Reporting what questionable government sources say without enough due diligence is not the same as supporting the actions of that government. If I say that Davy was beating up Mark because Mark stole his cookie according to him, but then it turns out that there never was a cookie, then me wrongly reporting about the cookie does not mean that I ever approved of Davy beating up Mark.

I found that the NYT editorial board opposed the war in an opinion piece that was released just prior to that war, so I’m of the opinion that they opposed it. Probably as one of the few media outlets in the USA.

And I find it funny that the first and most prominent article in the pbs link is the NYT criticizing the reporting of the nyt, that’s promising at least. The smh article reads like it’s written to lay the blame for being dragged into the war with someone else, a narrative of “we were all duped, if only we could have known beforehand and we would have acted differently”, conveniently ignoring that there were enough other international sources that called out and demonstrated that the wmd evidence was very flimsy.

Do you have examples of that support? Or an article/report that lays it out.

When I looked for it, I only found the opposite; https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/saying-no-to-war.html

Imo it’s much more likely to have never been an actual piece of fruit. The story is probably an allegoric warning for some taboo subject and now we can only speculate on what was originally meant.

My theory: Adam and Eve were convinced by Adam’s one eyed snake to fornicate, but then their dad found out and kicked them out.

Your alternative titles really highlight how little you value factuality.

Hezbollah did not claim to be launching a pre-emptive attack. And claiming that they launched a pre-emptive attack after they were already attacked is … Weird.

No one is reporting that Hezbollah was launching these rockets in self defence, because Hezbollah has already let it be known that their attack was a retaliation for the murder of one of their commanders in july.

No news source worth their salt is going to use those titles, because it’s straight up inventing alternate facts.

Your 4 examples of what you want to portray as “non credible reporting” are professionals. Unlike you, they’re not just going to invent news to push their narrative. Yes they have their biases, but unlike your alternate facts, their reporting is based on actual facts.

Hezbollah counter-attacking after being attacked by Israel, does not mean that Hezbollah would have attacked if they had not been attacked first. If your neighbour is a bully, then it’s probably best to not be a pushover.

What does lend the “pre-emptive” claim credibility, is that afterwards Hezbollah said that they had retaliated for the murder of one of their commanders in Beirut. So the Hezbollah attack was not a counter-attack, but rather an attack that they had been preparing for weeks already.

Lots of us know this. Lots of us can also see that the 4 titles that you posted are not an example of this.

Some of those article titles that you are trying to paint as inaccurate, are in fact highly accurate. I can’t find anything wrong with the titles of the guardian and the new York Times that you posted. They are reporting a thing that happened and a thing that was said. They make it very clear that the “pre-emptive” thing is a claim of Israel and not a fact.

Unlike your claim in the OP, The Guardian also doesn’t have a credibility of high on that shitty mbfc site, but only “mixed”.

Yep, this is a good example of what actual inaccurate/deceitful reporting would be like. Unlike the headlines in the post of the op, your made up title is reporting things that didn’t happened, and your quotes are not things that Hamas’ spokespeople have said. It is vaguely based on things that have happened, but it’s mostly just made up and thus completely inaccurate and deceitful.

The tnyt title looks accurate to me: it says Israel is striking Lebanon AND that Israel is casting these strikes as pre-emptive.

The title is not saying that tnyt believes that the strikes are actually pre-emptive, instead it’s reporting that Israel claims that the strikes are pre-emptive. Which is accurate, since Israel does in fact claim that.

To me it looks better without fog, but the fog doesn’t look bad at all, I just like it slightly more without fog. Imo best would be if both states where in the game, if performance allows it. Sometimes (more) foggy, sometimes not, depending on time of day or in game events.

In the fog picture there is also some dark sky between trees (along the upper edge, about 40% from the left) that suddenly jumps out, I don’t think that patch should be that dark if the player is standing inside a cloud.

Inspired by is not the same as based on. I don’t think that it can ever be canonical because the time period was never explored in depth by Frank Herbert himself, but I do think that the what ifs of this time period could make for a very interesting premise.

Either way, the showrunner is apparently Alison Schapker, who was also the primary showrunner for Altered Carbon, which I really liked. So I’m definitely going to give the first episode a chance :)

From imdb: “Ten thousand years before Paul Atreides joined the Fremen to lead an uprising on Arrakis to take down House Harkonen, two sisters (Valya and Tula Harkkonen) create the mysterious all-female order called the Bene Gesserit. In Dune Prophecy, the siblings combat forces that threaten the future of humankind.”.

Iirc, 10000 thousand years before Dune was the time of the Butler Jihad, when humankind fought against the thinking machines. So I think it’s a series based on apocryphal stories on how the feudal society in Dune came to be. Lots of creative freedom for the creators, kinda like Knights of the Old Republic was for Star Wars.

Blinkers should be blinking before you turn the wheel. I once drove as a passenger with a driver who only started blinking after he started his manoeuvres and those 40T trucks were hammering their horns for a good reason. Scary as hell experience, would not recommend.

If you’ve already looked it up, please share the link (next time) so we don’t have to also look it up. I’m not going to look this one up, because I don’t really care about it, but I would have clicked the link.

Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered in 1919. The Iron Front was founded in 1931. Claiming that all Iron Front members in 1931 and 1932 supported those 1919 murders is nonsensical.

The claim is a straw man fallacy, a fabrication to paint people who actively oppose their version of totalitarianism in a bad light.

"but also provided psychological protection by shading the face from close scrutiny. "

To me it feels like this was made up by some spoiled twat, who couldn’t stand that people that they thought were socially inferior, wouldn’t show the expected obeisance by removing their hat in front of their “betters”.

This reads like a case of game design by spreadsheet to me. Instead of the lead designers being creative persons making creative decisions, these are accountants that are designing a game by ticking boxes. They didn’t try to make a game that they would like to play, they tried to make a game that they think others would like to play.

Strategy games are still my mainstay, but I’m always returning a few old familiar games. I’ve not bought any new releases in a long time. If too many other players are like me, then strategy game development is going to be in dire straits indeed.

Which company?

Not ibm. You might be thinking of Bell: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

I found that it read like a fluff dramatization story from a The Guardian opinion piece, only shorter. Those are texts with a lot of words, but there’s usually very little actual substance relative to the length of the text, most is just meandering embellishments. So imo not necessarily ai, humans do write texts in this style as well.