… Diane?

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it’s different. Consider again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it every corn you love, every corn you know, every corn you ever heard of, every cultivar that ever was, lived out its life. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident recipes, listicles, and culinary doctrines, every shopper and forager, every binger and dieter, every planter and harvester of fields, every succotash and popcorn, every monoecious couple in love, every pistil and stamen, hopeful seedling, barbecuer and chef, every eater of cornmeal, every corrupt subsidy, every cob and kernel in the history of our tummies lived there—on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

And floss!

In your list, Politico is classified as a reliable source specifically on the topic of american politics.

Yes, that’s correct. “Base” Politico is a publication about American politics. For European politics, we turn to the sister publication Politico Europe. We use Politico Europe all the time as a reliable source for European politics. The reason it’s not mentioned on that perennial sources list is because the list is for oft-discussed sources, and Politico Europe isn’t that discussed, mainly because “base” Politico has functionally the same reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and is therefore treated as a proxy.

And if I understand your definition of a reliable source correctly it is about whether events and relevant topics are mentioned and not about how they are framed, right? So take the facts out of sources but do not automatically accept the framing of the facts from the source, am I correct?

You have the right basic idea, but it’s more complicated than that. We acknowledge that literally every source we’re going to use has a bias; what we don’t tolerate is a source letting its bias interfere with factual accuracy – not just on the individual points but the cohesive whole of the work. Dishonest framing that takes verifiably true individual points and turns them into an inaccurate whole makes for a bad source, and we try not to use sources that do this.

We also strongly examine conflict of interest, what other sources with good reputations for reliability are saying, etc. If we feel a biased source has reliability for accuracy, the rest falls more into our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. It’s hard to summarize, because the RS and NPOV pages, despite their length, already summarize these source guidelines about as well as you can without stripping away important nuances.

Fuck you! My weird, ethereal mesh parents let me link to their copper all the time, and I turned out just fine. The problem is all these underparented kids nowadays with their undeveloped third eyes, unprepared for the wondrous horrors of existence.

We’re keenly aware of Politico’s controversies when we use them as a reliable source. We consider them to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and sorry to say, we’re generally better at sussing that out than most people – not inherently but because that’s what years of writing encyclopedic prose does to a mf.

We use Politico all the time as a generally reliable source on Wikipedia. The sponsored content is obviously shitty, but it’s clearly distinguished by its “Sponsored” mark. If that goes, then banning it as a source might be a level-headed response.

I don’t want to distract from the article itself, but on a generic level, The Signpost is worth reading for anyone interested in the “behind-the-scenes” of the project. They published another article about this a couple weeks ago.

I wouldn’t use Mullvad when it’s openly hostile to peer-to-peer torrenting. Even outside of the obvious – piracy is one of the best and most unique use cases for a VPN – I use torrents wherever the option is available for legal downloads because that’s normally faster, spares a load on the server, and strengthens the download’s resiliency. That Mullvad wants to restrict that is their (reasonable) call, but it’s not one that’s going to get my money.

“If begging the question worked, we wouldn’t need it smuggled in through a shitty meme.”

“Over 900 military bases around the world” is doing a lot of heavy lifting considering a) the 900 figure is pulled out of their ass and more importantly b) it’s more like 130 outside the US, mostly concentrated in a few countries – unless the meme is suggesting US military bases on its own soil are there primarily as a bulwark against socialism.

More importantly, though, as someone else pointed out: it’s about hegemony generically. If US foreign military bases exist not to further US hegemony but in the interest of worshipping capitalism, why are there bases in Europe standing in defense of social democratic countries against – what has now been for decades – one of the world’s most hypercapitalist shitholes? Genuinely what work are these bases doing to uphold specifically capitalism? Did I wake up in 1983? Is the 82nd Airborne on its way to Grenada?

“My Ramsay senses are tingling.”

Here’s an exaggerated tasting platter for you. I’ll add that it’s not that exaggerated (except for the boom at 1:36; I never heard that in the show).

You’ll just have to turn up the volume on Cbat.

Oh, shit. I’m sorry. I’ve heard some wild takes on Lemmy lately, but I still shouldn’t have assumed.

But now I still have to disagree; this is part of a worldwide psychological experiment for Google to learn about users’ willingness to do useless work.

waterphone intensifies as you dab your tears with $100 bills

It’s a purely psychological thing inside your brain; it will cut through the tinnitus. You can’t loophole your way around it; you have to hear the sounds at the same noticeable volume a person with normal hearing would.

EDIT: I’m a dum dum.

I use and routinely contribute to OSM, and I hate Google Maps both ethically and because the actual underlying map is just half-baked.

This is a ridiculous explanation for why GMaps suggests nominally slower routes alongside the main one. What’s happening in the OP image is clearly a bug, not Google begging you to pretty please do 8 superfluous minutes of data collection for them.

• Some people have areas they’re more comfortable with. For example, some people are afraid of driving on a bustling highway or through a claustrophobic downtown. Alternative routes make it more likely that this person can forgo a few minutes in favor of something more comfortable.
• The router isn’t omniscient. Sometimes the human using the router knows more about local conditions than the router itself does, e.g. that a road it’s taking you through has a problem. Alternative routes again make it more likely that you give the user a satisfactory route.

This comment is just fucking stupid and based on nothing when a much more cogent explanation exists. I’m sure it doesn’t hurt that you travel farther, but seriously? Show any evidence at all that this is why it performs this extremely normal and explicable routing operation.

You get paid $5000 per day for the rest of your life (matching inflation), but the American Kitchen Nightmares editors get to omnisciently and in real time control the sound effects in your life. Only you hear them, but you can never tune them out. Do you accept?

To clarify, Lsjbot is/was a deterministic bot that would create stub articles about subjects functionally guaranteed to be notable (by whatever ceb.wiki’s standards are, which I think mirror ours on en.wiki). It would add basic information in a template format.

E.g. “Pissus shitticus is an X in the family Y. It was described in 1234 by Some Fucking Guy.”

The upside to this is that one of the hardest parts of making a good article is just having the article in the first place. Labor-wise it’s not difficult, but it’s a psychological thing.

The downside is that, unlike on en.wiki which already has its hands full with a couple million bot-created articles, ceb.wiki could not possibly ever hope to substantially complete 99% of these. So they’ll be stuck as shitty stubs that are little more than a verbose database entry for eternity.

That makes good sense; sometimes you have an unrealistic expectation for the quality of answers, and seeing the mediocre reality grounds you.

That leads into another idea: checking a candidate solution’s correctness is normally much easier than finding the solution. Computational complexity theory shows this rigorously with more formalized problems. So given a wrong answer, you have a much easier gateway from which to fall into the problem. (I’ve had this happen really badly at least once.)