jhiska

Another way to see it is the Internet was supposed to make sharing what one understood as truth easier; instead, what it did was democratize Chomsky's propaganda model by making entry into becoming the media much cheaper; the Internet-based media newcomers essentially copied as best as they could the traditional media's model of _imposing_ their view of reality and manufacturing consent.

In this view, what we're seeing is a power struggle for influence between the media who traditionally held the power to manufacture consent and the Internet-based newcomers.

In meat sports, if someone has a legitimate use for a stimulant then they are barred from competition nevertheless.

In practice, this is better than someone getting the edge because of a medical condition.

So much for the lie that Trump would "end big gov".

More like end having a sustainable budget.

Buzzword-heavy, dreamy-optimistic speculation on how the Internet might change.

What's the author's interest in this pitch?

It's not a sonic attack (experts agree), but it's very likely not mass hysteria either (an unproved speculation from a medical doctor not involved in the investigation).

More research is needed (and not by journalists looking to capitalize on a popular story).

It's not "interesting" because the media industries have been doing this everyday for at least 2 centuries. Maybe more interesting is how people keep getting amnesiac about this.

We can attribute any of it to "the Internet" or "Facebook" or "Twitter"... or to any other communication platform that lets people reach a wide audience.

Because what works in animal studies doesn't often work in humans. This is why you hear about a novel cure for cancer in the news every month -- it's always animal studies.

If you want something to get your hopes up, look for stuff undergoing human studies. They're not new(s) -- in fact, it's stuff that is known and has shown promise for years -- but they're more likely to eventually work.

Whenever you hear about amazing breakthroughs in medicine, look to see if it is an animal study. Those usually do not translate into results in humans.

Do not get your hopes up just yet.

Is Bitcoin a currency?

It's a calming, reassuring article about something that will destroy people's lives and societies in unpredictable ways and disrupt the balance of power for worse.

At least there's always the soothing "solution" of "regulating it". The people who get to "regulate it" are exactly the ones who will wield its power.

After some millions of us have died the other people who survive will eventually find a new equilibrium.

None, or they would have used it, but that doesn't stop people on the Internet from gossiping.

Like Slashdot and Reddit, once Hacker News became influential enough it was taken over by political actors.

It makes sense from a political actor's point of view to push their message on whatever platform reaches the most influential people, and Hacker News was that platform once, but it destroys the platform in the long-term, and I don't think they care about people wanting a platform for discussing news for hackers.

In this article, the message being pushed is one of social change, and although I agree with the agenda, I don't think it's appropriate in Hacker News either.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

One can argue that both almonds and cannabis take a harmful share of water in drought-prone areas and that both will be controlled.

This story again? This is bananas!