The article doesn’t mention it, but I wonder if this has anything to do with ASU’s President trying to cozy up with the Trump administration [0]. Trump has already at least tried to cut federal funding for PBS [1]. I’m not sure where that’s at now.
People shouting about PBS news being horribly biased are just flat-out wrong. Obviously their viewership leans centrist liberal, but no other news program in recent times approached their level of nonpartisanship when dealing with national politics. Regardless of their affiliation, they’d ask most interviewees a couple of pointed questions but always let them explain themselves uninterrupted, and let them have the last word unless it was blatantly false. In the Obama era they regularly had top Republican leadership on from that era and years past— Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Mitch McConnell were on there all the time. I’ve seen Steve Bannon respectfully (actually rather warmly) interviewed within the past year, as well as people from the heritage foundation, Manhattan institute, Cato institute, and other people from across the right-wing spectrum.
David Brooks isn’t representative of the Republican mainstream at the moment, but they’ve started getting more representative Republican counterpoints on their panels over the past few months, even after the republicans cut their funding.
They present a more reasonable, tempered, and charitable perspective on both political parties than any other major news outlet.
PBS and NPR have long been my go-to sources for news. Very much in the classic "who, what, when and where" vein. Editorial content is small, segregated and usually includes advocates for both sides. Blissfully boring and informative...
NPR News veered sharply left over the past ~10 years, even more so local affiliate programming like that put out by KQED. In the past year or two there's been a moderate course correction, but their reporting is still clearly stuck in a liberal cognitive bubble.[1] I think a large part of it was the generational turnover that occurred, and their eagerness to "speak the truth", emboldened by the belief that any random sociology study that happened to support their view firmly established their beliefs as scientific fact, unchecked once Republicans disengaged from earnest empirical debate. But I agree about PBS, they managed to stay the course.
[1] NPR generally has always had a liberal bias, but their professionalism was sufficient to keep them straight shooting. Even Justice Scalia used to listen to NPR News, at least as late as the aughts.
I do agree that NPR is less neutral than PBS but if you want to hear what harder left political commentary sounds like, listen to an episode of Chapo Trap House. NPR isn’t sharply left— they’re very on the very mainstream end of liberal centrist with an occasional smattering of “I was a socialist for a semester in college” liberal in their editorial content— they’re just not shy about it.
PBS on the other hand— while obviously coming from an institution that exists because of things liberals value— clearly puts a lot of effort into representing most mainstream views charitably. It’s almost like if Reuters had a daily news hour.
The first half is usually solid, the back half is, well, usually more opinionated/softer. Lots of interviews with professors who seek to have their opinions represented as facts or members of the public have their plight elevated as serious national policy concerns.
Sure there’s definitely a change in content but I don’t think it’s quite that bad. Tonight was capehart and brooks— who has never supported Trump even though he’s a conservative, so not a great foil for capehart… Pretty soft/polite analysis that always feels very late-aughts. Yesterday was someone who worked in the state department for 25 years giving a pretty dry breakdown on Venezuela. the night before that was a professor from Tulane criticizing trump’s strategy on Venezuela. The night before that was an interview with Bill Cassidy explaining the GOP health care proposal he co-authored, and a report from someone embedded with the Lebanese army. I wouldn’t exactly say it’s like a rehash of the conversation at the campus coffee shop over there.
Probably best to dissect a specimen. I guess really the guy's just hocking his book here, but it's vacuous and packed with opinions and pessimism, and really not particularly high quality journalism.
For example, I disagree with the opinion that LLMs can't be a free lunch, or at least can't be CAPEX instead of OPEX, which Reich doesn't realize in the stated opinion.
I had to go back pretty far to find a professor, specifically, the first few were social outreach or labor organizers.
Your claim was professors want their opinions to be considered fact.
Promoting a book doesn't do that. Having opinions is normal and what we are talking about. Whether the person is pessimistic has no relevance here and I would like to know why you presented that as evidence.
It's a national federally funded organization and they want to chat on about justice and fairness, literally asking in order "how does this effect diversity? oh. How about equity? oh. how about inclusion?", and it's such a surprise that it costs a trillion dollars to not plop a choo-choo from LA to SF when everyone "feels like it"? It's gross, it's gross to me. Stick to the news.
I assume by your rant you don't have the evidence I requested and your claims a more likely based on your political views and not reality.
What's disturbing is that you're probably an engineer, like you know how to open PRs but also think the 2020 election was stolen. Maybe that explains why software has bugs
Yeah, we're opining on a segment that I opined is excessively opinionated (i.e., opinions are confidently stated so as to be represented as facts, "half of teachers are using LLMs") but when you look, the "study" is just a bunch of opinion polls. So yeah it is, in the literal sense, the professor's opinion being represented as facts, thank you have a nice day.
How? Because they stated their opinion and they think they're right?
As opposed to having an opinion you think is wrong?
>half of teachers are using LLM
This is their opinion based on a study that polled teachers? How is this unreasonable?
Determining popularity by polling makes complete sense.
You're just anti intellectual for political reasons. Also supporting Trump while not liking people who are opinionated and overly confident makes you a hypocrite
I mean this is just one case, I didn't cherry pick this, I peeked at a few previous episodes to find an episode where there was indeed a professor for the feature interview.
It's uninteresting because it's basically become a platform for regulatory capture. It's a wellspring of obviously non-universal ideas like, "there is no right way to integrate AI and primary education", "the federal government should subsidize ai access", or "only safe ai platforms should be permitted". I mean it's obviously their right to blather incessantly about it, I just think it's boring, and that's all I've said.
Maybe it's because I'm not a politician or a philanthropist, and I'm not required to tailor my actions to appease a large number of people subject to my will, but there's obviously better ways to approach that, like delegating and talking to people, who are local to the concern.
It's a nuanced and long term discussion and I think lots of the stuff that winds up in these interviews is really a local issue that's going into the wrong channel by well-meaning folks who don't understand government, or worse folks who are seeking to exploit government for profit.
And concretely, the interview doesn't focus on the book or the study, it's literally just an authoritative "intersectional" quiz about how AI/Education crosses with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,... a dumb question.
> it's literally just an authoritative "intersectional" quiz about how AI/Education crosses with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,... a dumb question.
What's an "authoritative intersectional quiz"?
>Maybe it's because I'm not a politician or a philanthropist..
Your accusations were about professors so why are you bringing up politicians. Also a philanthropist doesn't have people under his control.
>...delegating and talking to people, who are local to the concern.... lots of the stuff that winds up in these interviews is really a local issue that's going into the wrong channel
What's a local issue that shouldn't be discussed on PBS? You were just discussing AI which isn't a local issue.
>because it's basically become a platform for regulatory capture
How? You used so many buzz words I believe you either used chatgpt to generate the response or you're a bot
Did you watch the YouTube timestamp? Do you know the difference between audience and subject? Do you know that we don't all live in primary school? Can you list any 7 buzz words I've raised that didn't come immediately from the YouTube timestamp?
This user must be a bot check the comment he replied to be me higher in the thread. It almost looks like a valid response but actually jumps around to different issues right wing people have about the news.
After I heard someone call McConnell a RINO I knew that no amount of concessions would make them feel coverage was “fair.” It’s Trump’s way or the highway.
Enjoy your vibes-based version of reality where objective truth doesn’t actually matter. That’s definitely not one of the primary criticisms conservatives have wielded against the post-modern left. You won’t bother to check, so I’m sure you’ll feel that expat community will be happy to have you!
The goal was never to destroy the gas-enriching centrifuges at Fordo(which does the enriching to 60%), but to bury the final step at Isfahan which enriches it to a weapons-grade 90%. The article even says “… the senior Israeli official did not express concern about the assessment that some of the stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium, stored in casks, had survived the attack”. In the words of Seymour Hersh: “No enrichment, no Iranian bomb.”
One of the few places you can get by car-less in a society that makes it almost essential to own a car. No car payment, no car insurance, no fear of being one of the many people killed in traffic accidents in any given day in the US. Heck it was even a deciding factor when I decided to move to NYC.
It seems like the majority of people who invested in Bitcoin (and I'd assume crypto as a whole) lost money[1]. I'm definitely not a tax expert, but these people with losses should be able to at least write those losses off their taxes.
I’ve always had a hard time taking the accuracy of personality tests seriously. I think the mood you’re in at the time of the test greatly influences not only how you read the test but how you respond as well. I also tend to lean on the side of personality not being permanent. I see you touched on that in the article but I’m curious as to your thoughts on whether personality changes or stays the same during the course of a persons life.
Good point. That's why a lot of people (who use online tests only) get mistyped and cross out the theory.
Many cognitive biases hinder revealing our true selves and so our true personality type. That's why finding out your true personality type is hard, and usually takes much longer than 5 min online test.
According to Jung, the personality type does not change. Your whole personality does change, but the personality type does not. Over time, you try different attitudes but always get back to your default state, you may revisit your values and beliefs, and you may loosen social inhibitions, but your default patterns of thoughts and actions stay the same.
The problem with personality types is that people understand i.e. extrovert as someone who loves parties and charges being with people, and introvert as someone who is depressed and reads a lot of books.
Personality type is much deeper. Personality type explains:
- why do some people tend to focus on the future more than the present moment;
- why do some people focus more on making good things happen than preventing bad things from happening;
- why do some people are prone to generalisation before collecting enough facts, while others can not say anything more than the facts they gathered;
- why do some people are more focused on themselves while others on influencing others?
and many more. At its core, it has nothing to do with shyness, depression, social skills, intelligence, etc. Those are just results of following your strengths or neglecting your weaknesses. Personality type can help you with spotting your strengths and weaknesses and better understanding others, so you communicate using their prefered language, not yours.
I think you might’ve misread this table. If you count up the number of bear markets in the table and then look at which of those periods also had a recession, the number of bear markets that coincided with a recession is actually ~50%. Further, the table says they count a S&P500 decline of 19% as a bear market, which by our arbitrary standards, isn’t. So if you take those 19% drops out a recession actually coincides with a “true” bear market about ~65% of the time according to this table. I fail to see how you got 20%. Maybe you were looking at the length of recovery which it says on average is 20 months?
I was commenting about how historically bear markets start around the 20% mark to the original comment regardless of a recession. This is consistent with many books on the subject too and thus isn’t just “arbitrary”. It has actual data going back hundreds of years
The client probably doesn’t care how clean the code is…all they want is to see it working and they’ll pay a lot of money for it. I’ve found it better to move fast and create code that gets the job done rather than spend more time on making “prettier” code that does the same thing from the client’s perspective.
[0]: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/arizona-state-universi...
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/02/nx-s1-5384790/trump-orders-en...