse.
Even when a source is unreliable, probable half-truths and lies are still valuable information when read critically and juxtaposed with many sources. Observing and noting when different factions agree and disagree on basic facts can be highly enlightening even when it's impossible to make a judgement on whether either side is right or wrong and to what degree. Identifying and recognizing the use and proliferation of canned phrases is also very helpful in constructing a mental map of the global journo-political landscape.
Also, highly credible organizations will be wrong sometimes and vice versa. One is never enough.
It's mostly anout how Israel army controls the way journalists report the war or regime in west bank that walks, quacks, and swims like an apartheid but apparently they can't call it that.
Sadly no one will be able to document the carnage in gaza. They plan to create an internment camp in the south and move civilians into at after making sure they are not linked to Hamas. Then they are going to basically follow Trump's plan to clean Gaza by building new jewish settlements and kill anyone outside the internment camp. While doing that they will not allow independent journalists to go in gaza.
As much as there are barriers to reporters here, it seems less than most other conflicts. Its not like journalists have unrestricted access to the Ukraine/Russia front line. Access to other conflicts like Sudan or Myanmar are also very restricted in practise.
If we define “worse” as higher journalist deaths, zero press freedom, no access, and active targeting, then Gaza is clearly worse for journalists right now.
Ukraine/Russia conflict is obviously extremely dangerous but it allows far more media access, transparency, and foreign presence.
According to the world press freedom index, Israel has the third highest press freedom of all middle eastern countries (Qatar and Cyprus are a bit higher, everyone else in the middle east is lower in most cases much lower).
"Comprehensive new research finds the BBC coverage of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza is systematically biased against Palestinians and fails to reach standards of impartiality.
Analysis of more than 35,000 pieces of BBC content by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) shows Israeli deaths are given 33 times more coverage per fatality, and both broadcast segments and articles included clear double standards. BBC content was found to consistently shut down allegations of genocide."
The self-described mission of the Centre For Media Monitoring is "Promoting Fair And Responsible Reporting Of Muslims And Islam", so they might be slightly biased...
According to your own logic I should not even bother providing any evidence when you can simply assume any organization to be biased based on identity alone instead of addressing the evidence they provide, like the BBC operates under a Royal Charter agreed upon with the britsh government, "so they might be slightly biased..."
"Instead, the report says, the BBC’s coverage has involved the systematic dehumanisation of Palestinians and unquestioning acceptance of Israeli PR. This has allegedly been overseen by BBC Middle East Editor and apparent Binyamin Netanyahu admirer, Raffi Berg, who is accused by anonymous journalists of “micromanaging” the section." - https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-isra...
Would you honestly accept a report by an Israeli think tank that came to the opposite conclusion? I feel like most people would be suspicious of such a report.
Yes, while road design could be better, a contributing problem is that US sprawl requires people to travel longer distances to commute/shop/etc. This then contributes to a desire for higher roadway speeds and the designs that support those higher speeds.
miles driven/person is also a choice that the US has made.
Even in sprawling suburbia, most trips a person takes are under 3 miles, eminently bikeable, but the bike infrastructure and built environment sucks for that. So people drive, from parking lot to parking lot.
The fact that the US is huge doesn't mean that the majority of miles driven are on long trips.
> Even in sprawling suburbia, most trips a person takes are under 3 miles
That is surprising to me. Is that factoring in trips to the neighbors or to the mailbox or something? Because the average US driver drives over 39 miles per day.
hmm. fair enough. I have heard the short trip stat bandied about a lot. Having spent time with people in the suburbs, even close in suburbs, the stat makes sense... if you exclude commute to work. When I visit my parents in stroadville, a trip to the store is 2 miles each way and should be easily bikeable, but bike infra is non existent so everyone drives.
One note about the framing. The average US Driver excludes everyone who isn't a driver
> One note about the framing. The average US Driver excludes everyone who isn't a driver
That's true but traveling by car is so overwhelmingly common that it doesn't swing the stats much. Only about 3% of people travel by public transit (most of which is a bus on the road anyway) and another 3% under their own power, with most of that being people who walk (mostly those who work/live in the same place).
(Traffic deaths / km driven) was NaN for most of human history. It's a dumb metric with dumb units.
There should be a well-defined unitless quantity that's real-valued across human history, say normalizing by population size and total human travel. I am not claiming that fixes the NaN, just that the NaN is a smell.
Another smell is that everyone being horribly maimed but never killed would not be a victory for safety though the above metric says it'd be great.
Well it's also a good metric if you are trying to make an argument that the US has unsafe infrastructure compared to other countries like the article does.
Also making it illegal to build dense walkable cities like we used to is the choice that causes many people to live in the suburbs. It isn't just a preference for suburban style living. It is more efficient to live in cities and should be less expensive, but because we have made building housing effectively illegal, city real estate is incredibly expensive.
I pay our lawyer quite a lot and he also makes mistakes. What have you not - typos, somewhat inconcise language in contracts, but we work to fix it and everything's ok.
Welp.
We used it in prod for ~18 months or so but the experience was not something we'd repeat.
The configuration of Traefik, in our case, embedded in the docker-compose file was not clear.
What was supposed to be a 'auto-detection' of services ended up looking like a hodge-podge of configs between several files.
The logging was sub-par - we couldn't properly debug issues.
And then we ended up migrating terminating HTTPS on AWS's ELB so the let's encrypt integration became not relevant which catalyzed us going back to nginx.
Gotcha, thanks! I've had similar problems with Traefik and docker compose actually, got it working well once, but then after changing some settings around it wasn't properly proxying to one of my containers anymore and I gave up trying to figure it out and switched to Caddy – since I'm not dynamically scaling services to run across many containers in a cluster or such, I don't think Traefik offers much of an advantage for me personally. I've never really looked back to nginx though, I quite like Caddy's sensible defaults.
I wonder what people here think. Would self serve BI work for something which is more context specific? So for example self serve BI for your own sales. What would it take? Why not?
> If we assume that the problem with self-serve BI is not SQL, but the context and semantics of the data, then it follows that the solution is to teach people about the data they're querying, regardless of interface.
This has been the basic truth of any self-serve BI system I've used.
Even in smallish orgs there are often three steps - the engineer who instruments code/implements a metric, the engineer who builds the ETL pipeline into the underlying BI warehouse, and the person querying that data. So there are minimally three people in potentially three different roles who need a shared specification and understanding.
Also, self-serve BI tools can be surprisingly opaque and their output can be hard to validate/test. So even if you know accurately what data you are querying, testing that your query is what you intend is hard.
Hot take as a datamonkey who’s done a lot of work in this vein professionally:
General-purpose self-serve is hostile to non-technical end users. Most do not have the mental model of SQL to guide their usage of the tool, so giving them an “open-ended” option to run their own vizes ends up really being a fence-toss of some technobabble garbage that isn’t useful to them at all.
“Slice n’ Dice”-style filtering added to an existing set of reports, however, is a completely viable middle ground. Practically speaking, this means writing the basic dashboard query, then hooking a bunch of query parameters up to some front-end UI widgets to let end users pick the date range, level-of-detail, filter which trendlines or categories of data are shown, etc. Just use good taste to avoid going overboard - don’t try to make every last detail configurable.
This is something I've been wrestling with for a little bit. The challenge is that if everything is locked behind a data analyst then things only move as fast as the data analyst. If a business person needs some information now, not next quarter, the challenge is managing the queue for the data analyst which devolves into a world of "rush jobs". It's all the things highlighted by the theory of constraints (The Goal by Goldratt is sooo good). You can alleviate the DA bottleneck by getting more DAs or you can find ways to help the business users do some of the basic stuff themselves.
I wholeheartedly agree that just giving a business user access to the straight database is not ideal for all the issues mentioned - they don't know the context and the gotchas in the data combined with probably not understanding how to write SQL. I think an effective data warehouse strategy with straightforward data marts of materialized views can simplify the interaction and maybe even make it really simple for someone to generate basic visualizations. A lot of business people can make basic dashboards in Excel which, worst case, could be connected to a data mart. It's not going to handle BIG data but may cover a large number of use cases for most businesses.
I'm in favor of creating some basic dashboards We've also been experimenting with embedding dashboards in internal tools that provide some slice and dice capabilities but with a high level filter. A user can manipulate and tweak a dashboard for a specific customer but to look at a different customer they need to navigate to it in the internal tools, not via the dashboard.
Yes. Say you want to get all sales for a list of 75 products out of the 30,000 products that you sell in a list of 125 stores out of the 4500 stores you operate. Self-serve is perfect for this. So long as you can paste lists and not require people to search for things and click checkboxes.
What if for some reason gamma radiation changes the equilibrium constants for ADP --> ATP?