David Raikow
@david.raikow.online
I think about international policy, politics, conflict, and political corruption. Trying to harness Machiavellian cynicism for the common good.
What *is* so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?
What *is* so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?
It turns out that “the more enthusiastic someone is about LLM chatbots, the less they know about how LLM chatbots work” is a pretty reliable rule of thumb.
November 17, 2025 at 2:24 AM
I feel like somehow I managed to get on the “NYT is fundamentally broken” train very early.
bsky.app/profile/davi...
bsky.app/profile/davi...
To the extent that there’s an answer, I’m pretty sure it’s this:
This is what the NYTimes is, and what it has been for a very long time. By any reasonable standard it should have failed completely generations ago. Its vaunted credibility and objectivity have always been a myth.
This is what the NYTimes is, and what it has been for a very long time. By any reasonable standard it should have failed completely generations ago. Its vaunted credibility and objectivity have always been a myth.
Stop me if you've heard this before:
If the NYT still had a public editor, that person would have official standing to ask, WTF???
They axed the public editor. So it's up to the rest of us to ask, unofficially, WTF???
If the NYT still had a public editor, that person would have official standing to ask, WTF???
They axed the public editor. So it's up to the rest of us to ask, unofficially, WTF???
November 13, 2025 at 6:47 PM
I feel like somehow I managed to get on the “NYT is fundamentally broken” train very early.
bsky.app/profile/davi...
bsky.app/profile/davi...
To the extent that there’s an answer, I’m pretty sure it’s this:
This is what the NYTimes is, and what it has been for a very long time. By any reasonable standard it should have failed completely generations ago. Its vaunted credibility and objectivity have always been a myth.
This is what the NYTimes is, and what it has been for a very long time. By any reasonable standard it should have failed completely generations ago. Its vaunted credibility and objectivity have always been a myth.
Stop me if you've heard this before:
If the NYT still had a public editor, that person would have official standing to ask, WTF???
They axed the public editor. So it's up to the rest of us to ask, unofficially, WTF???
If the NYT still had a public editor, that person would have official standing to ask, WTF???
They axed the public editor. So it's up to the rest of us to ask, unofficially, WTF???
November 13, 2025 at 5:50 PM
To the extent that there’s an answer, I’m pretty sure it’s this:
This is what the NYTimes is, and what it has been for a very long time. By any reasonable standard it should have failed completely generations ago. Its vaunted credibility and objectivity have always been a myth.
This is what the NYTimes is, and what it has been for a very long time. By any reasonable standard it should have failed completely generations ago. Its vaunted credibility and objectivity have always been a myth.
Stop me if you've heard this before:
If the NYT still had a public editor, that person would have official standing to ask, WTF???
They axed the public editor. So it's up to the rest of us to ask, unofficially, WTF???
If the NYT still had a public editor, that person would have official standing to ask, WTF???
They axed the public editor. So it's up to the rest of us to ask, unofficially, WTF???
November 13, 2025 at 3:48 AM
That was a very sensible answer at the time! I could be wrong—I don’t have research data—but I’d guess that just isn’t sustainable today given how much and how fast we expect people to read.
I don’t know enough about the current literacy problem to know if keeping the k in knight is sustainable…
I don’t know enough about the current literacy problem to know if keeping the k in knight is sustainable…
November 13, 2025 at 3:06 AM
That was a very sensible answer at the time! I could be wrong—I don’t have research data—but I’d guess that just isn’t sustainable today given how much and how fast we expect people to read.
I don’t know enough about the current literacy problem to know if keeping the k in knight is sustainable…
I don’t know enough about the current literacy problem to know if keeping the k in knight is sustainable…
I think the answer we’ve sort of collectively landed on is having two different spelling standards—a consistent standard for publication/formal usage/signage/etc., and dynamic standard for texts and informal emails and such.
November 13, 2025 at 2:56 AM
I think the answer we’ve sort of collectively landed on is having two different spelling standards—a consistent standard for publication/formal usage/signage/etc., and dynamic standard for texts and informal emails and such.
I think the big issue here is that pronunciation changes, sometimes quickly. So how do you maintain consistency while matching spelling to pronunciation? That’s a very complicated problem.
bsky.app/profile/swil...
bsky.app/profile/swil...
ANYWAY WHY DO WE HAVE TO SPELL LIKE IT IS 1300??
IT IS CLEARLY NOT WORKING WELL
IT IS CLEARLY NOT WORKING WELL
November 13, 2025 at 2:52 AM
I think the big issue here is that pronunciation changes, sometimes quickly. So how do you maintain consistency while matching spelling to pronunciation? That’s a very complicated problem.
bsky.app/profile/swil...
bsky.app/profile/swil...
People need to stop hoping for the NYT to “get better”. It’s never going to get better. This is what it is. This is what its owner and EIC want it to be.
bsky.app/profile/bana...
bsky.app/profile/bana...
every few years it's revealed that the NYT was sitting on information about some horrific thing that public knowledge of would have changed the country's course and for some reason a ton of people still give them money. you can play those games on other sites
November 13, 2025 at 1:40 AM
People need to stop hoping for the NYT to “get better”. It’s never going to get better. This is what it is. This is what its owner and EIC want it to be.
bsky.app/profile/bana...
bsky.app/profile/bana...
The NYT should have failed when it downplayed both Hitler’s antisemitism and the Holocaust itself. It should have failed when it distorting one Clinton story after another. It should have failed when the Judith Miller fiasco turned it into a cheerleader for the Iraq War.
bsky.app/profile/chri...
bsky.app/profile/chri...
Fall 2017: Then-NYT reporter literally warning Epstein that someone is "digging around again."
![From:
Thomas Jr., Landon
Sent:
9/27/2017 2:47:47 PM
To:
Subject:
Got another call from Connelly..
Importance:
High
Jeffrey Epstein [jeevacation@gmail.com]
He is digging around again -- not clear if its another book/or expanded paperback version. Was asking me all sorts of questions about why you hired Ken Starr. I told him I had no idea - I think he is doing some Trump-related digging too.
Anyway, for what its worth...
Landon Thomas, Jr.
Financial Reporter
New York Times
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/landon_ir thomas/index.h
tml](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreia6463yzmb2suqn5rbfslvtta667av3ryynaetbsl7x6tniezyawu@jpeg)
November 13, 2025 at 1:38 AM
The NYT should have failed when it downplayed both Hitler’s antisemitism and the Holocaust itself. It should have failed when it distorting one Clinton story after another. It should have failed when the Judith Miller fiasco turned it into a cheerleader for the Iraq War.
bsky.app/profile/chri...
bsky.app/profile/chri...
Good M. Spectacular 007.
November 12, 2025 at 8:55 PM
Good M. Spectacular 007.
Also, if Olivia Colman isn’t on your “obvious” list, I don’t know what to tell you.
November 12, 2025 at 8:52 PM
Also, if Olivia Colman isn’t on your “obvious” list, I don’t know what to tell you.
If you’re starting obvious I’d say Elba, Hiddleston, Olivia Colman. Capaldi, Kate McKinnon, and Laurie next. Then Leslie Jones, Andy Zalzman, Catherine Tate…
November 12, 2025 at 8:47 PM
If you’re starting obvious I’d say Elba, Hiddleston, Olivia Colman. Capaldi, Kate McKinnon, and Laurie next. Then Leslie Jones, Andy Zalzman, Catherine Tate…
To be fair, in 1916 a good mark in deportment for a girl almost certainly meant “properly quiet, demure, and deferential to boys”, so your grandmother was on the right side of history.
November 12, 2025 at 1:44 AM
To be fair, in 1916 a good mark in deportment for a girl almost certainly meant “properly quiet, demure, and deferential to boys”, so your grandmother was on the right side of history.
A tangent, but baby Willem Defoe was also wild in that movie.
November 8, 2025 at 8:40 PM
A tangent, but baby Willem Defoe was also wild in that movie.