I agree. This sort of article is partly the reason why we so often here something like "science can't make up its mind" or "x is good now but was bad before, and will be bad again soon".
Instead of sharing accurate information about the findings of these researchers, news organizations use them to write catchy, clickbait-y articles. Needless to say, researchers are often to blame as well, since they participate in interviews using vague language so that they can benefit from the exposure, well aware of the repercussions of their behavior.
This issue goes beyond just researchers and news organizations, though. There have been plenty of discussions here in HN and other places about how scientific research is somewhat broken due to how it rewards quantity versus quality for example.
This is not a stab at you or your comment. I think your message is valid and I agree with it. However, I do believe there's a commonmisconception in here that needs to be highlighted if hoped to be fixed.
> We have open source browsers, we have open source social
> apps, but we definitely do not have open source phones.
> Phones that can be truly owned and controlled by users
> will reshape the privacy discourse, from one of
> complaining and >legal coercion, to one of choices and
> markets.
What you are talking about in the text above is not delivered by Open Source, which is just a practical advantage. The values you mentioned are fought for by the Free/Libre Software community [0].
I recommend to anyone interested in this topic (e.g. the differences between Libre and Open Source software), read more about the GNU project as a starter [1].
As a disclaimer, I'm by no means an expert on this topic which is another reason to follow the links below.
Just to complement other's responses, accessibility is a spectrum.
We ought to believe someone chooses to use an icon for aesthetics AND usability reasons. If the icon can't be rendered at all, it defeats it's purpose despite it having a "description".
Ultimately, if a well designed, user-friendly system doesn't work the way it's intended to, it is an accessibility issue of some degree. Albeit, some times more trivial than others.
I'm no expert, but anecdotally I can tell that the idea that the oaths are holdovers doesn't quite apply to the US. Their oath is worded in such a way that you very clearly have to give up loyalty to any other country state, but the US was never governed by a single monarch/ruler (after independence of course).
The "good reason" you provided, even if it were an actually thought out consequence of the US system, isn't really delivered.
In reality, people are painfully aware of how annoying filing taxes is and hopeful that they will get some money back later. The system is so convoluted, most people pay someone else to take care of it for them. Not to mention, most people barely understand what's happening when they are filing their taxes.
I don't know what options show up depending on the route you use to donate, but the link on the Android app [0] takes you to a page that does allow recurring contributions.
I think this is a great point. I would really appreciate to see more accurate lists or, better yet, more diverse lists.
However, I have to point out the irony here. Every time someone complains about the lack of western representation they just pretend there isn't a southern hemisphere in the planet. The East is not composed of only Europe, Canada, and the United States.
That's to say, fight for overall diversity, not for western vs. eastern representation because that's a false dichotomy.
If it were a for-profit, private company which was "flexing" I'd agree with you. But EFF works hard to defend our rights and internet freedom.
If they bolster their wins with some overly excited language, I believe they are well within their right. Also, it serves as a good way to promote their work and incentivise people to contribute.
I fail to see an issue with their approach here but would like to hear a counter argument if there is one.
Not to mention that companies like Google and Microsoft also offer different levels of technical support alongside their products.
For smaller companies, or companies that want to invest less in their technology stack IT department, it sounds like a better deal to have all services provided and backed by a larger computation corporation (even if that's not always actually cheaper in the long run).
I believe your argument is sensible, especially in society at large. What you lack is evidence that the kind of behavior you're describing happens on HN.
I don't know if it does or not but without evidence this is just conjecture from all sides.
I think you raise a good point here, but one that is essentially invalidated by years of journalism that's mostly funded and managed by people with a lot of interest in the political discourse.
Very little of "the press" or "journalism" that reaches the true majority of people can be considered much more than entertainment television. Not only that, they have very clear goals, partisan alignments, and deals to own up to.
My point being, this picture of "the press" is not new nor is it simple to unravel, especially because a lot of the coverage we see, and how it's done, depends on a multitude of factors.
Let's take, for example, your point about the Hunter Biden story and let's allow ourselves to conjecture for a moment.
In a "press" state such as the one I described above, a big part of the "news media" is running amok with the story regardless of having little to no evidence to back it up.
On the other hand, the world is still spinning and news that are noteworthy are still coming out. One might even say people should know about these things.
What's one to do in face of such situation? Do we expect that the "news media" devote all focus to arguing the conspiracy theory, which will most likely boost the conversation around it, or should we expect the "news media" to focus on things that can actually be proven, assessed, researched?
Of course, this is one narrow example that only scratches the surface of something that, like I said, is very complex. But I do believe that, considering the current environment, it's more harmful to debate the conspiracy stories than to ignore them. Consider any other conspiracy theory that you ever heard of. Would it be beneficial for anyone to have constant debate on television about whether or not the Earth is round, or if men have been to the Moon, etc.
