Apple is also joining the ‘AI’ game. They have been bragging about all their ‘AI’ garbage in their new phones. That is specifically why I just got rid of my iPhone. I’m happy with GrapheneOS where they don’t want my info, and have shown no signs of wanting to shove ‘AI’ into any of my things.

I didn’t say both sides are the same. I made a stupid joke about a garbage operating system and the garbage company that runs it.

And your example of stopping people on the streets to inspect their phones doesn’t really do a great job at making the argument you’re trying to make. We have ICE running around and throwing people into contracted prisons even when they have proof of citizenship. We are trafficking people to foreign concentration camps. We are rocketing at light speed to a techno fascist authoritarian state and the level of surveillance we are under is increasing at a mind boggling pace.

So we aren’t the same, and the people currently in charge are striving to make the differences smaller every day.

Sounds like windows recall…

So, if you get a trainer you get to enjoy the fidgeting without risks of cuts. And most butterfly knives are single edged so one of the handles is relatively safe. I have one largely for the fidgeting aspect.

So a lot of this is going to be difficult to answer as it depends on the work culture and individual personalities of coworkers.

• Fidgeting is generally fine as long as it’s not noisy fidgeting. If it’s something like pen clicking, that is more likely to bother someone. Passing depends on the layout. If there is decent space you should be fine, but if it pushes you really close to other people it may make people uncomfortable.
• People will almost certainly see your screen, whether they care what is on it is pretty dependent. If them seeing it makes you uncomfortable, some offices allow the addition of privacy screens which may help and is worth asking about if it will improve your quality of life.
• Some places make a big deal of always looking like you’re on task while others just care about output.
• Downtime is pretty much the same as the previous answer. Depends on your management and work culture. Might be an easier sell if your reading somehow relates to your work.
• People will be able to hear, but talking is generally acceptable at a reasonable volume. Just be considerate of those around you and don’t distract people if they are busy. Along this same lines, you’ll also hear other people’s conversations. That’s why I wear my loop earplugs age have headphones for music. Helps me focus when I need to.
• I did not disclose my ADHD, but also didn’t request any accommodations since I can have my earplugs and headphones which is really the only thing I needed. I’d love to have an office so I could close people out when I was especially busy, but that doesn’t really fall under reasonable accommodations.

There is almost no evidence to back up their claims. It is a whole lot of “might”, “suggests”, and “possible”. It’s great if it works for you, but for you to say it’s superior to prescribed medication is still more harmful than helpful. I support more research into medical use for cannabis, but people who try to claim it treats everything only hurt the movement for wider acceptance.

An actual systematic review showed a lack of research, and currently very little evidence of benefits.

There is no grow at home remedy that works the way my medication does. To make claims like that it’s ignorant and harmful to people who do actually need medication.

Totally get that. And I’ve not been trying to push people to accept the bot, or saying that MBFC isn’t flawed. Mostly just trying to highlight the irony of some people having wildly biased views, and pushing factually incorrect info about a site aimed at scoring bias and factual accuracy.

The bot wasn’t assessing the individual articles. It was just pulling the rating from their website. If you look at the full reports on the website they have a section that discusses bias, and gives examples of things like loaded language found in the articles they assessed.

With your own reply you show that they have given you most of the information needed to make your own assessment. Like I’ve said other places in this thread, you don’t have to agree with them. I have never claimed they are correct. I’m saying that they provide information about how they arrived at their conclusion, you can assess that information and decide whether you agree.

It still stands that it is at least a reasonable place to look to gather basic information about a media source. And provides you with a solid starting point to research and make an assessment about a news source.

I agree that using the US political spectrum pretty significantly skews things since US politics is almost all center to right if you compare it to the wider spectrum globally. But since they gave their information, and what spectrum they are using it makes it pretty simple to get a baseline for most media outlets at a glance if it’s not one I’m familiar with.

And with the number of outright insane news sources people like to share, it’s useful to have a way to get at least a decent snapshot of what to expect.

MBFC doesn’t only count how factual something is. They very much look at inflammatory language like that, and grade a media outlet accordingly. It’s just not in the factual portion, it is in the bias portion. Which makes sense since, like you said, both stories can be factually accurate.

Why does any opinion get promoted on here? Because somebody posted it. And then there is a voting system and comments for people to express their agreement or disagreement.

I honestly don’t care either way if the bot exists. I just think it’s silly that people are claiming that MBFC is terrible based on basically nothing. You can disagree with how they define left vs right, or what their ratings are, but they are pretty transparent about how their system works. And no one has given any example of how it could be done better.

Consistently factual is exactly that. Both of those words mean actual things. And they go on to say that they can’t fail fact checks. And prompt corrections likely means that as a story develops, that if there were incorrect things reported, they are corrected as soon as the new information is available.

As for who defines extreme bias, it’s literally them. That is what they are saying they are doing. And they spell out what their left vs right criteria are. And how they judge it. Of course this is subjective. There isn’t really a way to judge the political spectrum without subjectivity. They do include examples in their reports about what biased language, sources, or reporting they found. Which allows you to easily judge whether you agree with it.

As for VOA, they say in the ownership portion that it is funded by the US government and that some view it as a propaganda source. They also discuss the history and purpose of it being founded. And then continue on with the factual accuracy and language analysis. You may not agree with it, but it is following their own methodology, and fully explained in the report.

Again, there isn’t anything saying you have to agree with them. It is a subjective rating. I’m not sure how much more transparent they can be though. They have spelled out how they grade, and each report provides explanations and examples that allow you to make your own judgments. Or a starting point for your own research.

If you can define a completely objective methodology to judge political bias on whatever spectrum you choose, then please do. It’s inherently subjective. And there isn’t really a way around that.

They cover what they consider left and right. This way you can judge whether it aligns with what you believe. And it allows you to interpret their results even if they don’t follow the same spectrum you do.

And if you know of a way to discuss political spectrum without subjectivity I would love to hear it. Even if you don’t use a 2d spectrum, it’s still subjective. Just subjective with additional criteria.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left-vs-right-bias-how-we-rate-the-bias-of-media-sources/

There is definitely some subjectivity. Language isn’t something that is easily parsed and scored. That is why they give examples on the actual report about the kind of biased language they saw, or whatever other issues led to the score given.

I don’t think they mean for their website to be the end all bias resource. More of a stepping off point for you to make your own judgments.

They literally publish their methodology and scoring system.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

So they do say exactly what their criteria is, and how it is scored. None of that is buzz words, it’s just a summary that fit in a few sentences. You can look at the full methodology if you want more than just that small bullet description.

I’m not saying that you have to agree with their scoring, or that it is necessarily accurate. I just think if you’re going to critique a thing, you should at least know what you’re critiquing.

Why do you say they’re opaque? They detail the history of the publication, the ownership, their analysis of bias within their reporting, and give examples of failed fact checks. I’m not sure what else you could want about how a publication is rated? I’m not saying it’s perfect, but they seem to be putting a solid effort into explaining how they arrive at the ratings they give.

It does. It’s even cited in the abstract, and it’s the origin of bullshit as referenced in their title.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator