Comment by schiffern
2 days ago
Found the mafia. ;)
These comments are oddly common, but I've never understood the value of simply repeating the definition of uncertainty words like "may." Who is being informed here?
2 days ago
Found the mafia. ;)
These comments are oddly common, but I've never understood the value of simply repeating the definition of uncertainty words like "may." Who is being informed here?
> Who is being informed here?
I am being informed about the public opinion. Which I value more than articles. (Don't come me at with AI, I'm well aware that it makes all human communication bad and pointless in theory and more and more in practice, thx.)
Not every correlation deserves to be published in the press. If you think about it, it is weird that they even make articles out of statements that only "may" be true.
It is a matter of thresholds, of consequential bets over provisional non-trivial assessments, and of journalistic duty (taking note - the idea is not from the analyst but from sources; journalists take note that sources made statements).
Analysts work speculatively. And the results of the speculation are not trivial when supported by strong elements.
> If you think about it, it is weird that they even make articles out of statements that only "may" be true.
I thought about it. And it's very stupid to imagine uncertainty should be off limits. I hope that isn't what you meant.
I'm saying the incentive to publish articles that make strong claims with little evidence may be problematic.
2 replies →