Yes, but that wording carefully evades explicitly saying they don’t scan content in the service of ads. For example they still could use your drive content to enrich how they target to other people who have similar profiles.
NPR has an implicit assumption in ~every story that a problem is best addressed by government intervention and spending. They're credulous of any claim an "authority" makes.
2. Could this article be more sympathetic to the administration? https://www.npr.org/2021/08/14/1027552833/heres-why-biden-is... the meanest thing they say it's "misjudged the speed". Why not "it's been obvious for two decades ANA could never hold together including the eight years he was VP"
It's more benign than qanon. I haven't checked their coverage of mask wearing. I'll change my mind if they were pushing masks when Fauci was lying and saying they were unnecessary.
QAnon is benign, we wouldn't even know of its existence if it wasn't constantly brought up by press outlets to supply their readers with a desperate need for a boogeyman.
Yeah, not sure what that guy's on about. PBS, NPR, and other not for profit news orgs like BBC aren't perfect, but then what is? If I had to choose a single news source to try to stay informed, I'd take any one of those three over any of their for-profit competition.
Don't mistake the BBC for a "not-for-profit". BBC Worldwide is a commmercial operation. The BBC has large shares in various commercial TV operations.
The only parts of the BBC that are arguably not-for-profit are iPlayer, and domestic TV and Radio; and the BBC World Service. These are paid for by a controversial hypothecated tax, controlled by the government of the day; as a consequence, the Beeb is fairly consistently pro the government of the day, and anti the official opposition (they can see which side their bread is buttered on).
[Edit] The World Service is paid for out of general taxation, specifically the Foreign Office budget. It's not paid for out of the Licence Fee.
According to the author's examples of bullshit, NPR peddles the same stuff as the other for-profit main stream publications.
> Immerse yourself in news of Russian plots to counterfeit presidential children’s laptops [0], viruses spawned in Wuhan market stalls [1], vast secret legions of domestic terrorists flashing one another the OK sign in shadowy parking lots [2] behind Bass Pro Shops experiencing “temporary” inflation [3], and patriotic tech conglomerates purging the commons of untruths.
I listed to them for years but noticed a considerable shift in their reporting in the last 2-3 years.
They were presumably not referring to NPR specifically, but to public-service broadcasters in general, like ARD and ZDF in Germany, BBC in Britain, ORF in Austria, RAI in Italy, and so on.
> Perhaps if the docs started with a simple example of what has been seen over time to be the most common incantation for each command it might be tolerable.
Rsync’s man page opens with examples, and even though I never actually those specific commands, they are usually enough for me to remember how to do whatever I wanted to do.
Any work that involves a lot of puns and dialect will be hard to translate, as will anything that uses a lot of rhetorical flair. Puns are often impossible because they involve a "collision" of meaning between two words. If this collision isn't possible in the translated language, the best thing the translator can do is try to come up with their pun. Dialect and slang also will be hard, because slang is kind of a capsule of the culture it comes from. So the translator is going to have to choose a more normal world, losing the original flavor, or pick some slang from the L2, thus bringing an "import" into the world of the work. Rhythm and prosody depend on the harmony between the sounds of the words in the original language. Of course, the words of the translation language will have an entirely different set of sounds, and perhaps the grammar won't even permit similar acts of parallelism. As a stupid example look at
>Vini, Vidi, vici
>I came, I saw, I conquered.
Notice Latin doesn't require the pronoun I. But literally translating "Came,saw, conquered" sounds like it was written by a petulant 14 year old. Secondly, Caesar's clauses are a nice triplet of two syllables. The English version does pretty well there, until it reaches "conquered," which throws the rhythm off. I said it was a stupid example, because the English translates pretty well IMO, but hopefully I demonstrated the difficult work of the translator.
Off the top of my head, I think these would be tough to translate.
-Shakespeare. Too many puns, and the meter is tied to a rhythm natural to English. All poetry is difficult really.
-Huckleberry Finn. Heavy dialect, which often involves the racial prejudices of the time. How can you translate that part? Nothing will be as disrespectful as the word is in English. Furthermore, how do you translate something like:
>It must a been close on to one o’clock
Do you preserve the grammar error? What's the difference between "close" and "close on"?
-Faulkner. Same as Twain, plus some very heavy rhetoric.
-Joyce. Same as Faulkner, but more puns, heavier rhetoric. If there's anything harder to translate than Finnegans Wake, let me know.
-Gadsby. This book does not contain the letter E! E is the most common vowel in English, but it's not in many other languages. Is the translator "cheating" if constrains the same letter? Amazingly this problem has been tackled in the translation of a different book, La Disparation, a French novel also without any e's either. The English translation, A Void, avoids the character too. However, omitting the E would be too easy in Russian, so that version doesn't contain any O's.
You make a good point, but finally encryption is just a tool. The virtual and the physical spaces are both domains, whose different nature offers different tools at their disposal. I don't think you can protect anything in the physical domain with the same certainty and mathematical elegance that's available to digital files, but if there were I wouldn't be opposed to it.
Imagine if there were a safe that couldn't be opened by anyone but the owner without destroying its contents. Would you be opposed to that? What if the design mechanism of this safe were as easy to implement as the encryption protocols are? Yes, one day some expert safe-cracker might break it. And in the even farther future the advent of "quantum safecracking" would perhaps make the safe as secure as a luggage lock. In the meantime the police would have to resort to their traditional methods.
Unfortunately all kinds of damning evidence have been lost to time. Fire is older than paper.
But stories do have multiple sides, even if one side is flat out wrong.
I don't think anyone on the right or left would say that the present problem with Journalists is that they present both sides too well.
That's not to say that there's never a correct position. Assuming there is another version is different from assuming all versions are on multiple footing.
My standard argument about this is: vax vs anti-vax.
There are NOT two equal sides. There is a correct side and an outright fraudulent side and bunch of easily swayed morons.
Journalists tend to cover this with "balance" instead of calling one side flat-out wrong. "Fair" means occasionally calling out liars and pissing people off.
