Post-factualism: Goodbye Enlightenment--Hello Idiocracy?

[7Wannabe5]

I think the BBC News and The Economist were two sources that were rated relatively high for information and low for bias in a chart I recently displayed to a high school marketing class. My practice is to avoid news as much as possible and force myself to read books that include the math as much as possible. I will even go so far as to end arguments by saying something like "Get back to me after you actually read a book." , because I am devolving into grouchy old librarian type.

[IlliniDave]

The similar charts I've seen just seem to reflect the opinion of whoever is putting them together (or underwriting the underlying study). As soon as I see CNN labeled anywhere close to middle of the road objective, all credibility is lost. Only thing I'd believe a this point it is a barbell distribution for any US-based "MSM" outfit. Could be BBC and The Economist are reasonably balanced, they don't fit my readily accessible restriction. I think your approach to just ignoring it all is wise. Since news of Neil Peart's passing broke my commute has been dedicated to revisiting old CDs, and a few days away from broadcast news is what prompted me to add (or detract from as the case may be) this thread. I can't do the book elite thing, life is too short at this point for me to read about math any more, haha.

[Campitor]

Is Sweden* already net positive if $$/energy-burn costs of nuclear plant construction is taken into consideration? IMO, any emissions reduction statistics based on national boundaries are kind of dubious. For instance, a good part of the recent reduction of U.S. emissions is due to more crap being manufactured outside of the U.S. It's like comparing the personal emissions of an accountant who lives within walking distance of his urban job with the farmer operating machinery on the crops that will become the accountant's take out scone. If Swedish humans spend an average of $40,000/capita on personal goods/services and public works infrastructure/bureaucracy then that's a pretty good estimate of their per capita emissions minus relatively small credit for (new nuclear energy-new nuclear energy plant embodied energy depreciation.)

I hear what you're saying. There is a veneer of hypocrisy in claiming a good environmental score when a country is outsourcing pollution elsewhere or using carbon intensive technology to build non-carbon sources of power generation. But this hypocrisy shouldn't interfere with the assertion that nuclear energy is the best means for delivery the energy density required by large and growing economies. Solar and wind technology will only carry you so far in scalability. I can see solar and wind tech augmenting nuclear energy output but we're a long way from having passive energy collection as the sole source of power.

*I should note that I am biased against goody-goody out of Sweden due to conversation I once had with Swedish friend who was claiming that everybody in Sweden has a good job. When I asked him "Well, who cleans the toilets?", he had to admit it was often non-citizen immigrants who had those jobs. It's very easy to dump anything outside of the sort of inherently artificial boundaries of nation-state.

Scrubbing toilets, along with other housekeeping occupations, is an essential service and shouldn't be looked upon as a "lesser" job. It's just a job that requires very little skill, with a plethora of unskilled workers willing to do it, therefore it doesn't pay much - supply and demand. That native born Swedes, or immigrants that arrive with more technical skills, don't professionally put brush to commodes shouldn't be a reason for criticism. And even if Scandinavian preference is only to give immigrants toilet scrubbing jobs, it shouldn't be a reason to ignore nuclear energy's legitimacy as means of reducing carbon emissions. I know this wasn't your intent but this is how conversations regarding clean power generation are derailed via accusations of "what-about-isms".

[7Wannabe5]

I am not particularly opposed to nuclear. The main issue I was attempting to raise was the need to include the energy cost of building the plants in the calculations. No different than the math involved in deciding whether buying a new Tesla is better than buying a used Toyota. Just considering current emissions without including depreciation of plants is not useful for comparison purposes. You could even argue that burning the fuel necessary to build the plants is inherently more damaging because happens sooner. Impossible to say without looking at all the relevant numbers.

[sky]

I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions suddenly took a great leap forward to a higher level of Idiocracy. I'm not sure what is going on but I feel compelled to prepare my escape pod.

[George the original one]

Disinformation campaigns
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ar/605530/

[AnalyticalEngine]

Jesus, that Atlantic article is terrifying. It would have been less terrifying if I hadn't also noticed these things personally. That part about belief and cynicism is so dammed accurate. I think this is also what's leading to today's hyper partisan environment.

Does anyone have any idea of what can be done about it? I feel like this is leading to an erosion of trust that's fraying the social fabric even beyond rigging the election.

[Seppia]

It looks like Bloomberg is running a heavily data-influenced campaign, using many of the same tactics team trump has used.
Mike has the disadvantage that he does not lie constantly about everything all the time, but my hope is that he can compensate by just outspending Trump 100 to 1.

It’s time the Dems stop whining and bring the fight to Republicans.
Because reality is that Rs have been outmaneuvering Ds handily and almost all fronts for a while.

[IlliniDave]

Seppia, it looks like the Democrat side is going to come down to Bernie's populism versus Bloomberg's money, and the general will come down to Bloomberg's money versus Trump. I don't think the R's as a party could maneuver their way out of a wet paper bag with pre-cut holes in it. The R's have mostly just watched the D's go off the rails trying to bring the fight to Trump.

The problem they have is Trump co-opted the core of the primary historic D planks (last 50 years or so) and can claim some success with them. The Ds don't have much to run on beyond Orange Man Bad and a few progressive items far to the left of what traditional Ds prioritize. It looks like the main worry of the D establishment right now is is to keep Bernie off the ticket. They've been bashing DT with four breaths out of every five for the last 3 years. That will continue, and eventually saturate the paid airwaves as autumn rolls around. Might work. Might not. Of course the Rs and DT will do plenty of bashing too, just on a bit more frugal of a budget.

The Bloomberg thing is a little unprecedented as far as I can remember. Bloomberg himself seems poised to spend 2X or more of the total spent for Obama's 2012 campaign. The precedent gives me pause. There's also a dissonance wrt one of the main items on the Progs list of grievances to be corrected: wealth inequality.

Milwaukee may be a very interesting place this summer.