• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 22 days ago
cake
Cake day: September 24th, 2024

help-circle
  • I do wonder whether the algorithm understands sarcasm. A while back, I watched a video about some movie bombing, something objectively bad like Morbius, and they joked that the movie wasn’t actually failing for all of the obvious reasons, but because it was “too woke”. They didn’t really believe that, they were just making fun of people who say that about movies. Still, for the next couple of weeks I had to keep marking channels as “Don’t recommend” because they were all unironic right-wing rage-bait about the woke agenda. I don’t know for certain that that’s why I suddenly got all those recommendations, but that was my best guess.




  • I guess that probably depends whether you’re counting by raw numbers or by proportion of each age group. I just looked this up and Pew Research Group has this chart from April 2024 (attached). Proportionately, it shows a fairly consistent shift toward more support for Republicans as the age brackets go up, with the one exception being from 60-69 and 70-79 where support drops 2%. Either way, Baby Boomers are proportionately more supportive of the Republican Party than Gen Xers are.

    Moving on from proportion to raw numbers, that’s definitely tougher to tell. The Wikipedia articles for each generation cite the latest census data, but that was in 2019, so obviously figures will have changed since then. Still, the census said there were 65.2 million Gen Xers living in the United States, vs. 71.6 million Baby Boomers. Have six million Boomers died in the last five years? Probably not, but obviously the ratios will have gotten somewhat tighter since then.

    Ultimately, on raw numbers, I’d say Baby Boomers (currently aged ~60-78) currently outnumber Gen Xers (currently aged ~44-59) and are proportionately more likely to support Republicans, per the Pew chart.

    EDIT: I got ninja’d, but I brought a chart.


  • Look, I absolutely hate to do the reading comprehension thing but you’ve misread both the article and my comment on it. The reporter who performed the rescue was Fox’s Bob Van Dillen. The person quoted, however, is Subramaniam Vincent, director of journalism and media ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. The writer of this AP article quoted Vincent who recounted the situation. The writer also added some additional context to Vincent’s remarks which serve to explain the concept of rescuing a person who is crying out for help.

    So … sorry … no. I’m not asking that.



  • This article is weird. For one thing, the last sentence quoted is just confusing:

    Van Dillen is then seen wading through the water with the woman on her back, carrying her to safety.

    Who’s the “her” in that sentence? Anyway, the really confusing part is that they then consulted with an expert on journalistic ethics:

    It’s clear that while he had a professional obligation to report the news, “there’s also someone whose potential life is at risk,” Vincent said. “So I think the call he made is a human call.”

    Considering the rising waters and the woman’s cries for help, along with not knowing when help would arrive, “it’s a straightforward case of jumping in — a fellow citizen actually helping another,” Vincent said.

    Why is the writer explaining this basic concept like I’m an alien? Sometimes, people stop doing their job for a few moments to save somebody’s life even though that’s not what their job entails. That’s interesting. Are the humans then punished for their dereliction of duty?