I have noticed a pattern of negative coverage of China by the New York Times from "hacking from China" (often indirectly implicating the government), to currency manipulation, to goods dumping. I'm concerned that I may be consuming a warped perspective. It seems like the New York Times is creating a case against China. Is it merited?
It's important to make a strong effort to substantiate negative claims. So, it is in that spirit that I ask: is the criticism raised in this article fair? Does China have an anomalous record on freedom of the press by comparison to other nations of similar development (BRIC, APEC, etc)?
> Does China have an anomalous record on freedom of the press by comparison to other nations of similar development (BRIC, APEC, etc)
Is that the right point of reference? Maybe a more reasonable point of reference would be "the top 10 nations by GDP." In that case, you'd be comparing it to Japan, United States, England, France, etc. I suspect their record on freedom of the press is significantly worse, however I think I also consume biased information.
I try to be aware of biases, but the OTC EFAs were prescribed by my physician, and there have been some studies backing DHA in particular as effective for depression.
> Always great to see studies looking at the mental implications of non-psychoactive drugs.
... also great to read about the mental implications of priming. I'll be more punitive/forgiving depending on the unrelated thought I had minutes earlier...
However, yesterday a couple million people really needed to know what was going on immediately. For those of us who live in and around Boston, it's a really small town (that punches wayyy above its weight). It seems like everybody I know in Boston was nearby to some part of the craziness. Those who weren't had a loved one nearby.
Everyone in Boston can say something like, "my friend crossed the finish line a half hour before the blasts," "my girlfriend worked right by the finish line," "I walked through Kendall a half hour before the MIT cop was shot," "my neighbor went to the hospital with a somewhat serious wound."
Given the proximately, we simply needed to know where stuff was happening immediately. People will point to the journalistic errors and say we were dangerously misled at times. But that is the risk of all information that pops up on the internet. Everyone living in the internet age has learned to attach probabilities to everthing we read. I give CNN breaking news 60% probability of getting it right. I give @YourAnonNews 30% probability of getting it right. Although Twitter reports are often wrong, the right story is usually in there, and thoughtful people are always questioning the right facts.
I just want to come back to where I started. You're right that breaking news is broken. But yesterday, the chatter on Twitter alerted us of risks hours ahead of sound/verifiable reporting. Although many of those reports were quickly rescinded, I believe many Bostonians made prudent, timely choices as a result.
I guess my point is that news has different purposes for different audiences. For at least one audence yesterday, I thought the information coming over good accounts on Twitter was a blessing.
> However, yesterday a couple million people really needed to know what was going on immediately.
Reminds me of energy drinks.
Energy drinks make sense for some athletes, in some situations. But mostly, they're purchased by people who have been conditioned, in some way and to some extent or another, to think they need an energy drink.
Hmm... perhaps that's a productive definition of "journalism." ... But I guess I don't understand your point.
If you're saying that meaningful information can't be conveyed in 142 characters then I think you'd be dismissing the majority of spoken conversations, chat, sms, etc. A good example to the contrary: https://twitter.com/Boston_Police
If diluted quality and deluge quantity--firehouse, ahem--is what this thread is about, those are the points I speak to.
Trivial information can be shared in 142 characters. Sure, T is used by some as an aggregator/reader/chat tool, but then what are we doing talking tech here at HN instead of on T? The format and structure just isn't optimal for these functions. It's breadth and no depth with that format and structure.
I never said gossip is of zero value, but I did say 142 characters will never be journalism. The legacy media structure is precisely why the world is in such a bad spot today. That you jest about journalism is just an example of the systemic problem in society writ large. What you should be complaining about is quality, not the function itself.
> That you jest about journalism is just an example of the systemic problem in society writ large...
The last thing I wanted was to jest about journalism. I'm an avid reader of long accounts of events. My point in putting "journalism" in quotes was that you seemed to be offering a definition to a specific term as opposed to discussing the capacity to convey information through various media.
I didn't want to argue semantics -- I wanted to discuss the capacity of Twitter to convey information quickly.
> What you should be complaining about is quality, not the function itself.
142 characters is a headline. Often it includes a link to a supporting article and discussion. Sometimes your non-journalism is arranged on a page in a list. Sometimes with sorted and scored with points assigned by the site's users, sometimes not.
This is a bizarre comment to read on a news aggregation and discussion site.
Whenever the world is shaken by some awful tragedy, the event is followed by an outpouring of kindness. I remember a trip to NYC right after 9/11; the good will was palpable from our cabbies to our friends. Sandy Hook had a similar affect...
In every case I can think of, the cumulative good will so vastly outweighed the malice behind the incident that it felt like the worlds Karma account was being made whole again and then some. From what I've seen, most everybody pitches in with some kind gesture.
Regarding @paulg's Tweet, the volume of RTs/Favorites so vastly outweighed the few negative comments, I'm led to believe that most people empathized with the reaction to do something kind.
As for the few who reacted negatively: It seems that any comment that is heard by a sufficiently large audience will be misinterpreted by some. I tend to doubt that they willfully misinterpreted the intent... but that's just a hunch.
According to Alex: When you show people respect, something magical happens, people respect you back and it pays off. Suddenly, they want to help you win.
This reminds me of one of my favorite rules from Stephen Covey: Seek First to Understand [1]
According to Covey (and I paraphrase), good conversations begin when one party makes a real effort to understand the other. This generally triggers a similar reaction on the part of the other person. It seems like a small change in conversational style but what happens as a result is revolutionary.
Alex says: people will "want to help you win". In my experience this seems to be the case. It's also just a more pleasant way live.
Awesome. Does DO not yet have a comprehensive command line tool?
I'm curious if any Hacker News readers have successfully migrated from Engineyard/Heroku to Digital Ocean. If so, I'd love to hear about your experiences. I am specifically curious about:
1) How complex/big was your Heroku/EY deployment
2) Time invested for migration
3) Stability since migration
4) Ongoing maintenance commitment
5) If you could turn back time and invest this investment elsewhere, would you?
I love Heroku, but I'm a bit concerned that we're becoming too interwoven/dependent on them. We currently have an issue with the stability of one of the Heroku 3rd-party redis tools timing out and feel a bit trapped... I would love to hear an analysis of others' migration experiences.
I generally use Heroku for an alpha deployment, but then migrate to DigitalOcean for stable production deployment. I feel Heroku can get too expensive as the application scales up.
When you say "too expensive," I'm curious what you mean... Are you including time/labor in your cost-benefit analysis? For me, Heroku allows me to buy more engineering time (and less sys ops complexity) to devote to other problems. From this perspective, do you still consider DO cheaper? If so, at what ~number of dynos, does it become cheaper... (I realize this is an impossible number to pinpoint...)
Link shorteners have the potential to dramatically reduce the robustness of the internet. A single failure point can break a lot of stuff. To my knowledge Twitter justifies their link shorteners with a security argument: they can easily prevent outbound clicks to suspicious sites. Although there is certainly value there, I'm skeptical. I bet it's more a matter of getting data on the kind of outbound traffic they're driving.
It's important to make a strong effort to substantiate negative claims. So, it is in that spirit that I ask: is the criticism raised in this article fair? Does China have an anomalous record on freedom of the press by comparison to other nations of similar development (BRIC, APEC, etc)?