I am not sure that applies if Apple is deliberately withholding the money. Presumably they are making some claims as to breaking of laws or violating a policy. Enscheatment is more about forgotten money. The developer is very aware of their lack of access.
We're having similar problem with Nitrite salts in Ham, not as deadly though. It shows how we're willing to make things look better just to sell more and at the detriment of health.
There is no such thing as neutrality or unbiased views, we are humans, everything we do or say is filled with bias. Claiming for Wikipedia to "stay neutral" is a bias itself.
They do as good of a job as any of us in trying to stay neutral.
Larry just comes across as pissed off. He complains that Obama's article doesn't discuss, or discuss enough for his liking, "Hilary's email servers".
He complains that it doesn't discuss Obamagate in any detail. Possibly because it was essentially a baseless accusation/conspiracy from Trump that when investigated, showed no evidence?
He complains that Trump's page contains too many "negative words", in sections like his "Public Profile" (and then complains that Obama doesn't have a section titled exactly the same, though he does have "Cultural and Political Image").
He complains that the article on abortion describes it as a very safe medical procedure, "a claim that is questionable on its face" - which is why the article links to citations, unlike Larry, who just rebuts with "conservatives don't think so".
He then goes on to claim that "Wikipedia holds positions that some scientific minorities reject" around concepts such as the MMR vaccine, global warning, chiropractic and homeopathy. That latter one is the easiest, as there is zero assertion based in physics that a substance can be imbued with the "essence" of something when diluted to the point where it would take multiple universes worth of molecules to get one original molecule in the final substance. Sanger wholly fails to give a valid reason why anyone should give homeopathic dilutions an equal weight to the rest of our body of work on medicine and physics other than "bias!"
> He complains that the article on abortion describes it as a very safe medical procedure, "a claim that is questionable on its face"
So far the only good argument I've seen for abortions being very unsafe from people ideologically opposed to them is that they're unsafe by definition because they lead to a person dying (in which case, yeah, but that's not what people normally mean by "safe").
Also, as with other culture war medical topics, the danger of the cure needs to be assessed relatively to the danger of the "disease". Pregnancies are not safe. Giving birth is extremely not safe, regardless of method. Heck, even menstrual cycles aren't safe. Even conception can lead to death in the case of ectopic pregnancies, not to mention the health risks of sexual intercourse itself (which is why it's called "safer sex", not "safe sex"). So we need to take those into account as a baseline when talking about the safety of medical procedures or drugs interfering with these. Those on the side that insists on making it a culture war topic usually deny or downplay that baseline risk while widely exaggerating the risk of the procedure.
This goes for abortions, hormone suppressors, vaccines, premarital sex and many more. But of course it isn't about the medical risk. They'd still be opposed even if it were perfectly 100% safe (which can't even be said about ordinary daily activities like using the toilet, walking or sitting). The main "risk" they are concerned about is moral, and that can't really be argued with.
> They do as good of a job as any of us in trying to stay neutral.
Not even close. Anything even close to political has a clear slant to it, from actual article wordings to allowed sources to build the articles off of.
Every bit of content has a POV, there is no getting around that. Neutral POV is the Wikipedia ideal - one they work towards but will never reach. They do as good a job as anybody at it.
Every bit of content has multiple POVs, and when you continuously present only the POVs associated with one part of the political spectrum, that's an avoidable bias.
> Actual encyclopedias do a much better job of it.
I can't validate that statement and neither can you. You didn't even say which one. Setting aside the fact that traditional encyclopedias aren't part of the internet that we are discussing in this thread, I will at least give you that the motivations of a traditional encyclopedia are more clear than the amorphous network of people who maintain Wikipedia.
I have a 1936 set of Encyclopedia Britannica on the shelf, you should read some of the articles in that.
Honestly I think it should be biased when it comes to politics. It should be unbiased in terms of evidence. If some narrative has no evidence, but a strong political following, that political following should contribute zero weight to the validity of the narrative. No evidence is no evidence.
There's certain "radioactive" topics on Wikipedia where it's almost impossible for contrarian views to get a fair hearing: evolution, vaccination, nationalism, etc.
Contrarian views on many topics are not backed by facts but by emotion. A collection of knowledge is not obligated to let contrarian viewpoints with no scientific basis share the same space as factual coverage of a topic.
This is the problem I see far too often with people who criticize Wikipedia for their NPOV policy.
Take this passage from the vaccination page for example:
> Some studies have claimed to show that current vaccine schedules increase infant mortality and hospitalization rates;[103][104] those studies, however, are correlational in nature and therefore cannot demonstrate causal effects, and the studies have also been criticized for cherry picking the comparisons they report, for ignoring historical trends that support an opposing conclusion, and for counting vaccines in a manner that is "completely arbitrary and riddled with mistakes".[105][106]
If you go to the vaccination page and look at the cited studies, you'll see they are peer-reviewed studies in real scientific journals. But a Wikipedia editor went in and modified the language to cast doubt on it (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccination&diff=...).
All statistical analyses are "correlational in nature", so there's no reason why that should weaken the findings of this study, and the source used to accuse the study of "cherry-picking" is a blog post from 2011. In my estimation this kind of spin happens all the time on Wikipedia.
Goodness, are you not familiar with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"?
There are ways to establish causal relationships, the gold standard of which is to conduct a double-blind controlled trial.
To claim as you have that a correlational study establishes a causal relationship is deeply misguided, irrespective of whether or not it is peer-reviewed.
Yes I am - you don't seem to know that all a double-blind controlled trial produces is (at best) a very strong correlation. I'm not claiming that a correlational study implies causation. I'm claiming that ALL statistical analyses can only prove correlation, and never causation. You're wrong about double-blind controlled trials proving causation.
You're confusing strong evidence for causality with establishment and absolute proof of causality. This is even discussed in the sources you've cited (second link). For example here is a quote from one of your sources about the necessity understanding the underlying mechanism before causality can be established:
> A causal mechanism is the process that creates the connection between the variation in an independent variable and the variation in the dependent variable that it is hypothesized to cause (Cook & Campbell, 1979:35; Marini & Singer, 1988). Many social scientists (and scientists in other fields) argue that no causal explanation is adequate until a mechanism is identified.
Political movements not garnering support from mainstream or left wing media... When you get to pick which sources you use you get to pick which views you will present...
This is a common complaint against many publications or resources that attempt unbiased coverage - they are are attacked by people on all sides as being biased against their side.
I'm not familiar with MSNBC and have never even heard of Mother Jones, but surely it's not controversial that Fox News is unreliable? They're an absolute punch line everywhere outside the US.
I'm guessing you must not be from the US, as MSNBC/Fox News both are on TV at all times in various public and private spaces. It depends on the content of course (political), but MSNBC is a left leaning version of Fox News - they are the same, just on the opposite sides of the spectrum. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't rank MSNBC the same as Fox News sends up some flags for me, but I could really care less at this point in my life. Both networks have that cancerous "create outrage for views" thing going on that has been nothing but detrimental to American society. Unfortunately it's just about impossible to get away from, as Americans nowadays seem to be addicted to the constant need for drama and outrage in their lives.
I'm not sure about Mother Jones, but the other two I would always take with a grain of salt.
Fox News goes well beyond having a lean, so far that they find themselves in legal hot water. And that's only when the pontificating on nonsense is so egregious that it's legally actionable...
I wish people would use their brains rather than seek out charlatans promising unbiased information.
To elaborate, I think that this obsession creates a few interesting scenarios. If people are flatly told/believe how a given media is biased then they don't have to read critically themselves. It can also be used to shut down discussion, your source is biased- I can ignore it.
Calling stuff biased is becoming a hell of a thought-stopper. That you say elsewhere,
> Yeah, everything is relative, truth doesn't exist, yadda-yadda.
strikes me as downright ironic. The routine and wholesale dismissal of sources because they don't tell the story with someone's preferred angle is amounting to a whole lot of yadda-yadda, I agree!
In my opinion, yes. But I still feel the better route to increasing spermidine is finding out if you are deficiency in arginine, manganese, B6 or one of the several cofactors for the methylation cycle.
Though, will having more Arginine, Manganese and B6 automatically trigger your own body to make spermidine? Isn't there maybe a limit when the body stops producing spermidine?
> Nippon Television has just acquired Studio Ghibli, which will become a subsidiary of their company.
Producer Toshio Suzuki (75y old) was looking for a successor, and proposed Goro Miyazaki, but Hayao Miyazaki (82y old) refused (and so did Goro).
Nippon Television was already a long-standing partner of Ghibli ("Friday Road Show").
