Sapere Aude
Tag: media
“Wow, that’s a dramatic way of putting it” But however he defines his challenge, Brian is on the cutting edge of a new and emboldened wave of atheism. “There isn’t any good reason to believe in God. It’s that simple.” What’s wrong with God? “What’s wrong with the tooth fairy?. There’s nothing wrong with something that most likely doesn’t exist.”
There are 30m atheists in the United States, and they feel like a persecuted minority.
about time atheists come out of the closet
This back-to-back interviewing on Thursday night of Stephen Colbert (who plays a kinda Bill O’Reilly) by Bill O’Reilly on his show, followed by Bill O’Reilly (who is really Bill O’Reilly) being interviewed by Stephen Colbert on his show, is truly an Escher-ian moment in navel-gazing, postmodern media surrealism.
high-performance publish-subscribe system for quick and efficient dissemination of web micronews. It is a replacement for, and is backwards compatible with, RSS. It uses Beehive, an analysis-driven framework for optimally trading off bandwidth for performance
Certain types of news — for example dramatic disasters and terrorist actions — are massively over-reported, others — such as scientific progress and meaningful statistical surveys of the state of the world — massively under-reported.
2013-08-25: Media reporting
2021-02-22: Vaccine effectiveness is a great example of media innumeracy:
It is imperative to dispel any ambiguity about how vaccine efficacy shown in trials translates into protecting individuals and populations. The mRNA-based Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were shown to have 94–95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, calculated as 100 × (1 minus the attack rate with vaccine divided by the attack rate with placebo). It means that in a population such as the one enrolled in the trials, with a cumulated COVID-19 attack rate over a period of 3 months of ~1% without a vaccine, we would expect 0.05% of vaccinated people would get diseased.
Some 10% of television will be soon be watched via the internet rather than traditional broadcasts.
define ‘soon’? nevertheless, good news for the venice project. tv, good riddance.
There’s been no word from France yet regarding the blatant attempt to anglicize the world, as was feared with Google Print for Libraries. No word yet from the conspiracy theorists either, though it’s obvious this is a CIA spying front corporation.
Crack smoking and completely inaccurate.
the NYT does gmaps. as always when the NYT does something, it is a watershed event
So when Bunch says Craigslist should run text ads and “pay for the college education of the 10s of displaced journalists across America losing their jobs everyday,” he’s attacking the wrong problem with the wrong solution. And to name laid-off or pensionless journalists as Craigslist’s victims instead of the victims of an industry that didn’t turn around fast enough? As Buckmaster says, that’s not the point.
comedy gold
Here are some thoughts on what a truly transparent media organization would do.
- Show who we are
Upside: Readers know who to contact. The organization is revealed as a collection of diverse individuals, not just a brand, an editor and some writers.
Risk: Competitors know who to poach; PR people spam us even more than usual.
- Show what we’re working on
Upside: Tap the wisdom of crowds
Risk: Tip off competitors(although I’d argue that this would just as likely freeze them; after all the prior art would be obvious to all); Risks “scooping ourselves”,robbing the final product of freshness.
- “Process as Content”
Upside: Open participation can make stories better–better researched, better thought through and deeper. It also can crowdsource some of the work of the copy desk and editors. And once the story is done and published, the participants have a sense of collective ownership that encourages them to spread the word.
Risk:Curating the process can quickly hit diminishing returns. Writers end up feeling like a cruise director, constantly trying to get people to participate. And all the other risks of the item above.
- Privilege the crowd
Upside: Maximizes participation.
Risk: If we don’t deploy voting tools or (sigh) a login system, trolls may rule.
- Let readers decide what’s best
Upside: A front page that reflects reader interest better.
Risk: A more predictable and lowbrow front page.
- Wikify everything
Upside: Stories live and grow, remaining relevant long after their original publication (at no cost to us!)
Risk: Stories get progressively less coherent as many cooks mess with them. Whatever brand authority the Wired name brings is diminished over time as the stories become less and less our own work.
large scale white labelling of google software. the future?
Gregor J. Rothfuss 