Every company wants to make a profit. There are those that actually build stuff that works, even if only because having it not work would lose them money. Theres a reason that most planes dont crash for example, and things like Boeing having bad quality control are considered major scandals rather than an unavoidable and unremarkable norm.

Honestly I get frustrated when people (mostly my extended family admittedly) take from that movie the idea that the message is "dinosaurs are impossible to contain safely and we should never try to somehow recreate one". Like, no, we can make zoos for large, fairly intelligent predators or even bigger herbivores just fine, we do it all the time with things like lions and elephants, dinosaurs arent godzilla or anything. The issue with Jurassic park was that it was run by cheapskates that wanted to get something done fast on a budget without concern for doing it right. It would be like making a movie about the Oceangate disaster and having people conclude the moral of the story was "You shouldnt want to build a submarine because humans arent meant to go down there and it will inevitably go badly" rather than "You should spend the money to build your submarine the right way"

Im not familiar with him, but looking him up Im guessing youre mentioning him for promoting life extension research? Honestly Im not sure if what this article is talking about is even that relevant to that idea. Obviously you cant extend life indefinitely by merely trying to cure each type of common age related illness as it comes up, eventually the body is just too weak and easy to damage to keep it running. To actually extend life far beyond the current maximum you'd need to find a means to reverse the root cause of aging itself rather than just trying to patch the symptoms indefinitely

Its honestly a shame that that meme somehow became the alt-right's collective fursona

So by this logic, twitter is a roblox game?

I mean, while one must imagine a mutually recognized Palestinian state would probably still be on Iran's side of the conflict between Iran and Isreal at this point, if it was more focused on rebuilding itself than in conflict to free itself from Isreal, that would technically be closer aligned to Isreal than the current situation of Hamas being actively at war with them, if only in the sense of "a less negative number is closer to a positive number than a more negative one.

I guess there's technically also an option that Isreal could offer to withdraw from and recognize a Palestinian state in return for that state acting as an ally against Iran, but if the resulting state has anything more answerable to it's people than a literal puppet government answering to Isreal, it seems hard to imagine that lasting long.

Those wouldn't be detectable in quite the same way as the reddit "repost a post from awhile ago that got a lot of upvotes because that post is proven to be popular" type karma farmer bots though, I'd figure? Especially given that AI nowadays would allow for them to not just repeat the same comments

Do karma farming bots even have any point on lemmy though?

Honestly, a car collector is probably the best kind of person to have one I'd bet, given that they now exist out there. They don't seem terribly safe for pedestrians and others to have around, so it they're going to be out there in individuals hands, them being kept parked in some guys garage as some weird curiosity vehicle of the 2020s is probably better than being driven around on the daily as a pointy oversized commute vehicle

Any time the federal government wants to rule on something against what these people want, but which they dont feel would be socially acceptable to let people know they want, the pull out the "leave it to the states" argument. After all, if all the states ought to allow something, then theres no difference between it being allowed by every state and by it being allowed everywhere by the federal government. Theres nothing that is fundamentally moral in one state but immoral in a different state. The only reason why you'd want to "leave it to the states" on something like this is that you actually dont want to allow it, dont think you can currently get it banned at the federal level, but do think some states would do so given the chance.

How often are facts truly verifiable though in practice, especially for a reporter, rather than just deciding that a certain set of people are honest and know what they are doing and asking them for their thoughts and evidence, which is really just taking the side of those people? Like, consider science reporting (because its probably a best case scenario, where claims made are supposed to be statements of objective truth about what was observed that can be physically verified, as opposed to being full of emotions and values). If youre a reporter reporting on something some scientists at CERN or whatever are telling you they've found, its not like you as a reporter have access to the equipment they use, or the know how to use it or understand what the data it generates implies. You pretty much just have to take their word for it. You could choose to go ask some scientists in the same field at a different lab who have been replicating the experiments about it, but then youre still just trusting those scientists too, rather than truly "verifying" the original scientists claims in a way that doesnt require taking somebody's side on the issue by trusting their word or the authenticity of the evidence that they present. Now, with the scientists this is usually good enough, they dont usually have a ton of incentive to lie, and when they do, their colleagues dont have a ton of incentive to help them with it, but with politics, theres a lot of incentive to lie, a lot of incentive to support people on the same side as you, and a lot of incentive to try to undermine those on the opposite side even when the first side wasnt lying, so that trust is a bit more tenuous.

This isnt to say that I think we should take Trump's blatant lying about the election seriously or anything, but its not like reporters reporting on it can prove for sure that there cant have been some kind of vast all encompassing conspiracy against him, including the legal system and therefore any evidence brought up in the various court cases on the matter, they can just point to those myriad of court cases and conclude that the odds that it was all some kind of conspiracy must be so low that the idea is laughable and not worth considering. Which isnt technically actually verifying that it is false, so much as pointing out that it makes far less sense to take Trump's side on that than the side claiming he's a liar such as to be safe in taking the side of the latter.

The issue is, it's not really possible to do that in many if not most cases. For example, suppose you're a political reporter, and a politician makes a claim that happens to be objectively false. Do you merely report that the politician made that claim, or do you report that the politician made that claim and that it is false, or merely report that the politician made a false claim without repeating it verbatim? All of those things are only reporting verifiable facts in this scenario, but they all give different impressions as to the character of that politician.

The obvious answer one might take is to go with the second option, and say that one should just report all facts available to you and relevant to an issue, because choosing what truths to say and what not to say still presents a biased picture even if every statement you make is a true one. But this is not a solution, because you simply cannot and will not have room to say every true statement about something, and you have to decide which things are relevant and irrelevant and to what degree, and your personal biases will influence these decisions regardless of how much you try to avoid that, because there's not a way to objectively measure relevance.

Further, you do not actually know what is objectively true. You might say that a politicians statement is verifiably correct or incorrectly, because you believe that to be the case- and be wrong about that. There's a greater likelihood that you'll scrutinize something said by someone you disagree with, and so you'll unintentionally portray your favored candidate in a better light, just because you don't have time to verify every single sentence (and for that matter, since you're a reporter and not actually someone collecting and analyzing the raw data, you won't generally be equipped to verify things yourself so much as ask someone who you believe is reliable, and who therefore probably agrees with you and shares your biases), and you're more likely to check if something is true if you already suspect that it isn't.

Perhaps then, to be safe, you might only report that the politician said "x", and not comment on if it is true. Beyond the obvious issue of helping to spread lies even if you don't technically yourself say that they are truths, just that the person that said them did so, you still don't have room or time to repeat every single thing that politician says. If you report on the more absurd statements of one politician and the more reasonable statements of another (which it may be hard not to do subconsciously, because absurd positions that align with your own won't seem as absurd to you and therefore not as important to inform people of), you once again create a biased narrative out of nothing but true statements.

Finally, even if you avoid all this, you still introduce bias by when and where you say things. Stories run on the front page are more likely to get seen and read. TV broadcasts made when people are awake and at home are more likely to be watched. YouTube videos that appeal to the site's algorithm are more likely to be seen, etc.

It is simply impossible to run an actually unbiased new source. You cannot say the whole truth, because you neither know it all nor have room for it all nor have the capacity to give it all equal attention. And you cannot say nothing but the truth, assuming you say anything at all that is, because your knowledge and sources are not infallible. The best you can do is state your biases up front, to the best of your ability, so that people know what kind of perspective your reporting comes from.

The lack of viable ones is less a result of effort on their part or desire for them among the electorate, and more to do with the nature of our voting system. Its hard to develop a viable third party when the system one is operating in mathematically guarantees that only two parties can be seriously competitive with eachother in nationally significant elections, and those parties are already established. They can be competitive in local elections that the larger ones dont put as much effort into, but the only times theyve ever gotten to the presidency have been the couple times when one of the two major parties basically collapses and gets replaced with a different one.

its a scene from the muppet movie (the original one) The man talking to Kermit (same guy in all the panels) was physically thrown out of the bar, and Kermit suggests that he complain to the bar's owner, but the man in question reveals that he is said owner, who has been thrown out by the bar's violent patrons.

Sweden in general seems to have way more good game dev companies than most countries, especially most of similar size. I kinda wonder why.

Tbh, If I'm feeling sick especially if it involves sinus congestion, I'm generally feeling far too icky to want to do that

At some point this kind of nonsense starts to sound like the sort of thing you'd expect from malicious fairies in a fantasy rpg

I guess photosynthetic life has been responsible for catastrophic climate change before

dont forget star trek

Imagine going to jail for Trump of all people.