/r/xyz doesnt need to fact check. Sure those are excellent subs but just being watering holes and not legal entities they can move faster. There were some wrong facts on r/aviation although it got viral so people just ploughed in with whatever news outlet they read it on.
The clearance for AC8646 to land on runway 4 is given in a sequence starting at 4:58. "Vehicle needs to cross the runway" at 6:43. Truck 1 and company asks for clearance to cross 4 at 6:53. Clearance is granted at 7:00. Then ATC asks both a Frontier and Truck 1 to stop, voice is hurried and it's confusing.
If only we could diff the BBC article (it currently says it was posted 21 mins ago which is younger than your comment…). It’s changed multiple times now without any kind of changelog or acknowledgement.
> Video footage on social media showed the aircraft, which is operated by Air Canada's regional partner Jazz aviation, coming to a rest with its nose upturned.
This just isn’t true. There’s no video of the plane coming to a rest with its nose upturned (which implies motion). The upturned nose happened only after passengers deplaned and the balance shifted.
> It had slowed to about 24mph when it collided with a vehicle from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the airport.
This is the next part that will change. Just because some of the last broadcast data said 24mph doesn’t mean that’s the speed it was when it collided with the truck. The truck is on its side and those passengers are in hospital. The pilots are dead. The plane sustained enough structural damage to have the entire nose collapse. If the sentence is based on that broadcast data, SAY THAT instead of printing it as fact.
And with all the quotes from social media posts from key groups, link to them instead of just vaguely quoting.
EDIT:
As expected, they got rid of the above paragraph claiming the speed. It now says:
“The plane was arriving from Montreal and had landed, before colliding with the vehicle from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the airport.”
Any of us can help log the changes by submitting revisions of the article to web.archive.org
With a fast-changing news story where vague/incomplete/conflicting details emerge in the first few hours it's not unreasonable for the first few revisions to be like that, and eventually gets fixed hours or a day later.
I think that’s what’s critical here. Post details and their sources to show that they are in flux. Don't write them as fact and then make secret edits.
Because some of them still have standards. They will correct themselves if something was wrong.
Everyone can write a comment on Reddit / make a podcast / video / whatever claiming whatever they want. Unless you already know and trust them (which requires you to be able to cross-check their information), it's potentially as useful as a random LLM hallucination. Could be brilliantly spot on, or could be completely nonsense. No way of knowing unless you already know enough. (Because even cross-checking won't necessarily save you, if you cross-check multiple bullshit sources).
Media with standards (like the BBC, Guardian, Liberation, etc.) will do their best to report truthfully (even if sometimes with some bias), and will fix their mistakes if they're caught later on or the story evolves. Independent media checking organisations have shown time and time again that there is trustworthy media, you just need to know which it is, and always take a pinch of salt. It's wild to me that people will just dismiss rags such as Fox News and relatively quality media like Guardian in the same breath.
To be fair, much of the criticism is deserved with the deadlines that are never met, the manufacturing defects, engineering defects, cost cutting measures, etc... (and only in terms of Tesla not the overall Musk footprint)
I finally talked myself into going to 3Gbps (and working on internal network to 10). Internal transfer to NAS will be much faster, and downloading AI models should go from ~8 minutes to less than 3 minutes. Is it necessary? Not exactly. But super nice
Decent film but to me 'I'm Still Here' (Ainda Estou Aqui) was still a too fresh experience from last year to have a similar film again from Brazil set in the 70s covering the military dictatorship. I also think that I'm Still Here is a much better film.
I definitely like that film, especially the acting and the music, but I think that, as with most material that covers that era (arts, history, journalism), it focuses on the middle and the upper classes.
The poor get a footnote: what happened to Zezé? But the poor were the biggest losers of the dictatorship. It was at the precise moment that the country needed to modernise that the coup made everything stop and the favelas grew along with violence in the periphery. Maybe City of God is a better depiction of what the dictatorship meant.
It's just now starting to become common knowledge that the military dictatorship didn't industrialize Brazil. On most circles, saying that it deindustrialized the country will surprise every single person, and get immediately rejected as false by a large share.
Propaganda is a hell of a thing. We are not even close to start that discussion, so it mostly won't appear anywhere.
Reminds me of the dictatorship in Suriname in the 1980s. It was not about ideology. The military was just corrupt- they even did business with drug cartels.
Generals can't fix the economy they can only use violence and repression.
The Brazilian dictatorship did both. Just like the rest of Latin América they lost it all to high interest rates in the 70s and 80s. They lost so they quit.
You mean it first industrialized and then deindustrialized the country?
Because if so, not really. Most of their industrializing policies had the opposite effect. What they really achieved was to reduce the industrialization pace to snail-speed, and then to turn it negative.
On the first half, it was not for lack of trying, though. It was just for lack of competence.
You’re wrong and I can quote a number of economic histories to show so. The industrialisation push in Latin America was successful - to a degree. It followed the UN plans for developing a country under the Bretton Woods system. And it worked. But all that work was unwound by the Nixon shock and then the Volcker shock.
The only way to develop a major industrial economy under the Western system post 1945 seems to have been - be a reliable and essential US ally - be given privileges to survive the occasional systemic shock. “Kicking away The Ladder” and “How Asia Works” are good books about this.
That was true of Nixon-Volcker and it was true of 2008-COVID periods. The truth is that under the dollar monetary zone the rules are what they are, until they get changed. Those who survive relatively unscathed are generally given a permissive path to do so.
I was just reflecting on what it means to lead through the "perilous fight." Whether it’s the dawn’s early light or the twilight’s last gleaming, true leaders stay focused on the mission.
Those broad stripes and bright stars? That’s your brand identity, streaming gallantly even when the market gets tough.
The rockets' red glare and bombs bursting in air? Those are just the disruptions and challenges that prove your foundation is still there.
Question for my network: Is your "star-spangled banner" still waving? Are you building a culture that’s truly the land of the free and the home of the brave?
