Does that mean that if Likud has a headquarters near some civilian installation, that it's okay to blow it up and the civilians along with it?
(Not that I necessarily believe that Hamas had a command center next to all of the children, but even if they did, I don't think that automatically means that blowing up all the children in the school becomes okay)
Hm, I didn't know about the Times doing A/B tests before deciding what headline to run. Yeah, I guess I am wrong about it ever happening -- although it still sounds like once they settle on one digital headline they stick with it for everyone and drop a note in the "updated X ago" line if they change it. For reference here's exactly what they said:
Digital headlines often evolve after a story has been published online, too. A writer might file an update containing new information that changes the focus, for instance, or an editor may decide to update a headline so that search engines will find the article more easily. “In a competitive news environment, there’s value in changing a headline when the story changes, because it keeps you up in search,” Ms. Taylor said.
The Times also makes a practice of running what are called A/B tests on the digital headlines that appear on its homepage: Half of readers will see one headline, and the other half will see an alternative headline, for about half an hour. At the end of the test, The Times will use the headline that attracted more readers. “People think if you change a headline, that it’s some kind of ‘Gotcha!,’ and it’s just not,” said Mark Bulik, a senior editor who oversees digital headlines. “People who think it’s a ‘gotcha’ just don’t have a full understanding of news in the digital world.”
But in any case, I think the point still stands -- Reuters was clearly doing that first-paragraph thing here, updating to remove the Israeli viewpoint (possibly because they had time to gather more information themselves and determine that the Israelis were talking bullshit about what had happened and there wasn't a need to report their claims). I don't believe that they have one version of the headline that represents one set of facts and another that doesn't and they serve them both simultaneously, and archive.is and the Twitter guy just happened to see them transforming in opposite directions, with lies underneath where it says "Updated 4 mins ago". It sort of looks to me more likely that Twitter guy / OP is just lying about what happened, to make Reuters look bad for reasons unknown.
Certainly the thesis that at the current time it's transformed into Israeli propaganda is dead wrong, and that is relevant.
It sounds like they were modifying the headline to be more pro Palestinian and more in line with the facts, and edit out some things Israel was saying which turned out to be lies. I fail to see how that matches up with the thesis that Reuters is slanting the story for Israel, or that their headline was getting more pro-Israeli over time, or the broader argument that Reuters is slanting its coverage to manufacture consent (e.g. look at their current front page).
I do recognize that both of those scenarios involve Reuters changing the headline, yes. You don't have to keep explaining that concept to me; I can grasp it. I was asking OP about some of the details of when they saw these intermediate headlines that they were using to paint a picture that seemed to me to be backwards from the reality.
Yes, I understand what they are claiming Reuters is doing. I am saying that as far as I can tell, it isn’t true (the current headline bears no resemblance to the sanitized version OP is claiming), and I’m wondering why OP is saying that it is.
It looks to me like Reuters edited the headline to take out the idea that Israel says it was targeting militants, because although it may be true that Israel said that, it's become clear that it wasn't true, so there was no reason to repeat it in the headline. OP is saying Reuters did the opposite of that edit, and I'm asking them to clarify, which they so far don't seem to feel like doing.
News organization sometimes also do A/B tests where they show different headlines to different people to see what gets the most clicks. Unsure if Reuters does this but I know some others do
This is a fascinating assertion (as pertains to respectable news outlets like Reuters that drop a little note into place when they edit a headline for the exact reason that they don't want people to get the sense they're being shifty with what they're presenting - I am sure there are news websites that do it but I would be very surprised if any of the mainstream print news outlets that have web presences do it)
Where are these headlines and over what timeframe are you saying that they evolved to the current presentation?
(It never fails to blow my mind how a certain contingent of users manages to combine "being anti-Israel" with "being objectively wrong". Those two concepts are so naturally opposed to each other that it is genuinely a little mysterious to me how they manage to bring them into concordance.)
Inb4 pretending to get confused and claim that I am pro-Israel, which I am not.
Business Insider reports that, in addition to the $5 million, Lindell will also have to pay the guy’s attorney fees. A federal judge has ordered Lindell to pay Zeidman $4,508 in attorney fees. Zeidman had initially sought as much as $12,800 for approximately 16 billed hours, but the judge ruled that some of Zeidman’s legal discovery requests were “overly broad”
That sort of normal, positive influence on American society by personal example and just kind of being a wholesome person, and not a big piece of shit, used to be a pretty common thing, even inside some of the lower levels of official politics
Then Reagan got involved and it’s been all downhill since then, to the point that now someone who is trying to do good things is this kind of outlandishly precious gem that people can barely believe is possible (and yes totally in heard of within the Republicans)
On the front page earlier today was an account of somebody who carried a gun; in two separate instances, people from his neighborhood ambushed him and shot him (and in one instance it was verified on security footage that he defended himself with it after he’d been shot, and would have been killed without having the gun on him). In both cases he got charged with unlawful possession and imprisoned for the gun that saved his life.
Except that the guy was actually doing something wrong (he allegedly locked two women in the bathroom with him and then tried to grab them), and wasn’t handcuffed and had been fighting them, and they were holding him down in a way that causes positional asphyxia which a lot of people don’t know about instead of deliberately choking him to death while a crowd of people yelled at them to stop.
OpenAI at least is now attempting to bolt on a “memory” by having the LLM spit out short snippets of what it might need to know later, which it then has access to when completing later prompts. Like everything else post-GPT-4, it seems fine but doesn’t work really all that well at what it is intended to do.
A good example would be Ellsberg’s writings on “the stalemate machine” in Vietnam - that should be, in my opinion, required reading for anyone who’s involved on any level in our Ukraine policy. I feel like, observing the result, it probably is not.
I mean you’re not wrong. As I said I am sure I would fuck up horribly in these roles, as applied to either Israel or Ukraine. It’s at least 10 times easier to lob criticism and identify problems than it is to actually execute, and solve the problems. But if you’re suggesting that just because someone’s at a high level, they’re obviously wise to the real situation and making good comprehensive decisions, that suggests strongly to me that you probably haven’t worked either in a big company or on military / foreign policy things.
I just tried Claude after having some issues with using GPT on Firefox that OpenAI’s support was unable to resolve other than some “it’s all your fault, clear your cookies” bullet points.
I only tried Claude a little bit so far, but it seems way better.
He worked at the RAND Corporation, inside the Pentagon directly under the Secretary of Defense, on-site in Vietnam, and then based on what he saw, decided to commit an incredibly major federal crime by going public about what was going on in the United States's decision-making process so the American people could be aware. He was charged with espionage, with the government aiming to put him in prison for 115 years, and beat the case. Much later, he wrote a book with his experiences and insights.
That's an extremely broad overview. I would highly recommend looking into more of the details, or maybe reading his book.
raises hand
Question
Does that mean that if Likud has a headquarters near some civilian installation, that it's okay to blow it up and the civilians along with it?
(Not that I necessarily believe that Hamas had a command center next to all of the children, but even if they did, I don't think that automatically means that blowing up all the children in the school becomes okay)