There are many topics discussed on HN that I find tiresome to read about. For example, diet and fitness topics. You could swap the comments from one article to another and not even notice.
That's why I stopped reading them.
It's never once occurred to me that I should rather open them up, dive into the comments section, and tell the participants that I'm trying to get away from boring discussions about diet and fitness.
The source for this [1] is more nuanced (someone can be both "not okay" with it while also blaming the victims), but it's true that survey respondents were five times more likely to blame the students than the National Guard.
Standards for "functioning democracy" were much lower then.
Most people were ineligible to vote in the 18th and 19th centuries. [1] Not even 20% of the US population voted in presidential elections until the 20th century. [2]
But also consider the new development with courthouse arrests, where ICE and the immigration court officials collaborate to 1) terminate an in-progress asylum case while the asylum seeker is in the courthouse, 2) arrest the asylum seeker as they exit the courtroom.
Some/many of these folks did not enter illegally and did not overstay their visa, but requested asylum at the border and were released into the US. The immigration judges are also not ruling against the asylum seeker, which would be understandable, but it seems the cases are being cut short.
I admit I don't understand the legal details, but it seems to me that this particular group of people targeted by ICE are not here against the law, and also didn't get a fair chance to complete their asylum cases.
I do approve of local police arranging the handover to ICE of convicted criminals for deportation after they've served their sentence.
Try the PBS Kids app. The shows are consistently cast with good role-model children and adults, without being preachy. Many episodes show how to resolve mistakes, frustration, and conflict in beneficial ways.
In comparison, the behavior in the kids shows from other producers (Disney, Nickelodeon, etc.) sometimes presents nasty behavior and name-calling as either inevitable, or something that's "someone else's problem": the instigator, if they're punished at all, might suffer the wrath of an authority figure, or simply bad karma.
My intent when choosing shows is not to hide the existence of bad behavior from children, but to teach them how to deal with it.
(My children also read Calvin and Hobbes. And watch those less-wholesome shows. And binge-watch MrBeast when I'm not around...)
Great recommendation! I can definitely see the difference (e.g. Daniel Tiger). I agree with your philosophy about not hiding the existence of bad behavior, but teaching them how to deal with it. And I'm sure once my little guy grows, he'll gravitate towards Mr. Beast and all that, but at least I'll set a baseline so that that's not all he watches.
"Snark is often conflated with cynicism, which is a troublesome misreading. Snark may speak in cynical terms about a cynical world, but it is not cynicism itself. It is a theory of cynicism.
Be specific. Which article and which citation? Otherwise this is insinuation or even slander.
Edit to add: what you've done here is defame every member of the ProPublica staff, past and present (because you don't name a particular writer or article). There is no way for anyone from ProPublica to refute this.
If you want to critique ProPublica honestly, quote a particular statement they've published.
> Be specific. Which article and which citation? Otherwise this is insinuation or even slander
I’m literally calling out a liar. Not sure how you missed that.
But sure. This is the article [1]. Excerpt from my e-mail to the author:
“I came across your post through Dealbook today. In your article you mention that it is ‘argued that [Sarbanes-Oxley] would hurt initial public offerings, which it didn’t.’ You link through to a working paper on the SSRN at ‘didn't’. From the paper linked to:
‘Although the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the 2003 Global Settlement have reduced the attractiveness of being public for small companies, we argue that the more fundamental problem is the increased inability of small companies to become and remain profitable.’
The paper, in whole, posits that structural changes in the attractiveness of exit by acquisition versus IPO are the salient factor behind a secular decrease in IPO activity…Furthermore, the paper directly concedes (see quote above) that SOX negatively impacted IPO activity. This is not how you represented it in your article.”
Eisinger’s response:
“Thanks, [JumpCrisscross], for your thoughts.”
> what you've done here is defame every member of the ProPublica staff, past and present (because you don't name a particular writer or article)
I’m calling Jesse Eisinger unreliable. Since he’s a founder in good standing at Pro Publica, I’m calling out the publication. Honest journalists don’t get free passes for negligent or crooked bosses.
Pro Publica is worth reading. It is not authoritative—it does not hold itself up to journalistic standards, a rot which starts at the top.
(I’ve used the above exchange to block Pro Publica from influencing lawmaking on Cheyenne, Albany, Sacramento and D.C. I would want anything they say independently corroborated before being acted on.)
Thank you for this. Count me as one more person who's been influenced by your exchange with Eisinger.
Edit: My layperson reading of the source makes me think the ProPublica article would be accurate if its link to the source had the text "which it mostly didn't" rather than "which it didn't". I don't have a problem with the article as it's written, but this is a good reminder that journalists writing for a general audience will often omit qualifiers, sacrificing accuracy for readability. (I, on the other hand, cling dearly to my qualifiers.)
Not sure where you extract is supposed to come from, the paper argue that
> Many have blamed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the 2003
Global Settlement’s effects on analyst coverage for the decline in IPO activity. We find very little
support for the conventional wisdom, and offer an alternative explanation
> Not sure where you extract is supposed to come from
The paper. The one that was cited. (It was a working paper at the time.)
Nevertheless, your quote drives the point home. The paper rejects “the conventional wisdom” which “states that low public market prices are due to either lower valuations caused by the lack of analyst coverage, or to lower earnings as a public firm because of SOX and other costs.”
The Pro Publica article says that paper shows SOX did not reduce IPO volumes. That’s false. The earnings channel is rejected. But otherwise, the paper is about acquisition versus IPO.
It’s understandable incompetence. It turns into a lie when one digs in after the error is pointed out.
> No wonder you got ignored ..
If a journalist ignoring me means I can let their work be ignored in multiple state and national capitals, I will take it as a win.
(And with the benefit of hindsight, the article was dead wrong. I built a bit of a career on the private markets starting in 2012, as it happens.)
I'm just speculating here, but it could be that he doesn't want to risk doxing himself. If he emailed them from his personal email address, which contains his real name, the journalist could out him.
It would be extremely counterproductive for a ProPublica writer to maliciously dox someone who pointed out a logical inconsistency in their writing, if the writer's intent is to bolster their own trustworthiness. Any journalist crazy enough to do this would be forever out of a job because no source would ever speak to them again.
How would that work… will they have to force manufacturers to recall or issue mandatory updates to routers which already support it?
FCC enforcement for interference can work for occasional troublemakers but there’s no way they can go after every single consumer who (most likely not even realizing it) bought a 6Ghz-capable router that is encroaching on the now-privatized frequency band.
I guess we're going to let AT&T, Verizon and everyone else just squat the entire spectrum. "5G" and the pillaging and theft of spectrum that seems to just sit idle anyways has been such a scam. If they wanted innovation there should be more ISM bands and less dependence being encouraged on wireless providers for "Internet access" as opposed to just biting the bullet and running more fiber and copper. But that would be bad for Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T's bottom line so obviously we can't do that.
That's why I stopped reading them.
It's never once occurred to me that I should rather open them up, dive into the comments section, and tell the participants that I'm trying to get away from boring discussions about diet and fitness.
reply