I don't particularly "believe" anyone in this story 100%. But your idea that I should just believe this other supposed source of information that you have, because you say, 'trust me bro', is a little nonsensical. All any of us can do is try to gather information from varied sources and then run it through our own filter of experience and weigh the probabilities and come to a "most likely" situation. I would never say that Bari Weiss absolutely positively 100% buried the story because she's biased towards the administration, but on the balance of probabilities, that seems to be what's going on. If you have other *remotely credible* information sources, feel free to share them. But I suspect that on the balance of probabilities your sources are getting paid directly from the Kremlin.

It's pretty ironic that the US gets pissed at this when Bari Weiss is in hot water for burying a 60 minutes news story that the administration didn't like.

There's a lot of factors, and we're getting information that's coming from biased people (Weiss is clearly pro-Trump, and the reporter is obviously and understandably concerned about her own career). It's almost impossible for us to ascertain the complete truth in a situation like this. Is it plausible that Weiss is just being a good editor in chief? It strains credibility to say so. While I would take any media story with a grain of salt, and it's true that this particular news story didn't interview the administration, it's also true that the reporter did contact the administration for interviews and they were turned down, and it said so in the story. Based on the limited information we have here, I need to side with the people criticizing Bari Weiss. This looks really bad for her.

You're correct that you shouldn't necessarily balance one side (e.g. climate science) with the "other side" (e.g. climate denialism) but you should absolutely balance all reporting with healthy skepticism. Even looking at a news article where the reporter is trying to be honest, there's going to be things they get fundamentally wrong. All media consumption requires a sober second thought. The worst journalism is created when journalists drink their own Kool-Aid and believe they have a right to have everything they write believed simply because they're a member of some higher class of human. Weiss is clearly trying to hide the story, but that doesn't prove the story is 100% accurate. I've had the displeasure of being close to a few actual news stories in my life, and the articles published in the media were *always* missing fundamental and important elements of the real story.

This reminds me of the rush to build 3D televisions. It was pushed by industry like this is the next big thing, and you need to buy these new TVs to keep up, but the technology was underwhelming, most movies weren't shot in proper 3D (about the only one would be the original Avatar) and consumers didn't want to wear special glasses, where you had to sit almost straight on to the TV and couldn't lay down on your couch sideways, etc. We don't need 5K even for games. If you think you do, just wait a couple years and your eyesight will degrade enough that you can't see the difference anyway.

When Isaacman was originally nominated, the whole space community was like, "oh, that's an interesting pick." Yes, he's a rich guy and pays for private missions via SpaceX, but his credentials are pretty solid, and he really is a believer in the ideals of space exploration. He also sees the value in public/private partnerships. Nobody thinks NASA is doing anything close to what SpaceX is accomplishing. Trump reportedly yanked the original nomination because someone told him that Isaacman had some history of donations to democrats, and he didn't like that. Which is why Isaacman has since make some donations to MAGA stuff as well. I assume that was part of the deal. But really, take a look at this guy before you dismiss him out of hand. This isn't a JFK Jr. type of pick.

I just don't think many people want to watch an awards show where there's a bunch of angry people trying to push a political agenda. I mean, I support their right to free speech, and I've always felt like the games industry abused developers, but you're in the business of entertainment, and hearing people complain about their industry (an industry that I support with multiple game purchases per year) isn't what I'd call entertainment. At most I'd watch it to hear what the big games are, and maybe to see someone get some recognition for their hard work on a particularly well made title.

There's an interesting new idea where you can get some journals to pre-approve publication of your study by first submitting your plan... so you outline exactly how you are going to perform the experiment and analyze it. Then the journal pre-approves it, you perform the experiment/study, and they'll guarantee to publish your results (if you follow your plan) no matter the outcome. The idea is to fix the problem where journals only want to publish surprising results because they're more exciting, but the problem is that surprising results are also more likely to be wrong, and also to get cited.

The scientific community generally knows they have a serious problem, and they want to fix it, but in my opinion they're moving pretty slow. I don't know if they understand how much trust they're losing every time a story like this comes out. Ultimately it's good that these studies are being retracted, but the slow and painful way it's happening is just crushing trust in science as an institution. I'd like to see the scientific community take a stronger and faster approach to solving these problems.

To be fair, throughout history when countries didn't get along (which was most of the time) they solved it by throwing young men into meat grinders to achieve their aims. The idea after WWII was to stop using armed conflict to settle disputes and do it with monetary coercion. This was a much better deal for young military-age men the world over. The fact that Russia gave a big F U to the western world and its monetary policy, and started throwing young men into a meat grinder again, is a disheartening development. The fact that the US is now run by a guy who idolizes Putin and wants to use those same tactics, and throw away the international monetary system... that's a really scary development.

I think this is the point of cryptocurrencies. They want to be free of government interference. Sanctions are a form of government interference. It's working as intended.

Gotta be honest, every time someone collapses and is in distress, there are always a bunch of people who pull out their phones and start recording. As a first responder, it's just so gross that someone would think to start recording instead of pitching in or calling 911. Seriously, you may need to bare their chest to apply an AED or do compressions. It's quite embarrassing for the casualty for a lot of reasons. Give people some privacy. They're fellow human beings. We need to stop pretending like it's perfectly OK to film strangers in public. Legal? Sure. Should you be doing it? 9 times out of 10, no.

I think that's very fair, but I don't think you can rule out the effect of social conformity.

If you believe one side or the other is factually correct and the other is factually incorrect, then you drank someone's kool-aid and you should spit it out. Both "sides" use demonstrably false logic and reasoning in their arguments, but that doesn't mean those arguments aren't effective in convincing people to follow them. The fact is that the vast majority of people live their life on vibes and feeling, and not based on logic and reason. That's kind of the point of this article, after all. Logic and reason isn't as effective as appealing to someone's emotions.

Remember that a person who moves from a liberal city to a conservative town will invariably become more conservative in their opinions, and the opposite is also true. Most of what people say outwardly is not an expression of their actual beliefs, but what they believe will get them the most positive rewards from the people around them.

True. I love how the vendors are selling this as a privacy feature, when in reality it's a CYA feature. They're clearly going to be hit by massive class action lawsuits over this, and they just seem oblivious to it. I guess if there's money to be made now, don't worry about the future. Hire some lawyers.