We deserve a better life, and we will have it when we organize.
Most clinical trials don't report results to FDA, and the FDA does nothing about it
This should be huge news. These authors estimate that as much as ~60% of all clinical trials, whose results are required by law to be reported to the FDA, aren’t. And even though the FDA can fine these companies and research labs, they just… don’t.
…
…
Proof the big corporate media care more about outrage than analysis
These major corporations could hire people who study politics as a science for a living, who are trained to teach it, and are about as objective as it gets. They know what they’re talking about, can explain the complexities, and won’t intentionally spin things (at least not nearly as often).
Instead, our largest, most influential television news companies choose to hire political operatives, with less knowledge, and greater incentive to lie. They’re poisoning our politics, because that’s supposedly what’s best for their profits.
"NASA Animates World Path of Smoke and Aerosols from Australian Fires"
The images are wild. So much of Australia burned, that the smoke will likely “make at least one full circuit around the globe, returning once again to the skies over Australia.”
NASA:
The fires in Australia are not just causing devastation locally. The unprecedented conditions that include searing heat combined with historic dryness, have led to the formation of an unusually large number of pyrocumulonimbus (pyrCbs) events. PyroCbs are essentially fire-induced thunderstorms. They are triggered by the uplift of ash, smoke, and burning material via super-heated updrafts. As these materials cool, clouds are formed that behave like traditional thunderstorms but without the accompanying precipitation.
PyroCb events provide a pathway for smoke to reach the stratosphere more than 10 miles (16 km) in altitude. Once in the stratosphere, the smoke can travel thousands of miles from its source, affecting atmospheric conditions globally. The effects of those events -- whether the smoke provides a net atmospheric cooling or warming, what happens to underlying clouds, etc.) -- is currently the subject of intense study.
"How Not to be Stupid" →
Shane Parrish, interviewing Adam Robinson:
…When it comes to overloading our cognitive brains, the seven factors are: being outside of your circle of competence, stress, rushing or urgency, fixation on an outcome, information overload, being in a group where social cohesion comes into play, and being in the presence of an “authority.” Acting alone any of these are powerful enough, but together they dramatically increase the odds you are unaware that you’ve been cognitively compromised.
Here’s a good list of factors that cause mistakes. Note that a lot of them are often outside our immediate control!
And one that’s particularly relevant to news analysis is “in the presence of an authority, or being an authority.” A veeeeery common problem I see among “experts” is when they step outside their area of expertise but still think they know the answers. We all trick ourselves into thinking that because we are really good at one thing (and therefore very “smart”), our opinions must be just as valid on other topics (even though we know we’re not nearly as informed on them). One way to catch to yourself is noticing when you start using absolute statements, instead of describing the complexity or nuance of a situation.
21st Century "Divide and Conquer"
This is the hashtag:
Political disagreements are being "weaponized" by unscrupulous political operatives through the use of auto-posting bots on social media. They flood a hashtag, making it look like a lot of people don't like someone. That hashtag rises on the "Trending" charts. That fake consensus then tricks people into feeling more hostile than they otherwise would, and it lowers the barriers to spread hate, polluting connections real people have with each other.
In this case, it looks like there's a current botnet campaign that's trying to worsen whatever bad blood exists between Sanders and Warren supporters, similar to how Russian operatives created spambots that endlessly harassed Clinton (and Sanders) supporters during the 2015/2016 primary (the "Bernie Bros" pejorative was created in part by this--a 2017 analysis found that the most prolific pro-Bernie/anti-Clinton accounts on Twitter turned out to be Russian bots). When you see something enraging, take a moment to chill and ask whether the source and the message are real.
We need to remain skeptical of what we see on social media when it's something that gets our blood pumping about political opponents, whether that's a trending harassment hashtag or it's an article from a news source we haven't heard of before. If it sounds too horrible to be true, there's a good chance it's fake news created to divide us. Not always(!), but often.
There are good reasons not to agree (and even REALLY not like) someone in politics, and if we care about democratic rule we need to have a lot more conversations with each other about why do and don't support people running for office. But we need to be careful not to be taken advantage of by bad actors. Keep an open mind. And remain skeptical.
"Trump’s Tariffs Are Raising Prices and Slashing Employment"
"Prices" and "Employment" aren't the whole picture, but Trump himself promised his trade "deals" would be a huge boost to the US economy and manufacturing. Now we're billions in the hole and having to bail out our farmers on top of that.
If this study holds up, it means that Trump’s trade war is (a) costing American families about $1000 per year, (b) cratering employment in the affected sectors, (c) sending producer prices up, and (d) putting hundreds of American farmers face to face with bankruptcy…
"The Christmas Even Confessions of Chuck Todd"
Ultimately, perhaps, it's all about money: the big ad-supported media, which are now mostly owned by billionaires, chase "gotcha" moments over long-term analysis that might question too much (like why life expectancy is declining for all but the super rich, in the wealthiest country in history, for the first time in nearly a hundred years). At the most basic level, though, it shows fatal flaws in what many journalism schools have taught as good practice, especially the idea that both "sides" need to be given equal coverage, even when there's only one that's right and/or the other constantly lies.
Assuming that all politicians are trying their best to speak the truth is an incredibly privileged assumption. These people have clearly never experienced the extreme media distortion in authoritarian countries. That’s where we’re headed, and they either learn how to counter the endless stream of bullshit from “conservative” “news” sources and spokespeople, or they’re just mouthpieces for it.