mozz

There's not really a substitute for putting stuff into practice every day, with a heavy heavy penalty if you don't get it right. All the money in the world won't get you the same level of solution effectiveness as that will.

"Hey, it looks like your classification of marijuana policy data as a fooblah is incorrect; I'm not trying to say anything in particular about your grand new scientific paradigm, but it looks a lot more like a yimbahim instead. Like in terms of A, B, and C. Right?"

(total silence)

MARIJUANA POLICY IS A FOOBLAH

IT'S ALL FOOBLAH

(time passes)

IF YOU CAN'T ACCEPT THAT MARIJUANA POLICY IS CLASSIFIED AS FOOBLAH THEN YOU'RE TRYING TO SILENCE MY DISSENT

Pretty quickly, I think that person would stop being published, if every one of their studies was exactly the same 3-4 conclusions which only drew on a selected portion of the data, and they had no real response to someone who was raising factual counterarguments.

In the abstract, what you're saying makes perfect sense, sure. As applied to ozma and the level of willingness he displays to adhere to anything factual or good faith while he's pushing his relentless propaganda, what you're saying doesn't even remotely apply.

IDK why you're telling me this or who you're trying to convince, honestly, but it's not accurate to ozma's behavior.

Yes. That is exactly how science works.

If someone did what ozma has self-described himself as doing -- following a feed of biden stories, and then posting the negative ones only -- in a scientific context, and then explained that they felt that the story that one portion of the data was telling was already represented, so they wanted to present only the part that was underrepresented... it would have a much less friendly reception than he's getting from doing in this political context.

• Is okay: Having a viewpoint, whatever the viewpoint
• Isn't okay: Pushing a particular chosen viewpoint regardless of how well it aligns with the information you're drawing from, being upfront about that being your strategy, and then following through to a beyond-parody level of annoying everyone and repeating yourself day in and day out

IDK why everyone's so eager to read a pretty detailed explanation of why the issue isn't his viewpoint, and then follow up right away with extensive hand wringing over the idea of censoring his viewpoint.

Hm... I actually think Ukraine is probably at the forefront of UAV development worldwide at this point (both mass scale domestic production and innovation in design / tactics).

At the beginning of the war they were using bayraktars and commercial quadcopters, and maybe a handful of officially-military-designed western drones. Obviously they drew on established technology, but I actually think at this point developing a completely new generation of UAVs is exactly what they've done (primarily in the aspect of how to keep them tactically effective while making them small and cheap so they can be produced at scale at a limited tech-tier, which isn't something the Western manufacturers really specialize in.)

I think the vital stuff they're importing is tons of artillery rounds and cruise missiles, stuff where you can't really cheap it out in the same way, but if the Kremlin starts getting hit with ATACMS munitions I don't think it's gonna fly to say "naw we found it refurbished bro, nothing to do with the West." IDK, give it time, maybe by a couple years from now they're gonna find themselves at the forefront of production of glide bombs that can reach hundreds of km after building on their exhaustive experience making FPV drones.

It's like 2 pixels, but you can clearly, clearly see the smile.

"Okay, now I'm really getting mad. You better stop!"

Putin: I ain’t scared of the West, I could kick their ass any day, I just don’t feel like it right now, but be careful

Also Putin, whenever a country near him wants to join NATO, i.e. he’d be picking a fight with the West if he attacked them: Reeeeeeeeeeee

He stopped wearing bow ties that week, and never has again. Stewart clearly cut him deep.

He did more to improve the discourse of journalism, over the course of the 2000s, than pretty much any other single person in broadcasting. He went on bad shows and argued with them to their faces about why they were causing damage, mounting a passionate and detailed breakdown of what they were doing wrong (sometimes getting them cancelled as a result). He provided better coverage of a lot of issues (police brutality in the pre-BLM days comes to mind) than any "real" news. His show invented the technique -- still not common in broadcasting, for whatever stupid reason -- of playing the clip of a politician saying something had never happened or they never said something, and then right after that, playing the clip of them saying it. "Real" journalists actually had conversations with him about the technical setup that enabled The Daily Show to do that, which because of the nature of the technology at the time actually wasn't straightforward (as weird as that sounds today).

In the modern day, he got heavily involved in a fight for health care for 9/11 first responders, he had enough integrity to get cancelled from Apple because they wanted to dictate his coverage of China, and now, of course, he's directly doing interviews with important people where he (still) is doing a lot of the things he is saying he wishes the other media would do.

What have you done? In your chosen field?