Borg borg borg

You can combine it with a FUSE mount of the Google Drive, I’m not sure if that works but I don’t see why it wouldn’t.

Actually: I changed my mind. I’m going to give this a real response.

I didn’t treat you like a child. I explained what was going on, and you seem to have a mentality where someone who’s explaining something to you that you don’t know is “treating you like a child” or “being a pedantic asshole.”

That’s entirely on you. Most people, once they reach adulthood, are able to listen to something even if they don’t already know it, able to learn from the world. I was a little bit snarky talking to you initially, but then I felt bad when I realized you just didn’t know how Wikipedia worked, and were operating on some bad assumptions, but what you were thinking made actually perfect logical sense. Go back and read my “Got it, that does make sense” message. I read your message, I got where you were coming from, and like I said, I realized you just didn’t know something, and I tried to help you understand it.

You have to let go of that mentality where someone who’s telling you something you didn’t already know is offensive, and you have to try to seize the upper hand and try to explain something back to them, or decide they’re being a jerk or something or it needs to be a hostile interaction. That’s going to make it impossible for you to learn. It also makes a lot of interactions more stressful than they need to be.

I realize that this whole message is explaining more stuff to you, which you probably won’t react well to. But like I said, that’s on you. If you were willing to absorb this, it would help you.

Yes!

I said plenty, you just can’t hear it. Oh well. I tried.

Yes! That is an extremely productive attitude when someone tries to explain to you how Wikipedia works, and then when you seem to miss the point, gets a little more pointed about it in hopes that you will pick it up and realize that you missed something, and learn a useful nugget of information relevant to our current discussion.

It seems you’re happy with how much you already know, in life, because you are committed to not learning anything else beyond your present level of achievement. Congratulations! I hope this approach serves you well, and I look forward to seeing how much and how far you can get with it.

Yes! You have successfully found the content page. If only someone had kindly explained to you that there’s a whole other side of Wikipedia which is more relevant to this discussion. It would have been nice for you to be able to have a whole patient explanation about how it all works.

Got it, that does make sense. You should know, though, that Wikipedia on the content side is a different thing from Wikipedia on the talk page side.

People can have nice things to say about a source in their Wikipedia page about the source, on the content side, while there’s still a consensus on the talk page side that the source is unreliable and shouldn’t be used for sourcing claims about other matters on other Wikipedia pages. The big table that I and someone else linked to are good summaries of the consensus on the talk page side, which is what’s most relevant here.

I think you are both right. I edited the title away from Newsweek’s misleading title, and added a note adding some context.

I’m not sure I should have posted this, to be honest, for that exact reason.

They’re not saying that. How did you summarize 23 words using 39 words, and get the summary wrong?

They’re saying that there is no external professional vouching for MBFC’s conclusions, which is their usual gold standard for things being “reliable.” And that, on top of that, people within Wikipedia have specifically pointed out flaws with how MBFC does things, without any of the qualifications and categories that you added.

Tell me you have no idea how Wikipedia works, without telling me you have no idea.

You’re putting trust in the stuff that doesn’t mean very much, and "best guess"ing that the stuff that is dependable is not.

It’s from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media_Bias/Fact_Check

There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site’s ratings.

I think the perennial sources list gets a lot more attention than the wiki page for MBFC itself, and probably the standards for judging it reliable are higher.

Interestingly enough, Wikipedia’s sourcing list counts Wikipedia as unreliable. It says you need to find information somewhere else so as not to create a self-referential loop. You have to justify it from a solid source that’s outside the system.

MBFC says that MBFC is incredibly reliable, and incidentally also tends to mark sources down if their biases don’t agree with MBFC’s existing biases, which are significant. It needs no outside sources, because it’s already reliable.

Good stuff.

“No, see, your TSMC coins are better than dollars. They’re cryptocurrency. It’s a new paradigm. You can use them at the TSMC shop.”

The secret service does, as do security for a lot of world leaders.

A: Defines Kamala Harris purely in terms of the war Netanyahu started, from an American client state for the last 40 years, which Biden then supported.

B: Points out that Democrats are hugely supportive of Harris, although her failure to break away from all of that and condemn the war in Gaza is a huge black mark, yes.

A: Defines Harris purely in terms of the war et cetera, but this time adding “I’m telling you.”

Sterling.

They’re not allowed to be collaborating with people who work for certain Russian companies. It’s not a question of security, it’s a question of US law requiring US entities to punish through non-cooperation certain companies that are assisting in the war effort or whatever.

It might or might not be fair, but it isn’t up to the kernel developers, it’s a legal requirement for them.

Okay, so you’re okay with genocide in Xinjiang, just not in Gaza. And your strategy for solving the genocide in Gaza is to let someone come into power who’s even more pro-genocide that the tepid pro-genocide stance of the current Democrats. Dooming millions of innocent people who can’t fight back to a catastrophe beyond even their present catastrophe.

So you’re okay with certain genocides. And you don’t want strategies that will avoid a huge escalation of the existing genocide in Gaza.

It honestly doesn’t sound like you’re very anti-genocide.

I don’t want to continue this conversation. You are lying.

Read the letter. It says more eloquently than I could, what is the massive difference between “everyday Palestinians demanding the end of genocide [weapons for which are supplied by] the Biden-Harris administration,” which of course makes perfect sense and is something I wholeheartedly support, after the important edit I’ve made on your behalf, versus everyday Palestinians who are okay with the utter disaster even beyond the present unspeakable disaster, that would be Trump coming to power.

I looked up some polls, I looked up who are some of the people on this list and their background. You’re wrong, and lying. I don’t even need to speak on it, because as a non-Palestinian I don’t have the authority on it that the people who already wrote a letter for you do. It’s already been said.

If you want to keep talking to me, let’s talk about: Is genocide in Xinjiang a red line?

Question: Is genocide in Xinjiang a red line for you?

I already know what your answer’s going to be, I’m just asking to highlight what your real goal here is.

The names are listed. Most are Palestinian.

I’m glad you feel empowered to judge who are the real Palestinian voices, who gets to speak, and who’s a “largely self-interested climber” who feels that talking about the genocide in Gaza and playing up their Palestinian heritage is a really good way to get ahead in American politics. Without you to give me guidance, I might have fallen into taking this thing at face value.

Can you tell me more about some of these individual self-interested climbers? Some that you know, who and why specifically you already know that they’re not worth listening to? I’m sure you wouldn’t accuse someone of selling out their own country in the middle of a genocide just because of some vague notions (“you will recognize the type” and so on.) You clearly have some specific reason you can identify these specific people as being dishonest, when they sign this letter. Right?

Because for people who lost loved ones in Gaza thanks to American aid and weapons, with her agreement and approval, it’s a painful thing for them to give.

And a clear indication of how terrifying the prospect is, for them, of what Trump might do to their loved ones, if he gets in.