Breaking News: Antarctica is now renamed to ________ in c/[email protected]

[–] Kalcifer 9 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

M

Breaking News: Antarctica is now renamed to ________ in c/[email protected]

[–] Kalcifer 10 points 12 hours ago (6 children)

J

If *I* have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make *me* the journalist? in c/[email protected]

[–] Kalcifer 1 points 4 days ago

I feel we may be going around in circles with this; I think I'm not describing my interpretation well enough, but I think I understand what you are meaning when you say that journalism is full time — it's not exactly how I would use the term, but I understand what you are saying. I completely agree with you that the work of a journalist is non-trivial. I also agree with you that a professional journalist deals with large volumes of information, and, to be able to process those large volumes of information, it would generally require one to work full time.

If *I* have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make *me* the journalist? in c/[email protected]

[–] Kalcifer 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

[…] That’s the point of the entire “it’s a real job” argument. Journalists are doing a lot of legwork once and we’re all relying on that job to acquire a lot of our information instead of all of us doing the same legwork again. The two problems we’re facing are 1) that this trust opens us up to propaganda from activist or opinionated journalism, and 2) that we’re no longer just getting neatly processed info that has gone through a journalistic process, we’re also getting a firehose of misinformation from many individual content generators over the Internet.

Those are both hard problems to manage.

I agree that they may be hard problems to manage perfectly, but I don't agree that citing sources won't put a dent in the issue. Take your first problem:

that this trust opens us up to propaganda from activist or opinionated journalism […]

Say you have an article that says "A young man stole a car.". Just as a very basic example, language like "young" is an opinion — it's not an exact definition of age and is left to the reader for how they interpret it. Such interpretations open the door for emotional bias. I think it would be a different story if the article actually cited the age, or simply stated the age with a citation for where they know it from.

If *I* have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make *me* the journalist? in c/[email protected]

[–] Kalcifer 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If a journalist phones a couple of sources, hears from them the same thing they are seeing somewhere and publishes that information, then the fact-checking has been done once and reaches thousands or millions of people.

If the way the information is disseminated requires those thousands or millions to do the fact-check themselves using the same process, then that is entirely impractical, which was my original point. Crowdsourced fact-checking is always going to be less reliable and exponentially more work than properly verified broadcast news sources. Even if many of them share their fact check, we have plenty of data to suggest the reach of that correction will be much smaller and it will still require a lot of private effort to correct the original info.

Sure, but would it not be better if they had also just cited the transcript of their contact with those sources? I understand that the news outlet can just fabricate a source, but at least a source will give readers an official starting point for investigation rather than just blind continuous skepticism. I'm of the opinion that a sketchy source is better than no source at all.

If *I* have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make *me* the journalist? in c/[email protected]

[–] Kalcifer 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

[…] I’m not concerned with who is doing the work, I’m concerned with the amount of work involved and how practical it is for every one of us to do it as a matter of course every time we access information online.

The only impracticality that I can currently see is the example that you gave earlier ^[1]^

[…] I presume we don’t want every private citizen to be making phone calls to verify every claim they come across in social media […]

But just because it may not be practical for an average person to verify a source in all cases doesn't feel like a valid argument for why sources (that the news outlet has already verified) shouldn't be provided. Say a news article is reporting on a claim that an interviewee made in an interview that they conducted. Say that the interview interview footage is posted on its own. If the news article is commenting on a claim being made by the interviewee, is there any reason why the interview shouldn't simply be directly cited? It would remove a lot of burden from the reader if all they have to do is click on the link to the video and scrub to the timestamp to hear the claim for themselves. Yes it would be impractical for each reader to contact the interviewee for themselves to verify that the interviewee did actually say that; however, I think that it sometimes is less about a skepticism of reality, but more a skepticism of reporting bias.

References

Author: @[email protected]. To: [Title: "If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make me the journalist?". Author: "Kalcifer" @[email protected]. "Showerthoughts" [email protected]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-12-10T07:34:34Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-10T08:27:52Z. Accessed: 2024-12-13T05:20Z. https://fedia.io/m/[email protected]/t/1528862/-/comment/8502697.

If *I* have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make *me* the journalist? in c/[email protected]

[–] Kalcifer 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

[…] This is why this choice you made of quote-replying to individual statements is not a great way to have a conversation online, by the way. Now we’re breaking down the details behind individual words with no context on the arguments that contain them. This is all borderline illegible and quite far from the original argument, IMO.

It's a wip 😜 I think it's still a good idea, but it depends on how it's done. I agree that I may be fragmenting a bit too much. I need to work on maintaining context. I think it's also important to never fork the conversation if one branch depends on the other branch. That's the issue that's happened here, I think.

If *I* have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make *me* the journalist? in c/[email protected]

621

If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make me the journalist? (self.showerthoughts)

submitted 1 week ago by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

224 comments fedilink

116

To the admins and moderators of Lemmy: How often do you encounter disturbing content? How do you cope with the things that you see? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 1 week ago by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

56 comments fedilink

And, if you are comfortable with sharing, what are some of the worst things that you've seen?

18

Does reporting a user from Instance B on Instance A forward the report to Instance B's admin(s)? (self.lemmy_support)

submitted 1 week ago by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink

Say a user from Instance B commented on a post on Instance A, and a user on Instance A saw it. If the user on Instance A were to report it, would that report be seen by the admin(s) of Instance B, or would it only be visible by the admin(s) of Instance A?

7

"Gaslighting ChatGPT With Ethical Dilemmas" by Alex O'Connor (www.youtube.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

0 comments fedilink

Referencs

Title: "Gaslighting ChatGPT With Ethical Dilemmas". Author: "Alex O'Connor". YouTube. Published: 2024-11-30. Accessed: 2024-12-03T02:29Z. URI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsOLlhGA9zg.

Cross-posts

https://sh.itjust.works/post/28943223

8

"Gaslighting ChatGPT With Ethical Dilemmas" by Alex O'Connor (www.youtube.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

2 comments fedilink

Referencs

Title: "Gaslighting ChatGPT With Ethical Dilemmas". Author: "Alex O'Connor". YouTube. Published: 2024-11-30. Accessed: 2024-12-03T02:29Z. URI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsOLlhGA9zg.

Cross-posts

https://sh.itjust.works/post/28943226

92

Meru (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

3 comments fedilink

This was my first time using alcohol markers. They're definitely different, but I like them a lot. It's far from perfect, but I think it's alright 😊. Note: While this was done freehand by me, the pose and everything wasn't my idea — I used this image as a reference.

12

[SOLVED] When creating a post, how does the "Thumbnail URL" option work exactly? (self.lemmy_support)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

5 comments fedilink

Solution

As was pointed out by @[email protected] ^[1]^, this feature was added in this pull request. It appears that the custom thumbnail field is only relevant for posts that share a URL: The "Thumbnail URL" field is used to specify a custom thumbnail to be used in place of what would've been automatically generated by the provided URL ^[2]^.

Original Post

I thought it would be for adding a custom thumbnail that appears for the post in the feed, but then that seems to be a duplicate of adding an image. At any rate, I tried adding an image link to it, and no image showed up for the post. So I'm not entirely sure what it's actually for.

EDIT (2024-11-30T22:22): Perhaps it's for the pre-expanded thumbnail for a post if it has an image? Does that mean that it only works if you have an image specified? Can it be used to override the thumbnail that's generated from a shared article? Does it work for a text post?

References

@[email protected] [To: "When creating a post, how does the "Thumbnail URL" option work exactly?". "Kalcifer" (@[email protected]). sh.itjust.works. Published: 2024-11-30T22:24:10Z. Accessed: 2024-12-02T07:06Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/28843300]. Feddit.org. Published: 2024-12-01T23:37:14Z. https://feddit.org/comment/3413077.
"crates/api_crud/src/post/create.rs". LemmyNet/Lemmy. GitHub. Published: 2024-12-01T01:14:07.000Z. Commit: 5085d1c. Accessed: 2024-12-02T06:40Z. https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/blob/e49d346535f0769b85ad0fa4b0baabfbdba0deff/crates/api_crud/src/post/create.rs.
- L91-L99
```
// Only generate the thumbnail if there's no custom thumbnail provided,
// otherwise it will save it in pictrs
let generate_thumbnail = custom_thumbnail.is_none();

// Fetch post links and pictrs cached image
let metadata = fetch_link_metadata_opt(url.as_ref(), generate_thumbnail, &context).await;
let url = proxy_image_link_opt_apub(url, &context).await?;
let thumbnail_url = proxy_image_link_opt_apub(custom_thumbnail, &context)
  .await?
  .map(Into::into)
  .or(metadata.thumbnail);
```
  - L93: A check is done for whether a custom thumbnail URL was provided.
  - L96: If it wasn't, then one will be generated from the shared URL.
  - L98: If a custom thumbnail URL was provided, it will be fetched from pictrs.
  - L99: If a custom thumbnail was not provided, fallback to the generated thumbnail.

5

MVX Nexus is a proposed rail network for the south-coast (self.britishcolumbia)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

1 comments fedilink

MVX Nexus, envisioned by Mountain Valley Express ^[2]^, a non-profit ^[3.1][3.2][4.2]^, based out of Metro Vancouver ^[4.1]^, is a regional rail network ^[2.1]^ proposed for the south-coast ^[2.1]^.

^[5]^

References

"B.C. group proposes railway to connect most of the South Coast". CBC British Columbia. YouTube. Published: 2024-11-28. Accessed: 2024-11-30T03:35Z. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIYRUAkEUu4.
"MVX Nexus". Mountain Valley Express Society. Published: 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-30T03:29Z. https://www.mvx.vision/assets/nexus-min.pdf.
1. §"Executive Summary"
  
  MVX Nexus is a fresh take on mobility on the South Coast. It is a 350-km regional rail network that connects Metro Vancouver with the mountains and the valley with connections to ferries and is future-proofed for eventual transborder high-speed rail.
"About". Mountain Valley Express Society. Accessed: 2024-11-30T03:30Z. https://www.mvx.vision/about.html.
1. Mountain Valley Express is a nonprofit Research and Advocacy organization dedicated to bringing world-class regional rail to the South Coast of BC.
2. §"About the Society"
  
  MVX is a member- and donor-funded nonprofit society. The Society exists to conduct research and advocacy on public transit/transportation in the Lower Mainland.
"Mountain Valley Express (MVX)". LinkedIn. Accessed: 2024-11-30T03:36Z. https://www.linkedin.com/company/mountain-valley-express-mvx/.
1. Headquarters: Metro Vancouver
2. Type: Nonprofit
"Mountain Valley Express". Mountain Valley Express Society. Accessed: 2024-11-30T03:46Z. https://www.mvx.vision/index.html.

42

These were found in Cascadia in mid-November. What are they? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink

They were found in mid-november in the Salish Coast region of Cascadia. They were growing out of woodchips composed of a mixture of western hemlock (majority), and western red cedar.

Side view of one full mature specimen:

A group with a sample of the substrate (the cap appears to be umbonate):

A closeup side view, and internal view of the stem (it appears to be hollow):

Cross section of the gills — they appear to be adnate, or sub-decurrent:

Underside of view of the gills:

Spore print (first on white background (the split is due to two halves), second on a black background):

Examples specimens once dried:

Examples of the colony, and the location/substrate in which it was growing:

My initial thought was that they were Psilocybe cyanescens, but that's pretty much completely been confirmed as incorrect [1][2][3][4][5]. The current running theory is that they are Hypholoma dispersum[2][3]. What do you think they are?

References

@Fliegenpilzgü[email protected]. [To: "Found in mid-November in Cascadia. What are they? Please see the description for more information.". "Kalcifer" (@[email protected]). "Forage Fellows 🍄🌱" ([email protected]).]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-11-20T13:30:31Z. Accessed: 2024-11-23T03:16Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/28348066/15147149.

[...] I’m sorry to disappoint you, but even though they look similar to P. cyanescens, they aren’t.

Cyans have white-ish stems, dark gills, a purple-black spore print and bruise blue almost instantly when touching them. [...]
@the_[email protected]. [To: "Found in mid-November in Cascadia. What are they? Please see the description for more information.". "Kalcifer" (@[email protected]). "Forage Fellows 🍄🌱" ([email protected]).] sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-11-20T03:46:33Z. Accessed: 2024-11-23T03:16Z.
Sorry to disappoint but looks like hypholoma dispersum to me.
- there’s no blueing on the stems or margin in any of your photos, the ones you picked should have had stained blue anywhere you touched them
- The margin isn’t translucent striate
If the cap cuticle is peelable you could make a case that it’s not Hypholoma but without any blueing it’s gonna be Deconica not Psilocybe.
@the_[email protected]. [To: "Found in mid-November in Cascadia. What are they? Please see the description for more information.". "Kalcifer" (@[email protected]). "Forage Fellows 🍄🌱" ([email protected])]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-11-22T16:16:30Z. Accessed: 2024-11-23T03:21Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/28348066/15185707.

That’s consistent with Hypholoma, maybe next time.
@[email protected]. [To: "Found in mid-November in Cascadia. What are they? Please see the description for more information.". "Kalcifer" (@[email protected]). "What's this fungus?" ([email protected]).]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-11-21T00:25:10Z. Accessed: 2024-11-23T03:27Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/28348065/15157911.

[...] If I would see even a tiny speck of blue bruising I would be more inclined to agree with P. cyanescens, but I don’t see any at all, which makes me very suspicious. [...]
@[email protected] [To: "Found in mid-November in Cascadia. What are they? Please see the description for more information.". "Kalcifer" (@[email protected]). "Mushrooms" ([email protected]). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-11-23T02:12:43Z. Accessed: 2024-11-23T03:36Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/28348063.]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-11-20T17:44:30Z. Accessed: 2024-11-23T03:37Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/28348063/15151371.

the spore print is also brown here, but should be purple-ish black if it were Psilocybe spp., also the stipe looks wrong for that ID - I would say definitely not Psilocybe cyanescens (not just because they’re not bruising blue / purple / black).

Cross-posts:

27

Found in mid-November in Cascadia. What are they? Please see the description for more information. (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink

View the spoiler for my guess at what I think it might be, but please first come to your own conclusion before looking at mine — I don't want to bias your guess.

My guess

Psilocybe cyanescens

They were found in mid-november in the Salish Coast region of Cascadia. They were growing out of woodchips composed of a mixture of western hemlock (majority), and western red cedar.

Side view of one full mature specimen:

A group with a sample of the substrate (the cap appears to be umbonate):

A closeup side view, and internal view of the stem (it appears to be hollow):

Cross section of the gills — they appear to be adnate, or sub-decurrent:

Underside of view of the gills:

Spore print (first on white background (the split is due to two halves), second on a black background):

Examples specimens once dried:

Examples of the colony, and the location/substrate in which it was growing:

Cross-posts:

20

Found in mid-November in Cascadia. What are they? Please see the description for more information. (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink

View the spoiler for my guess at what I think it might be, but please first come to your own conclusion before looking at mine — I don't want to bias your guess.

My guess

Psilocybe cyanescens

They were found in mid-november in the Salish Coast region of Cascadia. They were growing out of woodchips composed of a mixture of western hemlock (majority), and western red cedar.

Side view of one full mature specimen:

A group with a sample of the substrate (the cap appears to be umbonate):

A closeup side view, and internal view of the stem (it appears to be hollow):

Cross section of the gills — they appear to be adnate, or sub-decurrent:

Underside of view of the gills:

Spore print (first on white background (the split is due to two halves), second on a black background):

Examples specimens once dried:

Examples of the colony, and the location/substrate in which it was growing:

Cross-posts:

11

Found in mid-November in Cascadia. What are they? Please see the description for more information. (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Kalcifer to c/[email protected]

40 comments fedilink

View the spoiler for my guess at what I think it might be, but please first come to your own conclusion before looking at mine — I don't want to bias your guess.

My guess

Psilocybe cyanescens

They were found in mid-november in the Salish Coast region of Cascadia. They were growing out of woodchips composed of a mixture of western hemlock (majority), and western red cedar.

Side view of one full mature specimen:

A group with a sample of the substrate (the cap appears to be umbonate):

A closeup side view, and internal view of the stem (it appears to be hollow):

Cross section of the gills — they appear to be adnate, or sub-decurrent:

Underside of view of the gills:

Spore print (first on white background (the split is due to two halves), second on a black background):

Examples specimens once dried:

Examples of the colony, and the location/substrate in which it was growing:

Cross-posts: