Perhaps the reason people keep repeating it is that someone makes the statement without any reasons, provides an alternative again without any reasons.
"Why are you not using docker to sandbox your code?"
"Umm.. someone on HN told me docker is not a sandbox, to use randomtool instead"
Firefox doubled down on using/selling user data for advertising purposes, so that's a big reason for avoiding it.
I held onto it as someone who didn't even like the politics of the people behind it (the beauty of open source), for the sake of browser engine diversity, but changing terms of service of use of personal data was the final blow
It seems irrational to me to switch to chrome (and where else could you switch to?) over data sale concerns. A more rational approach could be a Firefox fork that preserves privacy.
Statistics show that kids brought up with both parents have much better prospects in life.
The decision to have kids should be a deliberate commitment between the parents, not some kind of lottery where one falls pregnant then decides what to do next.
Application toolkits will eventually drop support for X11. GTK will remove it in GTK5. Not sure what Qt's plans are, but I'd have to think X11 support is long for this world there as well.
GNOME is an outlier and not indicative of general trends. They pretty much do what they want, as a silo, ignoring the larger ecosystem. They want you to use their software stack all the way through.
It's a shame about all the political bullshit they injected into the project, which already resulted in it being removed from several package repositories. I hope someone makes another fork in the vein of xlibre, but without political bullshit.
When thinking about Christianity, I personally make the distinction between the Christian faith, and the various Churches i.e. the political institutions that grew around the Christian faith.
In its first few centuries Christianity was community-centered, until about the 4th century when it started getting institutionalized in Rome.
Does that mean to say "the Chinese government regularly subsidizes BYD"? Because the US regularly subsidize Ford, and I don't think you'll find any one that disagrees with that.
Great job in training nigeriens to pick up fossil preservation work. Glad the government is taking a rational approach in collaborating with the US based archeologist.
The editors mostly reference left-leaning media outlets when it comes to political topics, without providing a counterbalance from right-leaning sources, assuming it were a truth-seeking endeavor.
As a non American this is very obvious to me.
Even Reuters that was supposedly meant to be a non-biased media outlet is clearly left-leaning at this point
Indeed, Wikipedia lists it as a good source[1]. It's worth comparing that to outlets like CNN (reliable, but "... talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.") or The Wall Street Journal ("Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces.")
I’m guessing the other person meant AP not Reuters. Both used to be considered to be straightforward neutral primary sources, and to many readers they both occupied the same role in the news industry. But since around 2016, the AP has shifted more and more left. This is evident in their editorial guidelines, which include guidance on controversial current issues that makes them biased. This bias is recognized in respected bias ratings (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart). Reuters is typically considered center though.
This is an astute observation, and if I may I’d like to add to it.
When evaluating a news source for whether it’s unbiased, left or right, we necessarily look at the stories it presents and check whether they align with and present in a positive light a particular political option.
We call it „unbiased” if it doesn’t particularly favor any of these.
We’re already in the realm of US electoral politics - for a second we can assume that nothing else exists.
In 2016 the political landscape shifted drammatically and presenting the „right wing” option in a favorable light required certain concessions when it comes to previous journalistic standards.
So, just by sticking to its previous guidelines, the AP would automatically shift to the „left” - because the landscape changes.
It would be more accurate to say that the world shifted underneath AP’s lense and so it immediately started being perceived as left wing.
If New York Post just "leans right", then AP should post obvious lies en masse every day for the left with non existing fact checking. If the scale is this, then it is a completely useless metric. It puts using "ostensibly" regarding Trump's random word clouds to the same level as this: https://nypost.com/2022/09/06/teacher-enoch-burke-jailed-ove.... The first paragraph starts with a lie, then the last two paragraphs are worse than anything on AP... but sure, the metric is definitely useful.
(I expect a lot fewer people to reference that chart in the future unless they fix the new user interface)
These measurements do feel a bit arbitrary, since our definitions of left and right bias are subject to change. For example, one interesting thing about the AP is that their stylebook used to urge their reporters to avoid even using the word "Palestine," one of many ways they put their thumb on the scale in favor of Israel in that conflict. (not sure what it says today) They somewhat famously fired a reporter for having participated in some college activism related to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would seem very quaint and anodyne today, a firing that stirred up journalists and was pretty widely regarded outside the right wing media sphere as unfair. (ironically, a week or two later the IDF destroyed the AP's Gaza office in an airstrike)
The Right-leaning has a relevant influence on media because some of its supporters are affluent and it is in their financial interest. Ex: Bezos bought a newspaper. The same is far less often the case for the Left-leaning. There are few "land and factory owners" that are part of a pro-worker movement, simply because it would hurt them (or at least that's what they truly believe).
Accordingly, the average media experienced a shift to the right, but not to the left. To be neutral, one thus has to look left of the average of what the media report.
This comment was downvoted and I honestly can't understand why. Given the way people use political terminology with reference to media bias, it's certainly true.
I've been guilty of pointing out that the US doesn't really have a left wing, according to the textbook definitions of things, but that's not how people usually talk. People really are talking about the median when they say "politically neutral," even if they shouldn't.
And here's the point: the median can certainly shift as the number of media sources shifts, or if you prefer, as the culture shifts.
I'm very surprised to hear Reuters described as left wing. I suppose though that even my Republican twice Trump voting uncle is left of someone, is that what you mean?
I'm increasingly concerned about the fact that any media outlet, conservative or otherwise, that doesn't engage in far right pandering to the propaganda of politicians is magically labeled "left wing." Anecdotal but someone was arguing to me at a pub last night that Piers Morgan is a liberal now because of his criticism of Israel.
Well Morgan was the editor of a broadly left wing tabloid in the UK for 11 years. His politics are quite fluid, except that I think he's consistently quite socially conservative ... "Common Sense" sort of thing.
Or "anything left of right is left-leaning", I suppose. It's the Overton window and the steady decline of moderation; centrists are wrong no matter who you ask ("pick a side you coward", "silence is complicity"), moderate Republicans are RINOs, Republican In Name Only [0], and their disloyalty to the Party is shamed.
Would this result in surprises like if a function is turned to async by adding an await keyword, all of a sudden all functions that have it in their call stack become async
It would work the same as it works now for generators. A function that calls a generator function isn't a generator just because of that; it only is if it also has the yield keyword in it (or yield from, which is a way of chaining generators).
Similarly, a function that calls an async function wouldn't itself be async unless it also had the await keyword. But of course the usual way of calling an async function would be to await it. And calling it without awaiting it wouldn't return a value, just as with a generator; calling a generator function without yielding from it returns a generator object, and calling an async function without awaiting it would return a future object. You could then await the future later, or pass it to some other function that awaited it.
"Why are you not using docker to sandbox your code?"
"Umm.. someone on HN told me docker is not a sandbox, to use randomtool instead"