So if my barbecue catches fire, and I put it out with a fire extinguisher in 2 minutes. Then I say “the flames were huge, they went so high planes would have to divert”. Than someone quoted that in the headline, without context. You would say it wasn’t a misleading headline?
I suppose they could include a picture of a whole house on fire as well as long as someone showed them that picture and said that is what it was like?

How ya figure. Maybe just don’t use misleading quotes in the headline. It’s not that hard.

Just because someone said it, doesn’t mean it is misleading.

I don’t see how this works in thier favor. Maga people make racist comments wothout needing someone to die. So while charlie comments will die down, MAGA one won’t. So if both sides report, MAGA loses in the long run. Plus, while cheering someones death can be considered in bad taste. Knowingly employing a racist can expose a company to significant legal ramifications.

Yeah certainly bad enough they didn’t need a misleading headline to get clicks.

Not to make light of it, but I still hate misleading headlines. Seems most were lied to about work, travelled there and then were trafficed. Which is a lot different than “no woman is safe”. They made it sound like people were roaming the streets abducting any woman they chose anytime… still a horrible thing. Sadly it shows you what men will do when given the opportunity.

I think the fact that there is a divide at all about murder is pretty informative. Generally speaking, that isn’t a sign of a healthy society. It speaks to how frustrated many people are with society these days. I do believe that social media makes this occurrence drastically different than any other potential societal collapse. So any predictions are worth the cost you pay for them.

Seriously, what is that supposed to be on it? And what is it supposed to mean? I know it isn’t real, but what were they going for?

deleted by creator

I assume people could tell them where the shot came from, even if they couldn’t identify the shooter. Someone was bound to be looking in that direction and see the flash.

I dunno. Words can kill. Presidents have ordered the assassination of people with words. I doubt hitler ever killed a single person himself. There is a line somewhere. It just hazy.

Um… you can always observe the cat by opening the box, same as you can look up the stock value. Observing the cat doesn’t change it’s actual state. It only changes your knowledge of it. Same as value of a stock. No difference.

As for the definition, you hand picked 2 peices from that whole page. The first one when you read the example below doesn’t even fit your case, so you left that out.

Then you had to do mental gymnastics to make the second one fit. But it was a legal definition. None of this is a legal document, so it doesn’t matter. There is a reason that one is so low on the page.

But whatever. You want to consider stocks going down at any given second to mean you lost money in your head… fine. But when conversing with normal people, you will be hard pressed to find people who agree.

Something, something, can’t prove a negative… While valuable research, it doesn’t prove no harm is done. It can only provide evidrnce that the harm they tested for didn’t appear to happen. That is a kind of important difference.

That is basically Schrodinger’s cat. If you don’t open the box, the cat is both dead or alive. So you “could” interpret “lost money” as lost net worth. But if you read it litterally, it wasn’t money. It was an asset. You couldn’t spend it and it doesn’t meet the definition of money. Poorer, I suppose, because you could borrow against that asset, but not as much as before.

I very much agree on the don’t take the terms too seriously. They are just labels. Not entirely arbitrary, but still mostly arbitrary. That said, I do think we are due for a medical revolution anytime now. So I don’t think 200 years. But certainly plenty more time.

But if you don’t sell, did you lose money. My 401k goes up and down all the time. But I didn’t lose any money. Same with my house value.

At work, the boss recently asked everyone to disclose any voluntary use of AI. This is a very small company (startup) and was for a compliance thing. Nearly all of the engineering team was using some AI from somewhere for a large variety of things. These are top engineers mostly. We don’t have manager, just the CTO. So noone was even encouraging it. They all chose it because it could make them more productive. Not the 3x or 10x BS you hear from the CEO shills. But more productive.
AI has a lot of problems, but all of the tools we have to use suck in a variety of ways. So that is nothing new.

You haven’t been to vegas lately. Grandma is not the target. Rich people who want to flaunt it is. Sounds like a match made in… heaven. Lol.
And since the gap between the haves and have nots is growing, it a perfect way for the haves to separate themsleves. Think back to the first commercial airliners. It was only for the rich. And it made a lot of money that way.

I like the cut of thier jib.

It should be required to name the country and state/province in the headline of an article. It sounded like a place in the UK. This goes for cities in the US too. I don’t know all of them either. But of course the goal of news isn’t to inform.