The seems to define impartial news as news that has no particular point of view. What does that mean to not have a point of view? Any news source is disseminating information. This always carries the point of view that the information being disseminated is factual.
If we’re talking about pure opinions, like movie reviews, I would argue that isn’t news.
Many people seem to think that impartial news is news that covers all sides. They share all purported and contradictory information from all sources without confirming which information is true, and which is not. This allows the audience to decide for themselves how to see the world rather than being forced to see the world as it is. The upside is not being forced to see only a false world as envisioned by others who may have unseemly motives. The downside is many are left confused and unsure what is true. This defeats the purpose of news entirely, as the audience is just as uninformed after reading as they were before.
The only truly impartial news source is one that will adhere to rigorous standards of evidence. Given all the available information they will take a firm stand in declaring what the facts are, and to what degree of certainty.
The problem is that in a world with vaccine deniers, climate denial, etc. a purely fact-based and impartial source of news would be branded as very extremist.
I think this is the wrong framing. They're not trustful or distrustful of authority in some abstract sense. They don't think in those terms. They think in terms of discomfort and of fear. "Is what this person is asking me to do unpleasant for me?" or "is it scary to me, in that it involves something I don't understand or creates uncertainty I can't cognitive-dissonance my way out of?"
Doctors ask you to do things that are unpleasant, involve things you don't understand, and create uncertainty. Your doctor says "hey, your blood pressure is high, you need to eat less salt, but that may or may not solve your problem." If you believe them, you have to measurably damage your quality of life, you have to trust in a bunch of medicine that you don't fully understand, and you now have to worry about whether your health will ever improve (when there is a very real chance that it will not). Or you can go "actually doctors are all quacks and if I just eat Natural Whole Foods(TM) I'll be fine" and have an approach that asks you to do things that make you feel good, fits within an intuitive model of the world, and creates artificial certainty.
In isolation, this isn't new. What is new is that:
- The asks have been unusually unpleasant in recent memory. COVID lockdowns are a particular focal point for a reason: they were psychologically painful and involved a distant and low-probability threat in the minds of most people. (To be clear, I think they were clearly correct policy - but that didn't make them fun.)
- The world is a lot scarier and more uncertain than people are used to, so acknowledging the facts has a higher emotional cost.
- The truth is more muddled than it used to be for most people. They're bombarded with an enormous amount of misinformation. Even if you're good at filtering misinformation and avoid uptake of 90% of it, the 10% that gets through can erode trust. And institutions - while still on balance the best source of information available to a layperson - have been abusing that trust enough that some suspicion is warranted.
- Propaganda is channeled through social connections untraceable to organizations. You might not believe a youtube video if it tells you about chemtrails, but you might believe your friend, who heard it from a friend, who saw it in a youtube video. And algorithmic targeting means you can be served exactly the propaganda that strikes your biases and vulnerabilities.
------------
The authoritarianism you're talking about, on the other hand, says:
- You should not be asked to do anything new or process the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. In fact, the things you've already been asked to do were unfair and targeted oppression aimed at you.
- The world is scary, just like you feel it is, but in a narrow and controllable way. You have agency over your fear, and a champion who fights for you, and you won't (say) die of a random disease because of a bad roll of the dice.
- The truth is simple: I am telling you the truth, always, and our enemies are telling lies, always.
- You don't need to listen to authorities who are scary and untrustworthy. Just listen to your neighbor or your favorite TikTok creator, who you trust and feel safe around.
In that sense, it doesn't feel authoritarian, because it isn't authoritarian to them. It asks them nothing, and in some cases, less than nothing. It oppresses someone else, asks someone else to sacrifice, removes someone else whose presence may cause cultural discomfort or cognitive dissonance, and promises simple, certain, free solutions. This is why you see people affected by layoffs or tariffs or whatever going "wait, um, there must be some mistake, obviously this couldn't affect me" - that really is what they believe.
That's not to say that there are not very serious problems with the status quo. There are, and that's part of what's fueling these (malignant) solutions.
I made a comment about a month ago [1] that applies again here: the average person is usually good at identifying problems but terrible at identifying solutions. And when the average person has been able to identify problems for decades and institutions have failed to solve them, they're less likely to hold the line against misinformation and mob rule. That goes double when the average person's life has gotten significantly more uncomfortable and scary, reducing their appetite for self-sacrifice in a world that is extracting more and more of their well-being.
I did not see mention of event delegation in the article.
Registering thousands of event handlers on one screen can have performance impact, and is generally why registering them on individual elements becomes a problem for an interactive page. Registering on a parent element can provide the same interactivity with only a single handler thanks to event bubbling.
There have been a couple of papers [1] that can induce this process while awake using particular image patterns as confirmed in an MRI. I think the NIH confirmation is running behind in the science, independent research is quite a bit ahead of them. I came across the paper on this last year and implemented a very simple page with the parameters they used [2].
There is a number of disease models that show reduced or no glymphatic clearance and as such these people need treatments to clear out their brains and these image routines seem to help. A lot of people find this pattern extremely taxing to watch especially for the recommended number of cycles, you can feel the effect on the brain its hard to describe the sensation its a bit numbing and the image has the sensation of changing as the cycle runs like its a visual trick. You might get left feeling like you have been clubbed over the head the first time.
I find it interesting this is one aspect of disease research I am looking into and is related to Long Covid and ME/CFS.
Capstone supports an impressive breadth of architectures. However, if all you need is x86/AMD64 decoding and disassembly, there are much higher quality (in terms of accurate decoding) libraries out there.
I wrote a differential fuzzer for x86 decoders a few years ago, and XED and Zydis generally performed far better (in terms of accuracy) than Capstone[1]. And on the Rust side, yaxpeax and iced-x86 perform very admirably.
After decades, people still barely know what Open Source means[0]; if you can I think it's much better to make things as obvious as possible, like ex. the Creative Commons licenses - nobody has to ask what the "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International" license means.
[0] I remain surprised at the number of people, even on HN, who seem to think Open Source is the same as Source Available.
Please note that bitwarden server is floss too - vaultwarden is just a simpler backend to self-host (and without a dependency on Microsoft SQL server):
If we’re talking about pure opinions, like movie reviews, I would argue that isn’t news.
Many people seem to think that impartial news is news that covers all sides. They share all purported and contradictory information from all sources without confirming which information is true, and which is not. This allows the audience to decide for themselves how to see the world rather than being forced to see the world as it is. The upside is not being forced to see only a false world as envisioned by others who may have unseemly motives. The downside is many are left confused and unsure what is true. This defeats the purpose of news entirely, as the audience is just as uninformed after reading as they were before.
The only truly impartial news source is one that will adhere to rigorous standards of evidence. Given all the available information they will take a firm stand in declaring what the facts are, and to what degree of certainty.
The problem is that in a world with vaccine deniers, climate denial, etc. a purely fact-based and impartial source of news would be branded as very extremist.