PitLoversNeedMeds

Honest feedback, I’d absolutely hate it. Just like I absolutely hated all attempts to centralise shit like social media apps.

The real slim shady.

I felt that everything was incredibly fake and forced… Even the characters and world-building.

Knives out was also incredibly dumb, what are you on about?

I don’t have a cortisol peak.

Fair enough! Thanks for the detailed write-up

What about PostgreSQL?

That article headline has exactly one claim, the ‘influence’ claim.

Yet there are two within the one we’re talking about:

“DOGE uploaded live copy of Social Security database”

And

“Vulnerable”

Yet only the latter is in quotation marks. Selective quotation seems intentional and meant to disparage the message being spread here.

Oh? So explain why the claim about the live data being uploaded isn’t in quotation marks? And instead, why the one disparaging comment about the security of cloud storage solutions is in quotation marks?

My bet? Because they don’t want to piss off the owners of the storage solutions, and thus don’t give a crap about the whistleblower.

Edit with another example of an article with multiple claims where only one is quoted:

But you therefore admit any company can make any statement and if it doesn’t go through the CEO it will omit the quotation marks…?

Because that’s my gripe about all this, companies are given the benefit of the doubt.

I guess I am, but it does read as sarcastic and discrediting to me. You don’t see quotation marks when journalists write about employees “quiet quitting” for example, so it does seem one-sided to protect the corporations.

I know, but it removes credibility. It’s minimising and obfuscating, essentially defending the company’s version of the truth instead of the whistleblower.

Why is vulnerable in question marks as if it weren’t true. Shitty article by a shitty journal.

Would love to know, my friend purchased one and it’s still within the return window.