While I understand the sentiment, I don’t feel like that’s a particularly fresh revelation… If anything, I was surprised at the handful of dissenting voices on the right. Even before this latest wave of Epstein news, I was willing to bet Trump could just straight up admit to pedophilia and still wouldn’t lose much of his base.

Damn, OP accidentally discovered a new social engineering hack…

This is a genuine question: What do people get out of reading “both sides” (or all sides) of editorialized news? Specifically compared to just reading the facts of the situation.

I’ve been reading almost exclusively AP News for years (and occasionally listening to NPR), and I really like getting the details of whatever just happened (or is currently happening) without too much of a spin or a “take” on it. I can use the primary sources from the article and then form my own opinions.

It’s been awhile since I’ve done much reading from other sources. I used to like NYT, but not so much recently. I don’t really feel like I’m missing much other than the occasional deep dive investigative journalism piece, so I’m curious what other people are getting out of it.

https://youtu.be/XLcswkROgx8

That’s fair, but my point is that the NYT headline/article seems to be so simplified that it almost becomes contradictory. For example, you quoted this bit

The agency took the unusual step of creating websites debunking the conspiracy theory that chemicals are being sprayed in the sky to control the weather or do other things.

But later in the article it also says

The chief executive of Rainmaker, Augustus Doricko, has said that while the company released silver iodide into a pair of clouds on July 2, the mission led to less than half a centimeter of rain falling on drought-stricken farmland

So there is a company that is effectively “spraying chemicals in the sky” with the express intent of “leading to rain falling”. Again, I realize that is very different from the “chemtrail” conspiracy theory, but that nuance could have been handled so much better.

I much prefer the phrasing of the AP article’s headline that I linked earlier: “No, weather modification did not cause the deadly flash floods in Texas.”

Kind of reductive that the headline is “Chemtrials are not real or causing foods”, but the linked website points out that contrails are real, and

Current models indicate that persistent contrail clouds could have a small net warming effect.

And considering that climate change is considered a contributing factor to floods…

Additionally, one of the leading conspiracy theories related to the floods is about cloud seeding, not chemtrails. And, while cloud seeding is real (and has happened in south-central Texas), it did not cause the Texas floods.

So yes, the headline is technically correct, but there’s a lot of additional context that I feel like they’re skipping over.

I was just complaining about these “science” headlines the other day. This one in particular actually startled me a bit because I thought “The Sun is having a moment” was a euphemism for some potentially catastrophic solar flare or something.

Unfortunately sometimes it’s really hard to avoid. I’ve been to restaurants that don’t even have physical menus. You could probably find a menu on their website, but not always.

Idk, I’ve played a lot of Eve Online, and I usually try to be kind to players that are new or friendly. Sims on the other hand…

I’m more a spaghetti-in-the-purse fan myself.

I once wasted an hour trying to figure out why a CLI command straight from a project’s README wouldn’t work, only to figure out that they had em dashes instead of regular dashes in their example. Ended up opening a PR to hopefully save someone the same pain in the future.

The way this article is written is so annoying to me. It’s like this mixture of Buzzfeed sensationalism and Tumblr anthropomorphization.

Our cute little Mars explorer experienced some wanderlust and went on a little adventure, only to trip over an unassuming rock. What happened next will shock you! An amazing yellow substance poured out of the rock, surprising the rover and, more importantly, the world. This mysterious discovery could change everything!

When in reality, the rover ran over a rock that broke open to reveal sulfur. Which is cool, because scientists didn’t know that these rocks contained sulfur, and they don’t yet understand how they formed. But I wish the article could just say that, without all the nonsense.