What’s up today?


That doesn’t actually matter. It’s impossible to identify the real positives in the presence of that many false positives.

Study the subject inside-out and convince me you truly understand it. Collect evidence, and I mean real evidence, not some bullshit out-of-context misinterpretation of something you have no idea about, as usual in conspiracy theorist circles. Then, and only then, publish it. Be ready to answer all questions because your piece will be taken apart and scrutinized, as it should be. At the first sign that a “theory” is less thorough than this, I’ll freely dismiss it as just another bullshit conspiracy theory, and I’ll be right to do so.


It does matter. Because that slight possibility is precisely what calls for the latter part, to scrutinize anything at all. If it’s all bullshit by nature, why even bother to approach it in any rational manner.

Put under the sort of scrutiny and having to meet the credibility demands you’ve just outlined, most journalist would starve to death, no matter if they write for Washington Post or Truth For All Today! or Free the People Now!


… as they should, I may add. Though I would suggest them to look for a job they are actually good at.


Well, some people may never become good at anything, so I suggest lowering your standards once again and offering them a job where they’re bound to cause the minimum damage possible.


Every time a journalist comes out with a half-assed report about something that, if proven to be true, would be very important, the readers learn two things: 1) proof is optional, 2) nothing ever is certain. That kind of journalism is about entertainment, not about alerting the public to things that went wrong and need to be changed. It doesn’t (can’t) fix anything but it undermines the work of those journalists who do their jobs.


Can you imagine all the journalists doing what you’ve just set as an example of great job?

Public would go totally numb and alerting anyone when something actually happens would only be possible through !televarieté! and screaming for attention in the cheapest sensationalist manner.

Bad journalist do not undermine the great ones. They underscore them. Same in any field.



In most fields, doing a lousy job gets you fired, or sends you to jail even. What would happen if a civil engineer could design one sub-standard bridge after the other with impunity? Would people dare to cross bridges?

That’s what happens in journalism though, but the effects are less visible though nonetheless dramatic. People no longer trust journalism, and for a good reason. In what way would that not undermine the reputation of the good jounalists too???

The public is already numb exactly because journalism is rarely beyond cheap sensationalism. They are deafened by it to the point that they can’t even hear a logical argument.


Well he can’t. Because if he does it once, he won’t get to do it again, as a more capable engineer will get to design another one. And that’s the point.

If you’re not able to discern a good journalism from the bad one, is the bad journalism at fault? If you can’t tell a great piece of work even when measured against crap, how on earth are you gonna appreciate great work when everything meets the same standard?

Do you really believe that making everything great would work? It would just temporarily change the mediocrity standards.

Blaming public’s inertia on shoddy or yellow journalism seems dishonest. You are responsible for what you read. Not the schmuck who has written it. And you are responsible for the stance you take after you have read it.


You were saying journalist should be able to post stuff without due diligence, but now you’re saying they should or would be weeded out. Those two views are incompatible and we already know the bad journalists are not getting weeded out because we can see they have become the majority. Anyway, I’m probably finished with this discussion because I don’t have much else to say.



No. I was talking about bad engineers. Because you were talking about engineers. And now I hope we’ll get to astronauts. I want to the Moon soon.

That’s because engineers were a bad parallel to begin with. Anyway, to my logic, those two views would still be perfectly in line.

They have become the majority because the very public you would rather see pampered wants to read columns for free. That is not a bad journalist’s fault. And the same public can say “no no no! This crap. I want something better!” And go elsewhere.

If they won’t because they’re numb, dulled out, lazy and slow, killing off bad journalism won’t help. If you terminated shitty writers, these folks would probably stop reading altogether.

And before you back out, let me tell you I despise bad writing as much as you do. But it’s definitely not what I blame for my stupor.


Announcing Rust 1.31 and Rust 2018


Mentions MAID as one of 4 coins not bleeding that much in price compare to bitcoin in last weeks.



Abba, Abba…


3 posts were split to a new topic: Poll on political identification


Please keep political posts to the #off-topic category as per forum guidelines.

The posts moved were to do with a political identification Poll. Go and vote if you wish to. Link is provided just above this post.


A SAFENetwork messaging app is needed urgently.