tb_technical

Editors have biases. The best we can do is shine a spotlight on them.

People are opposed to this, of course. No one likes to be reminded of how they're limited - and people get really nasty when you accuse them of being a dishonest interlocutor.

There already is a separate wikipedia article about the specific program. It is an extensive article. If you look up "Stargate CIA" in any search engine you'll find it easily.

There is a large amount of data on this topic. Literally hundreds of pages of reports and summaries of experiments written over decades of effort (if memory serves). The CIA was trying to use the phenomenon to view distant targets with mediums. It was deemed ineffective, and discontinued in the 90s. Even today there are people attempting to replicate remote viewing and prove it as a phenomenon.

For the record, I do not believe this phenomenon is as effective as is claimed. Regardless there is a chance that remote viewing (also known as astral projection) is just something the human brain commonly imagines in some populations. It might be an emergent property of human brains reacting to certain input stimulus, like ASMR.

Regardless, the article written about remote viewing as a concept should be allowed to cite documents about how the Stargate program defined and tested remote viewing (their methodologies, etc). But editors, like all humans, have bias.

There was a similar kerfuffle that happened about a decade and a half ago about homeopathy. It lead to an edit thread where one of the founders of Wikipedia was cursing about how fake something was.

The only objection I have to this, is that primary sources relevant to an article should be allowed to be cited. If a study, whitepaper, or report is widely discredited - include that too. The sum of human knowledge needs to include what we know to be false as well.

The remote viewing article keeps being reverted as pseudoscientific when original research conducted by the CIA is cited. Such citations are removed swiftly. Any changes are denied or rolled back.

The rationale is that, even though the documents themselves are a primary source from an organization that poured significant resources into researching the phenomenon of remote viewing, the individual posting the declassified document isn't an authority on the subject.

Apparently if youre not a doctor, you can't read primary sources?

Many such cases.

Wikipedia is absolutely a powerful resource, but it it's clearly controlled by moderators with a bias, and there's no incentive to challenge said bias or consider alternative worldviews.

From the article you posted, blocking still stops people from communicating with you.

The only difference with how it is now is they can still view your posts. I don't have a dog in this fight (don't have Twitter) but this seems like a good feature.

On reddit I've been blocked and then called a Nazi/reprehensible person/nonhuman scum. When blocked, you can't see what people say about you. I would like to report the comments for harassment, but I can't.

Blocking should stop someone from being able to communicate with you - but it shouldn't be a shield against reporting harassment.

Many artists (and normal people) publish their works there: from anime girls to short story updates on royal road.

I'm about to do what you just asked people not to do. Perhaps, we're so used to dishonest interlocutors online that we search for intentions in people's statements?

Sorry, I had to.

Alternatively, encourage hunting to control the population and harvest all that useful food.

Congress should not be allowed to change any of their positions (besides mutual fund backed retirement accounts, 401ks, etc) while in office. But they'll never vote for this.

I guess the best thing you can do, individually, is watch Nancy Pelosi on unusual whales and make the same moves.

It's wild to me that the DHS account was created in Tel Aviv. Several American nationalists are Indian.

It's absolutely nuts.

Imprisoned, beaten with foam pool noodles, and pelted with whipped cream pies.

Treated like the clowns they were behaving as.

Never thought of it that way. I like the positive framing.

Oftentimes I worry about industrial pollution, unsafe and unfair working conditions, and a loss of relevance in high technology.

But in this case, the factories are not widely staffed - so there's reduced chances of accidents.

The future is now, and I'm the old man.

Interestig, so you could say that the European and American governments share blame in this development. A shame.

Could you elaborate why an executive having sensitive conversations with a governor is corrupt? I'm having difficulty understanding this outlook.

My industry has historically been extremely corrupt. This is why rules were defined for reportable expenses. Could you boil down your viewpoint into rules that can be applied in an organization, rather than a vibe test? I think I could better understand you, then.

Personally, I define it as corruption when quid pro quo occurs, nice gifts, expensive dinners, etc.

In government work, in my field specifically, it's the inappropriate transfer of money (gifts, deals, dinners) that's reportable.

The limit for reporting in my field (for gifts) is 10 dollars.

That's simply not true, many HAMs in remote areas join to learn how to operate radio equipment and assist crisis responders - especially in the northern frontier states. There's a big appeal in my community - but we might not be the norm.

Look into the ARES program (ARRL).

They absolutely also enjoy it for personal use, but in areas where dying from exposure is a real concern in winter, the radio is an important lifeline.