Interesting… so it can’t be inferred from evidence you had the whole quote and not possible to edit it that way without being reckless…then again with this crowd, totally possible to find who knows what in their email…

…they should face the normal disincentives, including the consequence of losing the shine.

(Amusing change of subject:One super obscure question is whether Princeton has done this enough that their books shouldn‘t benefit from the presumption of being a reliable source on Wikipedia.)

As a fellow not-a-lawyer-but-got-trained-in-libel-etc-for-job, I always thought the shorthand for malice was reckless disregard, very hard but not impossible for false light?

Tbh, I think it would be worth filing a worthy, true complaint against a place with a sterling name…

revealing at last where the niece and nephew get it from

And these recommendations go back further, Benjamin Franklin deeply regretted not inoculating his son to protect against smallpox before his son died of the disease. Franklin recommended inoculation to his family and others.

(which @doritreiss.bsky.social knows, am just adding on to a great thread)

I have to admit that I'm disappointed to re-read this and discover it doesn't say "2025 LONGEST CRITICISM" which would be truly impressive

It is not a platform to organize the resistance from. But it is a place to be the change we need in this world — to treat others with respect, to put your views aside in favor of what has actually been reported as true by reliable sources.

There is one huge exception to this. If you really believe in objective evidence over ideology and you have some patience, help edit Wikipedia and keep it objective and balanced. Your writing may be read by thousands of people on wikipedia, and many more as it is quoted my search sites and LLMs.

top notch aunt work

I like reading this image as two rows of the same person in four stages...

I think if the problem were just make up, she'd be unrecognizable. Oh, wait, no, she would be recognizable to people who saw her picture three years ago.

We have slipped into the major outlets both-sides-ing things that are black-and-white in the law.

"The Board shall construct...a building to be designated as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts"

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...

The big problem of course is that the NYT and WashPo now both-sides things that are totally in black-and-white in the law.

"The Board shall construct...a building to be designated as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts"

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...

Nothing. Logic is not a constraint on what they say, or do. (citation: We have cut drug prices 400 percent. See also: Venezuela stole our oil. See also: Birthright citizenship is not in the Constitution. See also:...)

Similar, somewhat more careful contact features from LinkedIn and Meta still exposed it.

Also, if you remember the disastrous Google+ roll-out, there are a lot of people in 12-step and similar programs that have each other's phone numbers, but not their IRL last names and identities. Many reported learning this info (and it being public) from that roll out.

And my contacts have no efficient way of filtering this, so anything that starts with "upload your contacts" is already off base.

I think one of the challenges with all contact features is they assume that everyone's contacts are friends. Many are work colleagues, customers, former co-workers that maybe they didn't like, ex'es they have blocked...

There are a lot of people in my contacts I don't share my online life with.

I think the direct invite step is a great innovation, but it isn't clear to me why I need to upload my address book for that, it could just be a "Send invite" button that uses the iOS share control to pick from contacts locally.