drphungky

Yeah I didn’t realize votes were essentially public already. This will 100% change my voting patterns. The problem is, I’m an idealist who still follows old school reddit voting guidelines of “this adds to the conversation” or not…so I upvote stuff I don’t agree with as long as it is well thought out, well said, or at least civil and trying to have a good conversation. When I remember to, I also tend to downvote vitriolic nonsense or pithy nothing comments even if I agree with the values, because I don’t think it helps anyone to have annoying angry echo chambers. That’s like…the entire Internet right now, and Lemmy is already bad enough with that. It doesn’t need to get worse by making sure everyone is voting in lockstep lest they get brigaded (which there are no inherent protections against).

SAS so I could get more work. Plus it’s crazy fast and great for statistics and economics, which is my field. It’s also easier to learn for non programmers than Python. It’s a great language, and its only real fault is terrible naming constraints. It sucks to be the guy pushing for more C# and Python because no one knows SAS, but at this point the cost is just prohibitive.

This but FreeCAD!

I mean I was being flippant, but finding interests or passions and then finding affinity groups that do those things is a great way to meet people.

But also I just

Be more interesting

Yeah, coming in with no prior CAD experience I actually think freecad’s interface makes sense, especially since I’ve used it for both 3d printing (one workbench) and mocking up building plans (a different lumber one I was able to download as an add-on - very cool).

I did run into the topological naming problem once though, and I’m far from a power user, so I’ve been meaning to check out the real thunder fork.

Yeah, based on OP saying low WAF, I’m guessing maybe he didn’t set up the content server? Ours is great, and I can read on my phone or 2-in-1.

Totally hear where you’re coming from, and I think in a perfect world, a journalist could recuse themselves of reporting on things where they are hopelessly biased (see Cuomo incident before the later revealed stuff), but I still argue the goal should be to examine and eliminate biases as much possible, and avoid the appearance of minor ones unless they are somehow damning. The introspection necessary to examine your own biases rather than just avoid them helps make you more capable of being more impartial overall, in my opinion.

I think there’s real debate on if through such a concerted effort to not give into to one’s own biases, you swing too far and start favoring the opposition, but that happens with anyone trying to avoid appearances of impropriety. Not giving your kid the starting pitching slot even if he deserves it because you’re the coach, a judge not accepting a free ride to a conference everyone else gets, etc etc.

Then you get a spot writing op-eds so you can dunk on strawmen who don’t have the reach or voice to argue with you!

You’re literally advocating for what is essentially approved propaganda. That you think there is an objectively correct bias terrifies me, and if you had sense, it would terrify you too.

No, there is no “correct bias”. No bias is the goal. In fact, the goal is to be beyond even an appearance of bias. That’s the only way you can be trustworthy. That’s why the Times doesn’t let their writers sign open letters. That’s why they can’t join lobbying orgs and don’t give money to political candidates. These are just sacrifices you make if you want to be a hard news journalist. Same as having to watch what you say if you’re a spokesperson or CEO, same with having to stay fit if you’re a firefighter, same with a ton of jobs that have requirements that you may find unreasonable but are widely accepted because they’re good for the job and the industry.

There is no such thing as objective truth, just perception and bias, and you truly believe it’s not okay to speak out against genocide?

You wanna talk about terrifying. This sentence is terrifying. No such thing as objective truth?! You’ve bought into the fake news, alternative facts propaganda being pushed for the last decade.

-Trump said x.

-Israel did Y.

-The president released a statement saying Z.

-A rocket exploded at a hospital in Gaza, it is unclear at the moment who fired it

-Here is an investigative report featuring video highlights, statements, and photos piecing together what likely happened in that rocket explosion

These are objective, unbiased facts. It obviously gets stickier when you start talking about what facts to report. Then you start talking about reporting on commentary on facts by people and orgs with clear biases themselves. Usually (or at least historically) journalists could cover their bases by finding both sides of an argument , and letting those players describe and clarify the facts themselves.

This is where the whole modern argument comes in over modern journalists giving too much weight to countervailing theories or crackpots in the interest of appearing unbiased. You may have heard it described as “both sides” reporting. For a long time, this was by far the best way to report facts, appear unbiased, and make sure everyone was heard and reported on. But recently there have been HUGE debates within journalism over how to report on say, climate change, when the vast vast majority of scientists say that it’s happening, and it’s man-made, and offer more and more conclusive studies supporting that. You can still find a few crackpots, but at what point are you choosing facts (“this crazy org said this about the new study”) that themselves create a bias? Since climate change has been seen as a political issue for years, journalists have been worried about appearing unbiased, because a sniff of impropriety can drive people away from mainstream media and to the newer, very biased, lacking in ethics orgs. They started shifting away from this, and now people are both leaving unbiased news and those unbiased sources remaining are STILL getting hammered by media critics and commentators on the “both sides” narrative issues.

The point, though, is that people deeply care about and deeply debate this stuff on the margins. How do we best remain and appear unbiased? How do we best inform and explain current events? And then they debate this stuff at the margins because there are different opinions on it. But no one is saying news journalists should be able to sign petitions and open letters. It is so far outside of acceptable that I bet you could poll newsrooms at the Times, Post, Tribune and not get a single journalist who thinks going on public record about current events should be A-ok.

I hope the history books of the future describe the atrocities of the present, because clearly we can’t rely on the news.

If you’re not aware of these very basic ethical and functional debates in journalism, that are covered and discussed ad nauseum in papers of every slant and those in the middle, my guess is you’re just not consuming much news. It’s impossible to miss this stuff. So I can’t imagine you’re going to pick up history books if you’re missing this stuff as it’s happening.

Thank you! It’s crazy to me that people can’t understand appearance of bias and why a paper would want to avoid it. Do people not work in industries with professional ethics? There are whole courses taught in this stuff when getting a degree in journalism, it’s debated in newsrooms and by editors, even in op-eds writing commentary about the news. Did people just fall asleep during the Trump years as people were figuring out how to handle that?

You know what terrifies me? Someone saying, unironically, “there is no such thing as objective truth, just perception and bias.” Russian disinfo and the Trump campaign appear to have won - we live in a post truth society where not only do facts not matter - they don’t exist. Why bother reporting only on them?

You literally can police people’s bias if they want to be a good journalist. That’s why the NYT has a clear policy on this stuff, that she violated twice! Some people can’t control their biases or don’t want to, and that’s fine. They don’t get to be journalists at organizations that have to maintain strict impartiality.

Also, if you think the newsroom doesn’t have deeply debated guidelines and rules on how and when you use the label terrorist vs freedom fighter, or how to avoid using either term, you’re kidding yourself. This is why editors exist.

It’s wild that we live in such polarized times that every single comment in this thread is talking about how this is wrong because of some variant of “she’s being fired for calling it like it is.”

That’s not what happened. She was fired (forced to resign, same difference) because she went on record with a political viewpoint and made value judgements. YOU DONT GET TO DO THAT AS A JOURNALIST. It doesn’t matter if she’s right (she is, in my opinion, before someone accused me of supporting apartheid and misses the point). What matters is she has taken away any appearance of being unbiased, both for her and by association for the paper. It’s crazy damaging and the Times should have fired her instead of letting her resign. This is like journalistic ethics 101. My parents were both journalists and wouldn’t even talk to me about who they voted for - and they weren’t even in hard news.

I know these days there are so many biased news agencies and lots of opinions masquerading as news, but for hard news agencies this kind of thing does not, and should not fly. The woman was dumb and I hope she was ready for a career writing op-eds and being a partisan talking head, because she’ll never write hard news at a reputable source again.

The article didn’t say she was a settler in an occupied territory though, she was in a Kibbutz on the border of Gaza. The settler problem is in the West Bank. The article DID say she advocated for Palestinian rights, which I don’t understand why you’d deny unless you have some proof otherwise? Hamas killed civilians indiscriminately - they were bound to kill some very good people. I don’t understand why someone who advocated for Palestinian rights is so hard to believe. It’s just super sad.

You’re getting at my favorite article of all time, The Shockingly Simple Math of Early Retirement. Say what you will about Mr. Money Mustache or even early retirement in general, but this article really is the absolute simplest and best way to think about retirement savings. It’s why I often feel poor or pressed for money but never worry about retirement, because I max it all and pay myself first, and I know as long as my percentage is high I’m on track.

Plus even before I could max my 401k and Roth (and we recently had a kiddo so had to stop Roth for a bit) or get a high savings rate, I put in way more than was comfortable because the power of compounding is worth rice and beans and not going out drinking for a bit. Now that I’m middle aged my nest egg is huge, and we’ve been slowly able to lifestyle inflate. But I am soooo glad my younger self saved like crazy. Time flies by, and money compounds before you know it.

I mean if you think all the Solidworks users and professional CAD people are here, why don’t you make a community? We can have both things. It’s really weird how much you seem to hate FreeCAD from all your comments. Lots of us use it, and it’s growing a lot in the 3d printing community. No one is trying to make you use it at work.

Imagine if I got upset at a Python community being formed because I use SAS more at work and it has a way bigger market share in government statistics or healthcare. Do you see how weird that sounds to everyone else? Do you see why a way bigger percentage of people here, on this open source forum, are probably using and more passionate about open source python instead of closed source and crazy expensive SAS? Yes SAS has been around for way longer, has way better support, and is generally more performant (please don’t @ me python lovers - yes it can be fast, but look inside yourselves - you know it to be true), but like…there are already tons of SAS forums, and no-one uses it outside of a business context, because it’s way too expensive. Even if we were having this conversation 10 years ago when SAS had a much higher user base overall and not just in niche industries, I’m sure there would be plenty of people here who use both, and probably tons of SAS at work users, but that doesn’t eliminate the need for a Python forum. Same thing with CAD.

Nice! More people using it is more better. Anything to prevent the inevitable enshittification of Fusion 360.

Why on earth would you think people who use CAD for a living are the target audience for either FreeCAD or a Lemmy community?

I literally had a convo with two friends this weekend about how they won’t have kids because they think it’s irresponsible to raise them in a world “that might not exist when they’re adults”. The doomsaying and hyperbole is absolutely real.

The nature of federation means that you don’t have to make an account there for them to harvest your data. They probably do it already.

They can do that without Threads though. Everything you upvote, downvote, and comment on is public record. Plus the way federated content works is the host server isn’t accessed unless you actively try to go there, everything else is reposted in your local instance. So they’re not going to get data from Threads that way.

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times: they don’t care about the Fediverse one way or another. This is just a way to kill Twitter, and they’re doing it through a loose alliance of sorts.