krellor

Connections Puzzle #426 🟦🟦🟦🟦. 🟨🟨🟨🟨. 🟩🟩🟩🟩. 🟪🟪🟪🟪.

Devil's advocate: being serious for years and nothing really stuck. Trivializing him by calling them weird seems to be working. Maybe taking the piss out of them is the better messaging to get the broad electorate to think less of him. 🤷‍♂️

My very first comment was in reply to someone who called the NYT headline a lie, and I said that just isn't true. Subsequently, I said that I think reasonable people can disagree about the quality of the headline, but it was factually correct. I e., the headline is that Vance made a claim, which is objectively true. Then, in the body of the article, they share quotes from interviews with Watz's former unit members that refute Vance's claim.

I don't know know why or how NYT chooses the exact composition of their headlines or what aspects of a story to highlight, but personally as a regular times reader and subscriber, I didn't read the headline as giving credence to Vance, and found the article very strongly supportive of Watz's position.

But barring something like a released federal record showing a request for out processing, it still boils down to statements of individuals, which is probably why the times doesn't directly refute Vance's claim as false, and instead leans on interviews from the unit and other circumstantial details to refute the claim, because they haven't had time to authoritatively establish that. They often circle back to such things once they have had a chance to do so, and include it in summary fact checks throughout the political cycle.

If we're going that route you may as well take issue with the word "average" instead of using mean, median, or mode. Because the lack of specificity there is even greater than leaving off the age modifier.

But the whole thing is a weird pedantic exercise anyway. They are reporting using the standard models in a way that makes sense to the reader.

Did you read the NYT article in question?

The NYT interviewed members from the unit who corroborated Watz's claim that he decided to run for Congress before deployment orders came through. The leg work I've described in this thread was presenting an account of events that contradicted Vance's claim that he intentionally avoided deployment.

I'm absolutely baffled by some of the responses I've gotten, lol.

Yeah, I think that's a fair headline given the facts.

Yeah, it sounds like the first exploit required your vault to be unlocked so that a malicious process pretending to be a legitimate integration like a browser plugin could request credentials, and the second one required installing an out of date version of the app.

Good that it is all patched, and that it wasn't a remotely exploitable issue.

The defacto standard for economists recording and reporting average and median net worth has been to bucket it by age cohort for at least the last seventy years. Using common meanings of the terms isn't baiting and switching it intending to deceive or bury the lede.

LMAO, I know it's auto correct typos, but:

So don’t tax his gag so hard-core cruster.

Is excellent gibberish.

Not really. To do a cross generational comparison, you would look at average wealth of 18-25 year olds in the 80's to compare it to today's cohort in that age bracket to show age adjusted disparity. But comparing the average 60 year old to an 18 year old doesn't mean much when one has had 42 more working years and the other has greater future earning potential.

Of course it's age adjusted. What good does it do to compare accumulated wealth between a 60 year old and an 18 year old?

So interviewing Watz's unit members and CO is just repeating lies?

I mean, if you only want to read from sources that make decisions for you, you are free to do so. I value news organizations that report facts and context and let me make up my own mind.

And many papers refer to themselves as papers of record. It is a term of art in the industry referring to breadth of circulation and independent editorial board. And it is precisely those editorial guidelines that prevent them from presenting one person's claims against another as true verse false.