Oh dear...
Should we expect to see HRH King Rupert at the soup kitchen as a consequence?
Meta has killed its Facebook news service in the United States and Australia. A late Thursday post revealed the move, which The Social Network™ justified on grounds that it had already snuffed the tab it dedicated to news in the UK, France and Germany, audiences for the service dropped 80 percent last year, and "news makes up …
I suspect that a considerable part of the news media would like to see Zuck there too.
Facebook sold them all on the line that Facebook video was the only future. They invested a fortune on the great "pivot to video" that they might as well have flushed down the loo. The money never came and Zuck laughed at the way to the bank. But hey, fuck them for trusting him right? Big surprise that plan got canceled too when they realized the game was to spend their money on content that Facebook would benefit more from than they would and that the content creators had to pay for.
Is anyone surprised when Facebook pulled out of it's news app when it was clear it wasn't making money? What surprised me was that after everything else the anyone in the news world fell for Zuck's BS again.
Why should any news media company be surprised of facebook looking for its own profit margin?
Those companies do that themselves all the time, why should they expect fb to develop an altruistic streak.
And if fb is correct that news are not that important in the all mighty timeline the potential loss of revenue for the media should be low.
So they can create their own profit with advertising etc. because they have always argued that the traffic directed to them from fb does not bring in the money.
If it was of benefit to the news networks to have their items carried on social media, then shouldn’t they be paying social media for the privilege?
If social media should be paying them, then shouldn’t social media have the right not to carry the items?
But then, if social media is starting to play an essential role in keeping society connected and informed, then that would be too much power to be left unregulated in private hands.
> they should pay for people to read it for free?
All I was saying was, the money should obviously flow in the opposite direction from where the value is going, just to be fair.
Unless there is some overriding social imperative dictating a different course, arising from concentration of too much unregulated power in private hands. That of course changes the game entirely.
If it was of benefit to the news networks to have their items carried on social media, then shouldn’t they be paying social media for the privilege?
It was of benefit for their work to be linked from social media (or any other website).
It wasn't of benefit for social media to follow those links (when posted) and scrape enough text/images to present as a summary that people didn't even click through the site to read the entire article (or see ads).
The former is simple reach and exposure - always better for your work to be shared. The latter is verging on copyright infringement if you're posting big enough snippets that people are effectively getting the work for free.
If social media should be paying them, then shouldn’t social media have the right not to carry the items?
Indeed. They could just prevent people posting links where it's included on a blocklist of domains. Of course someone will whinge about freedom of speech (which doesn't apply to private companies). More pragmatically, it would make the social network less useful if people can't post links to (and discuss) the topics that they want to.
It always benefitted social platforms for people to link to (and discuss) news, but they also wanted to keep users on their platform and not have them disappearing off to the publisher's domain. If you are going to monetise someone's work to benefit your own platform, then you should probably be licensing that work and sharing the profits.
Arguably publishers should just follow Private Eye's example of not having a social media presence. PE of course don't even post news on their website - so don't get linked to. For online publishers, kill your FB pages, X accounts and block those domains from scraping your content. People will always be able to link to your (paywalled?) articles, but you don't have to let the platforms present your content on their site.
Then focus on providing quality local/topic-specific news and build your own readership on your own merits.
All this actually needs is for a new big titles to band together, decide that's what they're going to do, then develop a contextual ad platform to sell through as a group. Cut out (and undercut) Google and Meta advertising, charge advertisers less whilst keeping more ad revenue for themselves.
Confused by your comment - Private Eye website has links to various social media instances
Their website also has snippets from current issue (so time limited availability) and a few special reports available to read, so not "news free".
Though as a print subscriber I rarely visit the eye website (it's also heavily JS infested, which is another reason to avoid it)
"Indeed. They could just prevent people posting links where it's included on a blocklist of domains."
If users of a social media site are posting links to a news article, that's not a problem. If they copy/paste an entire article to their page, that's infringement in the same way as posting a song or a TV show. It's the SM sites posting so much of an article or a detailed enough summary that's damaging. If InstaPintaTwitFace wants to do that, they should pay for it. Perhaps they have become so used to getting users to give them loads of content for free that paying for some is foreign to them now.
《News are /reports/ of facts. 》
Only if this were the case. :)
A great deal of news is indeed a report that is not informed by anything resembling, by any reasonable definition, a fact.
Often just waffling partisan opinion of a some semi-literate hack or some prurient beat up of some private embarassment or a tabloid fabrication having no conceivable basis in any reality.
In truth, facts are slippery creatures but Kipling's six honest serving men can assist. The when, where, what and to some extent who can in principle be reported consistently by different parties. The how and why require analysis and evaluation which ultimately even for the honest writer does mean judgement, opinion, and potentially bias and prejudice, of which the intelligent or critical reader is always aware.
An example I like is the hypothetical reporting the destruction of Pompei by eruption of Vesuvius in AD79. The event, its location and date are largely undisputed and can be determined purely through physical means.
The people who perished and those who didn't is a matter of some conjecture but the broad picture is fairly clear.
The "how" is a matter of modern vulcanology but in first century Rome their equivalent of the News of the World would doubtlessly reported that the impious, corrupt and debauched behaviour of the citizens and leaders of Pompei had grieviously offended the god(s) who in retribution had created the eruption thus neatly wrapping both "why" and "how" together - a conflation not unknown to the contemporary fish wrapper.
"Often just waffling partisan opinion of a some semi-literate hack or some prurient beat up of some private embarassment or a tabloid fabrication having no conceivable basis in any reality."
What I often see is copy/paste of Xits chosen to convey a position being passed off as news.
Despite dropping the News "tab" I have a feeling here in the US bottom of the barrel foreign sponsored schlock like "Sputnik News" and "Epoch Times" will be getting shared wildly again serving up plenty of Trump loving disinformation.
Don't you know there's a war on? Democrats and Republicans will both be spending many millions to get their important messages in front of social media eyeballs. Then probably spending millions more to attempt to correct 'disinformation'. Then maybe eventually realising that FaceMelta isn't where all the cool kids hang out, and much of the Trump attack ads just seem to boost his ratings. If only the DNC had just ignored him, Trump may have faded into obscurity.
But the media landscape is very strange at the moment. Here's the Bbc covering the funeral of a nobody-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-68427413
Turn on Russian TV and you won't find any mention of Alexei Navalny, let alone of his funeral.
With live, front page coverage from the UK's state broadcaster. That isn't asking boring questions like "where's the grieving widow?", or why the body hasn't been sent to Germany for an 'independent' autopsy to 'prove' he was murdered, as all our leaders once said? But such is politics. FaceMelta tried to use news to make their site the people's 'front page' to the 'net. People objected to all the garbage placed in their feeds and turned off.
Ah, Jellied Eel has arrived with fresh deliveries of propaganda. Everybody come and get yours while the takes are hot!
If Navalny was a nobody the Russian government wouldn't have poisoned him with extremely expensive Novichok. Then imprisoned him for missing reporting to the local police station due to being in hospital nearly dying of the poison his own government had administered. Then repeatedly tried him on new made-up offenses every 6 months or so, so they could keep increasing his sentence.
I'm certain he wasn't a viable rival to Putin even in a completely free election. The only time that's been tested he got 27% in the Moscow mayoral election, back in 2014 or so - not that it was free and fair because he wasn't allowed access to TV - but it's thought the vote probably wasn't rigged. He wasn't allowed to stand in the last Presidential election, so we can't know.
His anti-corruption campaign and videos were genuinely popular in Russia and quite widely viewed. His smart voting campaign to get people to vote for whichever candidate was most likely to beat United Russia seems to have been at least somewhat effective. So it's clear some people in Russia were noticing him.
But to pretend that he someohow wasn't an important figure in Russia isn't "free thinking" or "doing your own research", or "not buying the media narrative". It's straight bollocks. And to cite it not being covered on Russian TV as your evidence is truly pathetic.
If Navalny was a nobody the Russian government wouldn't have poisoned him with extremely expensive Novichok.
There isn't really any evidence that they did. Don't forget it was a previously unknown variant of Fauxvichok, and the details from his stay in Germany remain classified.
Then imprisoned him for missing reporting to the local police station due to being in hospital nearly dying of the poison his own government had administered. Then repeatedly tried him on new made-up offenses every 6 months or so, so they could keep increasing his sentence.
Err.. Nope. Discharged 23rd September, arrested on arriving back in Russia 17th January for violating probation while awaiting trial in his Yves Rocher fraud case. He'd been too busy working on his movie to bother with boring little details like answering charges. Plus Russia was obviously determined to kill him because they allowed him to fly to Germany for treatment
He wasn't allowed to stand in the last Presidential election, so we can't know.
Or eligible to stand. But all the allegations of election interference and Trumped up charges sound oddly familiar. Those stoopid Ruskies. Don't they know Navalny is our choice for Russia's President? Just ignore the evidence that he was a racist, nationalist and virulently anti-immigration. Having one of his cronies videoed discussing taking money to stage a 'colour revolution' probably didn't help his case either. But this is one of the more bizzare aspects of this clusterfunk. Why would we expect Russians to vote for a western puppet? Just look at what happened to Ukraine when they did that.
His anti-corruption campaign and videos were genuinely popular in Russia and quite widely viewed.
Also quite hilarious, like his fantasy videos of 'Putins' pleasure palace in Sochi. Those were pretty easily fact-checked and debunked though, but didn't stop the MSM picking them up and running with them. Much as they did with Rumsfeld's infamous mountain lair that Bin Laden had built and was hiding in in Afghanistan.
It's straight bollocks. And to cite it not being covered on Russian TV as your evidence is truly pathetic.
Err.. nope. That's all the Bbc's original work. They're assuming the lack of media attention is evidence of a coverup instead of it being the death of a nobody. Much the same with the lack of crowds. This is apparently evidence of Russia's crack-downs rather than Russian's simply not caring. But that's cognitive dissonance for you. The Bbc has been pointedly ignoring the much larger protests across Europe against the EU's agricultural policies, or the way Polish farmers and truckers are currently blockading Ukraine.
The Bbc has been pointedly ignoring the much larger protests across Europe against the EU's agricultural policies, or the way Polish farmers and truckers are currently blockading Ukraine."
Really? Both have been front page stories on the BBC site I look at. Maybe you're using a VPN and seeing to from the4 perspective of some random country where those stories are less prominent. Or just wilfully bi[blind to anything not fitting your own narrative.
Really? Both have been front page stories on the BBC site I look at. Maybe you're using a VPN and seeing to from the4 perspective of some random country where those stories are less prominent. Or just wilfully bi[blind to anything not fitting your own narrative.
Perhaps I look at more news sources than you do, and am not following the same narrative. It's why it's important to have a plurality of news after all. But the news has become strange of late, for example-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68451333
The UK must face down extremists trying to "deliberately" undermine the country's "multi-faith democracy", Rishi Sunak has warned.
The PM said Islamists and the far-right were "two sides of the same extremist coin" who loathed Britain.
Navalny was expelled from Yabloko for being far-right and anti-Islamist and regarding immigrants as 'cockroaches'. He was arguably and demonstrably an extremist, attempting to undermine his country. That may have been in the same manner as we used Ukraine's far-right nutjobs as muscle to enact their 2014 coup. But basically a Russian version of Tommy Robinson, and maybe the Bbc will start promoting him next as the real alternative to Starmer.
But feel free to find stories about the ongoing protests here-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/europe
Where you'll find all the news that matters. Eurovision! Yey! Nothing about this however-
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3834472-polish-farmers-put-shehyni-border-checkpoint-on-ukraine-border-on-full-shutdown-for-cargoes.html
"The situation hasn't actually changed in recent days. But today we have a certain change toward the Shehyni checkpoint. At 13:00, as the Polish side informed us, Polish farmers refused to let through any inbound or outbound trucks. Before that, truck crossings were recorded at a minimum level," he said.
Ukraine's naturally a little concerned because it's also blocking inbound weapons and ammunition shipments.
It looks like 2024 will not be kind to little Ivan Grozny.
I think it'll be less kind to assorted hagiographers, like this one-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68457743
The question I'm left with is this: were yesterday's scenes the dying embers of liberal democracy in Russia, a "last hurrah" for freedom of expression before it is extinguished completely?
My question is still why the Bbc promotes a far-right extremist, especially after Sunak's speech. Especially as Navalny also hate Islamists. Or maybe I shouldn't be suprised given Sunak's been arming and training far-right extremists to fight in Ukraine. Or perhaps he's starting to realise that conflict is coming to an end, and when it does, Ukraine's 'Right Sector' nutjobs are going to want to flee into the EU and UK. But then Ukraine exports all sorts of toxic material-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68413310
The mysterious trader was shipping a chemical commonly used for suicide around the world from Ukraine's capital. He has been linked to at least 130 UK deaths.
And the possible 'last hurrah' for freedom of expression in the UK, and EU-
The government says the new Online Safety Act gives Ofcom the power to take action against this kind of website. But Ofcom is still consulting on how the Act will be implemented and enforcement action won't happen for many months.
I wonder if the Bbc will be as keen to use the OSA against Ukraine's kill list website? Or become a little more critical about other journalist's deaths at Ukraine's hands, like Gonzalo Lira. Or it'll report that all the calls that Navalny was 'murdered' appear to have been fake news, soon to be punishable with prison time. Of course nothing quite shows your dedication to freedom of expression than championing a law that suppresses it, and anyone who may dare to speak truth to power.
Something journalists are supposed to do, no? The Bbc used to run stories about Ukraine's far-right problem, now it promotes them. It's a funny old world.
> I think it'll be less kind to assorted hagiographers, like this one-
Steve Rosenberg is informing. You are dis-informing.
Steve Rosenberg is a real journalist covering some of the hottest events in the most dangerous settings who was attacked by Russian regime's thugs in Astrakhan. You only risk breaking a nail on your keyboard.
Fortunately, Steve Rosenberg is read by thousands of people every day and liked by the vast majority of them. You are read by 10 and liked by none.
Steve Rosenberg is a real..
propagandist. One could practically taste the crocodile tears.
...who was attacked by Russian regime's thugs
Uhuh. At least he wasn't attacked, jailed, reportedly tortured and then died in a Ukrainian jail. Or killed in a car bombing. Or killed in a restaurant bombing. Ukraine seems a far more dangerous place to be for journalists, especially after their regime has shut down most of their media, banned political opponents etc etc.
Fortunately, Steve Rosenberg is read by thousands of people every day
Well, yes. That's why he's an effective propagandist. Or in the context of the 'dying gasps of free expression', more likely to spend longer in jail for spreading fake news and misinformation. But he seems to worship a far-right extremist and anti-Islamist. Funny how that works. Israel's currently run by a far-right extremist and anti-Islamist that's currently killing thousands of civilians. Germany's just been caught working with it's old ally to kill more Russians. Maybe we'll make it to 2025, maybe we won't. Maybe the elections in the West in 2024 will reshape the political landscape. Maybe we'll defear Russia, after all, we have more pronouns.
But I guess the tl:dr version is murdered person wasn't murdered. Grieving widow pays for a cheap coffin and funeral, but is too busy with her new career to attend. I wonder how much pressure her handlers applied for her to actually go play her role? If Russia arrested her, that would have been great PR. If they didn't, it would still have been great PR. But nope.
Jellied Eel is not vatnik
Indeed. But it's the level of intelligence that gets shown in these 'debates'. From wiki, a definition-
..which is used to disparage someone as a blindly patriotic and unintelligent jingoist who pushes the conventional views presented in Russian(British) government media as well as those of Russian(British) web brigades.
which is also the classic projection frequently shown by lefty fascists. They don't understand the argument, can't construct a counter argument, so instead resort to crude insults. So one or more ACs can't even do simple 'fact checking' comparing the Bbc's story to the Met Office's published data, and realising the Bbc's story is a work of fiction.
"Perhaps I look at more news sources than you do,"
I don't see the relevance of that comment. You specifically called out the BBC, hence the reason I quoted you in my reply, and since that is one of the news sources I use and have seen the evidence proving your assertions incorrect, I thought it best to mention it instead of having you post incorrect information and letting it stand uncorrected.
I don't see the relevance of that comment. You specifically called out the BBC
You wouldn't. If you only get your 'news' from the Bbc, you'll never see the full story, just as you wouldn't if you only viewed RT, or any single source. I specifically called out the Bbc because they're our state broadcaster, and supposed to be credible.
..and have seen the evidence proving your assertions incorrect
Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner.
Admittedly I was kind of asking you to provide evidence of a negative, but you could have responded with some links to the Bbc's coverage. If that existed, of course..
You seem to hate the BBC a lot. Maybe because auntie does not exactly confirm your "unbiased" view of the world? The solution is easy: why don't you launch your own Jellied TV? That would be the perfect channel for you. You'd always agree with your own self. You could broadcast in Russian and English. It could feature programs about Putin, the "Fauxvichok", Biden's laptop, Navalny's wife, the "windmill scumbags", why COVID was "a scam", why masks and vaccines are meant to control the people, how Trump defeated Covid (although it's still "a scam") and how inflation is the result of energy policies. Surely, it would have a lot of success.
Tell us when it's about to launch. We can't wait.
You seem to hate the BBC a lot. Maybe because auntie does not exactly confirm your "unbiased" view of the world?
I hate it because it lies a lot and is a cancer on society. We must fund it in order to watch any live, broadcast TV or be punished. Because of it's special place in the UK broadcast landscape, it should be held to high standards.. But then George Orwell was ex-Bbc.
Simple example of the way it lies here-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68435197.amp
England and Wales had their warmest February on record this year, the Met Office said on Friday.
This is a lie-
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/meantemp_ranked_monthly.txt
which shows the warmest February on record was in 1779, and there were 6 years >7C, none since 1998. Ok, so thermometers weren't quite the same as they are today, but that's propaganda for you. As for the rest of your list of conspiracy theories, if you can't figure out why indexing 'renewables' contracts is a bad idea, there really isn't much hope for you. It does demonstrate the power of propaganda though.
England and Wales had their warmest February on record this year
True or False? Obviously it disagrees with the Met Office's own data. Why would the Bbc lie about something that is so easily fact checked? What else does it lie about? When caught in those lies, what does it do to it's credibility?
"True or False? Obviously it disagrees with the Met Office's own data."
And yet, in your own post from only a short while earlier you personally posted a quote stating:
"England and Wales had their warmest February on record this year, the Met Office said on Friday."
Which clearly shows they were reporting what the Met Office said, not making up a "lie". But, of course, in your post I'm replying to, you conveniently cut the end off your OWN quote to chang the context and reinforce your own "truth".
Which clearly shows they were reporting what the Met Office said, not making up a "lie".
OK, repeating, reinforcing and promoting a lie. Or 'fake news', or 'misinformation' in the current parlance. Anyone who knows anything about climate science, or the UK's weather history should be aware of the CET. They may not be aware of the shortcomings, ie the Met Office's lousy station siting. But the fable has-
By Kate Stephens & Ben Rich
BBC Climate & Science and BBC Weather
Two people who sould really know better, and could easily have checked the Met Office's claim, but didn't bother. Just copypasta the Met Office's claim and call it good. After all, the Bbc sends it's 'journalists' off to climate propaganda camps in Oxford to be taught how to work Global Warming into any old story. While there, I rather doubt they're shown the Met Office's Radcliffe Observatory and anyone tells them why the data from it is probably garbage-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/03/03/even-radcliffe-observatory-is-only-class-4/
Class 4 means the uncertainty is +/-2C, but that usually means erring on the positive due to being in the wrong location.
But do you think the Bbc's article was correct? Or should it be retracted as 'fake news'?
"If you only get your 'news' from the Bbc,"
And there you go again, selectively quoting and implying I'm only using a single news source and therefore biased so you can build a straw man on a fake assertion when the facts were plainly in my post. Are you a politician or a 'terrorist'?
...when the facts were plainly in my post.
Your post only contained unsubstantiated claims that you'd 'seen' stories. You could have cited links to those stories. You chose not to.
Are you a politician or a 'terrorist'?
Are you a fascist, or a useful idiot? But there's been a bunch of junk news lately, ie Navalny's murder, only 31,000 dead in Ukraine. Neither of those stand up to even casual scrutiny, ie there's no evidence to support either claim. Russia's claimed Navalny died of natural causes, Ukraine said he died of a blood clot, we still don't know the cause of death. Navalny's supporters presumably accept the CoD as they've buried the body rather than sending it off for autopsy/analysis. The 31,000 claim also doesn't make sense given the desperate lengths the Kiev regime is going to to find more cannon fodder.. Although not from amongst their own fortunate sons and daughters, of course.
Meanwhile, Macron seems determined to put other people's boots on the ground. I'm sure if Macron issued himself a FAMAS and headed for Ukraine's front lines, many French people would be lining the streets to cheer him on his way. But he won't put himself in danger, politicians don't do that, they let other people die for their egos.
The obviously relevant fact was that the BBC is ONE of my news sources, but again, you choose to deliberately misunderstand.
And yet you still cited.. nothing to support your case. So now perhaps you're misremembering and only thought you saw headlines on the Bbc, when really they were on some other news site.
But the February 'record', true, or false? I know it's hard sometimes to overcome cult programming, but it's not a difficult question to answer, or 'fact check'.
> Navalny's supporters presumably accept the CoD as they've buried the body rather than sending it off for autopsy/analysis
Oh sure... Putin was going to allow that... Why didn't he propose that by the way? That would have been the perfect way to prove the "natural causes" theory and his innocence? Instead the Russian authorities retained the body for 10 days. So that all traces are gone. Was he afraid of something?
Blood clots can only be detected through autopsy. So you're spreading disinformation again. What a surprise.
Oh sure... Putin was going to allow that... Why didn't he propose that by the way? That would have been the perfect way to prove the "natural causes" theory and his innocence? Instead the Russian authorities retained the body for 10 days. So that all traces are gone. Was he afraid of something?
And there you go again, creating more conspiracy theories. Why would Putin be involved in a fairly routine DiC case? Other than perhaps telling his investigators to be thorough and document everything given the number of politicians and world 'leaders' lining up to declare it a murder. Perhaps Russia just wanted to be a little more thorough with their investigation than say, with Epstein, but thorough investigations take time. Certainly more than the 30mins from Navalny's death being announced to our 'leaders' announcing their verdict.
Blood clots can only be detected through autopsy. So you're spreading disinformation again. What a surprise.
Hahahahahahaahha.. You really are.. special. Clots can be detected by ultrasound or other imaging, at least in live patients.. Been there, done that, got the images. But I think you'll find that one of the things that happens with ex-humans is blood clots. Gets a lil complicated thanks to stuff like fibrinolysin. But I'm fairly certain it's not so much the clot, but evidence of damage caused by a clot that pathologists look for. AFAIK Russia hasn't released the autopsy results yet, but one of the first things they could have done would be run the body through a scanner.
But you still seem convinced it was a murder. Fauxvichok again? Too bad the evidence has been buried now, and the Germans can't detect 1ppb of a metabolite that 'proves' organophospate poisoning, and not eating say, an unwashed apple.
> Clots can be detected by ultrasound or other imaging, at least in live patients.
You're funny. In forensic cases, we don't deal with live patients. That's why it's called post-mortem.
Also, genius you apparently doesn't know that clots also appear after death (called postmortem clots, precisely). Mind you, somehow, these are absent in "live patients". The best way to differentiate clots causing death from clots caused by death is... well... autopsy.
Believe it or not, MDs spend years studying medicine. Yet Johnny Dork knows better of course. Johnny Dork knows climate because he owns a thermometer and masters economics because he jots down the price of bog rolls... Awesome.
You're funny. In forensic cases, we don't deal with live patients. That's why it's called post-mortem.
Ya don't say. So.. you're saying it's impossible to run a corpse through a scanner?
Also, genius you apparently doesn't know that clots also appear after death
Ya don't say. But then I said-
But I think you'll find that one of the things that happens with ex-humans is blood clots.
or I guess to be more formal, coagulation. I even mentioned one of the factors. Blood can remain liquid for hours or days. Livor mortis occurs pretty quickly after death, and might also drain a clot from where it had caused a fatal obstruction. So not necessarily conclusive, hence why pathologists might look for evidence of damage to heart, lungs, brain caused by a clot. Pathologists and coroners rarely declare 'There's been a murder' in their best Scottish accents.. Unlike polticians and reporters.
Yet Johnny Dork knows better of course.
There's an excellent pseudonym for you that may help avoid future confusion. Well, for me and other readers. You, I suspect will remain in a state of perpetual confusion. But instead of digging your holes ever deeper, how about answering that simple question? February. Hottest evah, or just more fake news from the Bbc's climate 'experts'? It really isn't a very difficult question to answer.
Difference is that real clots stick to to the endothelium and have fibrin (remember COVID thrombosis?). And to assert this on a cadaver, the typical procedure is autopsy. Not ultrasound.
Yes coroners sometimes use postmortem CT scans (PMCT), but only to decide whether to go ahead with a classic autopsy. That's increasingly common in the USA. Not in Russia. Absolutely not in some godforsaken Siberian gulag. You're again making things up, like a good vatnik.
This is confirmed by this ER doctor "Naming a blood clot as the cause of Navalny’s death would take an autopsy. This version surfaced surprisingly soon,”
“They couldn’t have named this diagnosis as the cause of his death. They could only have diagnosed him with ‘sudden cardiac arrest’ and listed its possible causes without jumping to conclusions. A detached blood clot is a lay term; the proper medical term is pulmonary embolism. Diagnosing it would have required lifetime imaging, which was never done, as far as we know, because there was no equipment onsite, or the results of an autopsy. At the moment, the cause of death has not been confirmed and is therefore ineligible.
“Pulmonary embolism has a specific clinical presentation that may make this diagnosis likely. But considering that the ambulance crew was called in after the cardiac arrest, the clinical picture would not have been different from a heart attack, for instance, or the effect of exposure to a poisonous substance.
“If thromboembolism is suspected, the first step of the examination protocol is transthoracic echocardiography. It helps detect cardiac overload, which can then be verified by pulmonary angiography. It is unequivocal that they had no opportunity to do either. Therefore, such a diagnosis is nothing but a wild guess. Propaganda came up with this version surprisingly soon.”
Yes coroners sometimes use postmortem CT scans (PMCT), but only to decide whether to go ahead with a classic autopsy. That's increasingly common in the USA. Not in Russia. Absolutely not in some godforsaken Siberian gulag
You really are clutching at straws. So media cries 'murder' after 30mins of the news breaking. As you point out, a prison isn't likely to have advanced medical facilities, not even if the region contains the world's most accurate temperature sensing trees. Hey! Yamal!
“They couldn’t have named this diagnosis as the cause of his death. They could only have diagnosed him with ‘sudden cardiac arrest’ and listed its possible causes without jumping to conclusions.
Which of course most of the West's media and 'leaders' did when they determined it was a murder. Then decided that an initial CoD of SAD was further evidence of a conspiracy. And then transferring the body to a hospital that was equipped to perform a very high profile autopsy was evidence of a conspiracy. Remember Yolanda complaining that Russian authorities had to turn over the body within 2 days? Actually it's up to 30 days, when the CoD is unknown, or suspicious..
A detached blood clot is a lay term; the proper medical term is pulmonary embolism
Only when it's a pulmonary embolism, ie pulmonary artery and affecting the heart. Otherwise it's just an embolism, and can affect other organs..
At the moment, the cause of death has not been confirmed and is therefore ineligible.
Or extremely speculative. But still murder, right?
But considering that the ambulance crew was called in after the cardiac arrest, the clinical picture would not have been different from a heart attack, for instance, or the effect of exposure to a poisonous substance
And there we have the Fauxvichok conspiracy again. But story seems to have been Navalny went down, complaining of stomach pains, heart stopped, CPR administered. Other versions of the story say Navalny was healthy, yet complaining he was being denied medical treatment. He also complained he was transported in cramped conditions.. Much like the way being on an airplane or sedentary as someone in solitary confinement might experience, and develop thrombosis. Or just any pre-existing conditions like the pancreatitis and liver problems he apparently suffered from, which are common in alcoholics.
Therefore, such a diagnosis is nothing but a wild guess. Propaganda came up with this version surprisingly soon.”
Yep, but propaganda came up with murder and Fauxvichok much, much faster. First I heard of a clot was from Ukraine's Budanov. How that became a PE is anyone's guess, but it doesn't seem to be the official verdict.
Thanks for not trying to push the clot propaganda theory anymore. The type of poison is not relevant: Novichok, Polonium or else won't change much to the fact. The fact is that a few days earlier Navalny appeared in good health and died suddenly just before being exchanged. What a coincidence. Maybe Putin doesn't have the luxury to down yet another aircraft this time.
But Russia has so many of these coincidences that a full Wikipedia page full of corpses is dedicated to "Suspicious deaths of Russian business people (2022–2024)".
List of the victims: Igor Nosov, Alexander Tyulakov, Mikhail Watford, Vasily Melnikov, Vladislav Avayev, Sergey Protosenya, Andrei Krukovsky, Alexander Subbotin, Yuri Voronov, Dan Rapoport, Ravil Maganov, Ivan Pechorin, Vladimir Sungorkin [ru], Anatoly Gerashchenko, Pavel Pchelnikov, Nikolay Petrunin, Vyacheslav Taran, Vladimir Makei, Grigory Kochenov, Dmitriy Zelenov, Vladimir Bidenov, Alexander Buzakov, Pavel Antov, Alexei Maslov, Vladimir Nesterov, Magomed Abdulaev, Dmitry Pavochka, Vladimir Makarov, Marina Yankina, Viatcheslav Rovneiko, Igor Shkurko, Pyotr Kucherenko, Artyom Bartenev, Grigory Klinishov, Kristina Baikova, Andrei Fomin, Aleksey Avramenko, Alexander Nikolayev, Natalia Bochkareva, Anton Cherepennikov, Gennady Lopyrev, Yevgeny Prigozhin, Dmitry Utkin, Valery Chekalov, Vladimir Nekrasov, Vladimir Sviridov, Evgeny Postrigan, Vladimir Egorov, Zoya Konovalova, Ivan Sechin. And counting.
Thanks for not trying to push the clot propaganda theory anymore.
Err.. that one was all yours. Well, and wikis. Knowing your style means it's easy for me to predict where you'll get your 'facts' from, like your ER doc guff. But there's still the possibility of the 'clot shot' for amusement. Russia developed their own vaccine, and I've no idea if that's more or less likely to create clotting problems than ours. Or even Navalny's vaccine status, or any pre-existing medical conditions. But then the Lancet did publish bloods taken in Germany, which may have indicated he wasn't that healthy.
The type of poison is not relevant: Novichok, Polonium or else won't change much to the fact.
It's very relevant. Like not being able to find any poison. Or symptoms not lining up with poisons. Or presence of poison being proof it was Putin, and not his lawyer slipping him some blotter Fauxvichok. But testing for all that takes time, and yet the family demanded next-day body return. Then folding that all back into murder conspiracy theories.
The fact is that a few days earlier Navalny appeared in good health and died suddenly just before being exchanged. What a coincidence.
AFAIK the exchange may just be another conspiracy theory. Stranger was dying just as Yolanda's political career was being launched at the Munich Security Conference. Did you ever find out why she was there, or who the Russian oligarch she was there with is? But sometimes coincidences happen. Yes, he appeared hale and hearty on his video call. Then, he wasn't. There's still no evidence of murder however.
As for businessmen dieing, that's just Russia for you. Business can be pretty brutal and there's a fine line between business and organised crime. Assassinations are pretty common ways to solve disputes, just ask Epstein about that.
> "February. Hottest evah"
Maybe you could value expert's opinions more than your personal gut feeling... Spring came early: February likely warmest on record amid climate change . For once.
"Feb 29 (Reuters) - The world likely notched its warmest February on record, as spring-like conditions caused flowers to bloom early from Japan to Mexico, left ski slopes bald of snow in Europe and pushed temperatures to 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 C) in Texas.
While data has not been finalised, three scientists told Reuters that February is on track to have the highest global average temperature ever recorded for that month, thanks to climate change and the warming in the Eastern Pacific Ocean known as El Nino.
If confirmed, that would be the ninth consecutive monthly temperature record to be broken, according to data, opens new tab from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA will publish final figures for February around March 14, according to its press office."
Maybe you could value expert's opinions more than your personal gut feeling..
Objection, relevance. Bbc told a story about the UK having the hottest evah! February, yet Met Office data contradicts this claim. Do you believe the Bbc's report was factual and accurate? Yes or no.
Why is it so hard for you to answer such a simple question?
Strangely, Met Office as reported by Johnny Dork ("the warmest February on record was in 1779") doesn't say the say the same thing as Met Office reported by the Guardian ("February was warmest on record in England and Wales, Met Office says") or Met Office reported by the BBC ("England and Wales had their warmest February on record this year, the Met Office said on Friday.").
I really wonder who to trust now: Johnny Dork or The Guardian and the BBC?
Or maybe, just maybe you can't read the data from the Met Office themselves. Mean maximum and minimum daily and monthly data are also available, beginning in 1878. Pity that 1779 is one hundred years before 1878. LOL.
Or maybe, just maybe you can't read the data from the Met Office themselves. Mean maximum and minimum daily and monthly data are also available, beginning in 1878. Pity that 1779 is one hundred years before 1878. LOL.
I can read, you obviously cannot. Here we go again-
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/meantemp_ranked_monthly.txt
Central England Temperature ranked coldest to warmest from 1659 to 2024
Sorted on 05/03/2024 units: Degrees Celsius
Now, explain how 'global warming' can be detected in one time series, but not the oldest and most established, ie CET? One obvious answer is data source, ie the weather stations used. Then the diff being explained by lousy station siting. Like Radcliffe again..
> I can read, you obviously cannot. Here we go again-
Man, it's easy. As other readers have pointed out to you repeatedly, you're citing the Met Office to accuse the BBC of bias, when it's citing... the Met Office itself (as does The Guardian and others).
So there are only two solutions to that equation:
1 - Either you don't understand the Met Office data (and why they discarded the oldest "values").
2 - Or the Met Office does not agree with its own self.
I wonder which solution is the most likely.
When you'll be reincarnated in the body of a fly, you'll be the kind of fly that continuously attempts to fly through the window glass. I'm yet to witness a single successful one. All the ones I've seen so far seem to get very frustrated, but stubbornly keep trying... until they eventually fall off, vanquished by exhaustion. I assume It's a matter of brain plasticity and natural selection at work.
Man, it's easy. As other readers have pointed out to you repeatedly, you're citing the Met Office to accuse the BBC of bias, when it's citing... the Met Office itself (as does The Guardian and others).
Uhuhu. So Met Office data contradicts Met Office press release, and Bbc climate 'experts' dutifully regurgitate it without bothering to do any 'fact checking'.
So there are only two solutions to that equation:1 - Either you don't understand the Met Office data (and why they discarded the oldest "values").
Or you clearly do not. If you discard (or adjust) the oldest values, then clearly you can manipulate the results. It's like conducting a drug trial for your latest patent medicine and just discarding a bunch of deaths. It's not the way science works, or is meant to work.
And I notice you still can't answer the question. CET series contradicts the claim. Was February the hottest evah, or not?
Why don't you ask the Met Office the reason why they don't use their own values (of George III reign), instead of digging deeper and deeper your contradiction pit?
No need. Complaints have already been made to the Bbc asking them to explain why their 'story' disagrees with the Met Office's own data. Again you still can't answer the question, despite it's apparent simplicity. Cherry pick your data and you can make it say anything. It isn't science though.
But are you now saying the CET series is entirely unreliable, and should be disregarded. If not, why the divergence? Could it be something to do with the stations used and abused in different time series?
> "No need. Complaints have already been made to the Bbc asking them to explain why their 'story' disagrees with the Met Office's own data"
Oh Man, I just want to see their face when they read your gibberish. I can picture the palm-face of the BBC ombudsman wondering what part of the Met Office press release you can't understand ("Warmest February on record for England and Wales (Author: Press Office 12:39 (UTC) on Fri 1 Mar 2024)"). Well. it's the Beeb. They've seen it all, actually.
Keep digging: you'll be 5ft under long before the Beeb takes side with climate change nutcases.
Keep digging: you'll be 5ft under long before the Beeb takes side with climate change nutcases.
More snark, no answers. You're gish-galloping all over the place, yet still can't explain why CET contradicts the Bbc's story. Hint: The issue is not just the 1779 record.. But this is normal for climate change deniers. Cherry pick the end of the LIA, and find warming! Who knew?
TBH, I'm having quite some fun too: most people concede as soon as they are proven wrong and thus manage to avert further ridicule. But as always, there are outliers.
Ah, NJP, you'll never grow up. You haven't proven me wrong at all. CET still disagrees with the February claim. Despite that being rather obvious, you still seem convinced the claim is accurate. Here's another take on the subject that you'll no doubt ignore, throw around some more ad homs, and generally just dig your hole deeper-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/03/04/february-1779-exceptionally-warm/
As noted previously, February 1779 was actually warmer than last month in Central England. It is also worth noting that there is no identifiable trend or pattern in the distribution of warm Februarys:
WHAT CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
MET OFFICE PRESS RELEASE: "Warmest February on record for England and Wales" on Friday 01-03.
BBC Subtitle "England and Wales had their warmest February on record this year, the Met Office said on Friday."
Jellied brain: "BBC is lying". You need English lessons? Pick another fight, man: one you can win. You've posted at least 10 comments, arguing that the BBC was not reflecting the Met Office's information. Flies can't fly through closed windows.
What's the level of expertise of this Paul Homewood in weather or climate science? Meanwhile, he's categorized as a Climate Change Denier by a number of disinformation research NGOs.
See, the problem with cherry picking is you are bound to pick some rotten cherries if your goal is to support some seriously outlandish beliefs. He was even rejected by the Brexit wackos.
> I fact checked the story and Met office lied because CET shows warmer
Translation: "I did some cherry picking because I can't cope with reality. I can't be wrong, so the world is wrong."
So what's you proposition to BBC?
"Please Auntie, tell Met Office that Met Office does not agree with Met Office and should take into consideration temperature measurements starting in 1659 nearly one century before Celsius came up with his centigrade temperature scale!".
They will just die of laughter. TBH, I'm having quite some fun too: most people concede as soon as they are proven wrong and thus manage to avert further ridicule. But as always, there are outliers.
Jellied brain: "BBC is lying". You need English lessons? Pick another fight, man: one you can win.
I do seem to have won this one. You still can't answer the question. Let me rephrase it, again.
Met Office issues Press Release.
Bbc copypasta.
Bbc lying
Simple really. February hottest evah, yes or no? I fact checked the story and Met office lied because CET shows warmer years. Bbc didn't fact check the story, so published lies, or misinformation. I guess if the Bbc published a story that the Earth is flat, you'd believe that one as well.
"Democrats and Republicans will both be spending many millions to get their important messages in front of social media eyeballs. "
And that sounds to me like the real reason. In the past the way for pollies to reach social media was to get newspaper/TV coverage that then went to social media.
Now the only way to reach them is for pollies/parties to pay Zuck for advertising. So instead of paying newspapers for politicians to reach social media users, the politicians pay him.
Meta wants to instead "focus our time and resources on things people tell us they want to see more of on the platform, including short form video."
My partner likes viewing Facebook, et al, using it to see what the kids are up to (They've flown the nest) I certainly don't want my partner to see more short form videos. I'm sat watching the telly and I get this stream of noise of videos as they auto-play.
"That includes links posted by users."
Links or snippets? Whichever, if Meta simply redacts them the media can't complain about not getting paid. They might complain about lost traffic if simple links are redacted but it just a consequence of not having thought things out in the first place.
Delivered a product, found it didn't work very well for them, and dropped it. Scraping too much news was a copyright breach so they had to pay to do it. Just allowing links sends users away to news sites. Meta would prefer to keep you on their services.
Consider:
Tabloid news is the view of its owner, peddled to those who want their own prejudices reinforced. Tabloid content has no value as 'news'.
The news as it is conveyed to us is 99% bad. The more you watch it or read it, the more it damages your mental health. Are we better off without it?
News has been increasingly propagandist and manipulative lately. No mention of Brexit causing inflation by taking Sterling down 25%. Breaking news bulletins when someone is hurt by a Russian drone in Ukraine (name, age, injuries), and a mention each week that another 5000 people have died in Palestine (few details, nobody knows how many women and children). So if we can't trust the 'news' to be proper, honest news any more, is it worth having?
Do we even need it? Politicians are corrupt and incompetent. That doesn't change. The weather is getting worse. The England men's football team won't win anything. You don't need to be told all of this. You already know it.
So, although I would normally encourage people to be aware of what is going on (and especially to read 'Private Eye' and 'El Reg'), is there any additional benefit from watching or reading the stuff offered to us as news by news outlets?
Local and specialist maybe, but general news is at pretty much Pravda levels at the moment. So we won't miss it. Not on social media or generally.
Murdoch owns 70 percent of Australian news media, which is no good for our democracy. They spout utter right wing garbage and have failed to find a business model that works in the digital age.
They went begging to Canberra, cap in hand, complaining that they were struggling. Tough.
Those payments are nothing but a link tax.
I'm certainly no fan of Facebook et al, but having to pay for merely linking to web pages fundamentally attacks the way the Internet is supposed to work.
Where does it stop? Slippery slope and all that.
I can see the downvotes coming in 3,2,1....
I believe the fundamental issue for MetaCrack is that if they continue to allow news posts in their feeds, their favourite source of LLM data sets to trawl becomes "poisoned" by organizations that are very busy suing OpenAI for doing just that with the news organization's articles. It has nothing to do with what the people want or the popularity of the feeds and news articles, but about the legal issues of allowing the news in their feeds.
Novel MetaData Based Views reflecting Live ACTive Operations for struggling traditional news organisations to try to dismiss and deny exist as an almighty challenge for status quo systems to do future successful battle against would be an altogether quite different concept for the likes of a Facebook or a Zuckerberg to demonstrate such hostings/presentations can extremely easily and extraordinarily stealthily initiate and maintain, sustain and retain a commanding controlling lead in any number of necessary vital strategic fields for future human success in an vast catalogue of emerging, and yet to be uncovered and revealed, out of this world endeavours.
Surely you cannot be expecting humanity to stagnate and rot in the present day putrid swamps of their own petrified and ignorant making because there is nothing good and great of novel worth to follow? That would be absolutely pathetic ..... and especially so whenever you be told there are viable simply complex alternatives on offer and ready to be provided virtually free from the stores and arsenals of A.N.Others.
And you too may realize that if you think that one is making sense you may be having a break yourself.
While it is natural to look up at the moon and see a face smiling back at you, that is your mistake not the moons. That also does not mean there was NOT a face on the moon smiling back at you, just that you failed to perceive them, mistaking your intent and perception for theirs. Much the same with amanfrommars posts. Like those brief moments an astronaut was there looking back at a tiny blue dot, there may at times and in strange eons be a conscious mind out there sending strange transmissions to us. They might even have meant something.
What that is I haven't a clue, and I hope it stays that way. I am not ready.
《Tik tok will suffer the same fate when these kids have kids... What goes around comes around ....》
Yep. No one left on ICQ anymore. ;)
Just when the Royal Mail is closing its last post office and the post boxes are being sent to Steptoe and Son, I suspect the youth of the day will rediscover the art of letter writing, with pen and ink, on decent embossed or water marked paper, or vellum and sent in an equally solid envelope with a tastefully designed postage stamp attatched with a gum (acacia) adhesive. Probably also be a market for sealing wax (if there were any bees left), signet rings and seals.
By then England will probably be a protectorate or republic [odd ordinal english Carolines don't have a great record of longevity] and it might be cheaper to is discard the Royal Mail in toto than to strip out the royal cipher.
Unfortunately there is never a Moist von Ludwig to resurrect moribund organisations as you always seem to get a Bergholt Stuttley Johnson (aka Bloody Stupid Johnson ;)
On the basis that the current UK Monarch is designated "King Charles the Third", my set of ordinals (YMMV) indicates that the only other odd-numbered Caroline was "King Charles" [1].
Whence cometh the plural in "odd ordinal english Carolines ", please? Are you including the current King [2]?
[1] Contemporary documents show that during his reign he was referred to by that moniker: ie with no ordinal. A "non-ordinal Caroline" if you will; so not in the set at all?
[2] At age 75 the current Monarch has significantly exceeded the average life-span of a 'UK Male born in 1948' (currently a bit less than 67 [3] years according to DNS).
[3] As not all of the set of 'UK Males born in 1948' have died yet (obvs), that average is still increasing, albeit marginally. But simple arithmetic shows that Charles III will exceed the average, whenever he goes...