Tech Reporting Is More Negative Now Than in the Past (betanews.com) 156
Wayne Williams, writing for BetaNews: A new study finds that tech reporting is generally more pessimistic now than in the past, and for two very different reasons. The new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), and based on textual analysis of 250 articles from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post from 1986 to 2013, highlights how the tone of tech reporting has shifted in the past 20 years. In general, the ITIF found that in the 1980s and 1990s, coverage of technology was largely positive, but this changed from the mid-1990s to 2013, when more negative reports covering the downside of technology, its failure to live up to its promises, and potential ill effects, started to appear. The ITIF attributes this shift to two main causes, the first being that "there has been a significant increase in the number of civil-society organizations and attention-seeking scholars focused on painting a threatening picture of technology," and second, and perhaps most pertinent, "news organizations are under increased financial pressure, and as a result, reporters may have less time and fewer resources to dig deep into technology issues."
#3 (Score:1)
Controversy and conflict draws attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Media in general us more negative.
Also I've observed in my own life that the number of people I know who are willing to belligerently express their negative opinions has increased, but might be my fault.
Re: (Score:3)
Only Tech? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because all the news is negative nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought tech news was where all the good news is, with commodity parts and standards everywhere.
I guess it depends which technologies you use.
Re: (Score:3)
If it bleeds it leads.
has been around for a long time.
Re:Only Tech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because all the news is negative nowadays.
Except that, by any objective measure, the news is NOT negative. The world is most peaceful. The worst war is in Syria, which is a minor conflict by historical standards. There is almost no chance of major power conflict. Living standards are improving across the world. Hundreds of millions of people are rising to the middle class, and in the last ten years, more than a billion have risen out of extreme poverty. Populate growth is falling almost everyone outside Africa. Literacy rates are going up. We are finding cures for diseases, and beating back HIV and malaria. We are making steady progress on solutions to pollution and climate change.
The major headlines in America today (Feb 23rd) are not about war, famine, or plague, but about whether school restroom usage policy should be decided by the federal government, or left up to locals. I don't mean to belittle the issue, but that is hardly an existential crisis for humanity.
If you think that the reality of what is happening in the world is mostly negative, you should reconsider your news sources, and get a more balanced perspective.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet it appears to be a focus of the current government.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that, by any objective measure, the news is NOT negative. The world is most peaceful.
No. You are confusing what is happening, the facts with the news. At the moment, the news may very well be the worst of all times, even if the facts aren't.
If you think that the reality of what is happening in the world is mostly negative, you should reconsider your news sources, and get a more balanced perspective.
The OP's personal source of news is irrelevant in this discussion. Bad news sells better than good news, even for the NYT and the WSJ. As TFA puts it "...they have an incentive to pursue alarmist stories that generate clicks."
Even? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you miss The Guardian view on famine: sitting by as disaster unfolds [theguardian.com]? 20 millions may starve to dead within 6 months if we don't donate 4.4 billion dollar.
There is also the news about Morocco beating down protest in the Rif with violence and the talks about letting those Rif people move to Europe as 'refugees'. This while Morocco is looking to replace its economical ties with the EU with economical ties with Russia and China. Another potential open border is in the making while the EU doesn't show any l
Re: (Score:2)
No one claimed the world was perfect. The claim is that it is improving.
When we make statistics about malnutrition, it includes the potential 20M you mentioned, and the average trend is down. Political unrest is not new either, it comes and goes, some countries get better and some get worse, but the big picture is that things are improving.
The first argument is typical of NGOs looking for funding. It is marketing strategy : look at all the bad things that happen, you can do something by giving us money. If
Re: (Score:2)
Erdogan also wants non APK supporting Turks to be arrested and extradited to Erdogan's Turkey.
Be careful bringing him up, all it takes is three times saying the name to summon the demon.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like almost all reporting is negative nowadays.
Hasn't that always been the case?
People don't want to read good news. Humans interest stories are seen as fluff pieces. "If it bleeds, it leads"?
Re:Only Tech? (Score:5, Funny)
I feel like almost all reporting is negative nowadays.
Yeah, it's totally negative. The worst. Really awful. How can people be so horribly negative. Sad!
This is how it works (Score:3)
When you're looking ahead, you often think of a bright positive future. You think of ways in which technology can make lives better.
It's when we're 'there,' when we're in the future, that we can look back and see the impact. It's a lot easier to analyze failure that has already happened than it is to anticipate the strange ways in which people work.
Farewell to yesterday's tomorrow (Score:2)
It's when we're 'there,' when we're in the future, that we can look back ...
But we're no more "in the future" now than we were yesterday, or the year before.
We've always lived in yesterday's tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. In the 80s and 90s tech reporting was about what tech could do for you. Now it's about what tech is going to do TO you, and almost none of it is good.
It depends on what segment of tech reporting we're talking about. In the early to mid 1990s, mainstream media reporting on the Internet was almost entirely negative, casting it as a darknet of predators ready to lure away the children of unwary parents. The Internet has its faults, but no one can get away with that level of nonsense now about the Internet as a whole.
The magic is dead. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The magic is dead. (Score:5, Interesting)
Computing is pretty much ubiquitous nowadays. When I first got into computing back in grade school around 1981-82, computers were just this incredibly awesome thing. There was a pioneering spirit to the home computing world. I remember taking my crappy little Radio Shack computer to local meetups, and you'd have everyone from ten year olds like myself to grizzled old guys (who could actually afford cool peripherals like disk drives and the like). That persisted to some extent until the early 1990s, with the earliest versions of Linux like the original Slackware release being the swan song of an age of computing that had persisted since the mid-70s. Once the Internet really overtook the old BBS culture, that was the final nail. I blame it all on AOL!
I can remember pouring through Byte magazine back in the mid-80s and just salivating over the idea of having a modem or a double-sided floppy drive. It was just a very optimistic age. I found an old box of computer magazines from the era, and still smiled at the three page BASIC program listing for some sort of text adventure game, remembering how I built my first one based on a how-to book I'd ordered from an advertisement in the back. Good times.
Re: (Score:2)
I blame it all on AOL!
YES! [wikipedia.org] Although it didn't get as bad as it is today until digg changed their format causing people to look elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
I can sort-of agree with this, but I'd like to add something more specific: since the Internet has become ubiquitous, it seems like we spend almost as much time and effort patching and securing our computers as we do using them. When a personal computer was an island unto itself, and a LAN was truly local, security was mostly a matter of basic policies, procedures, and permissions applying to a known and reachable population.
Now, companies and even individuals are subjected to an asymmetrical threat envir
Re: (Score:2)
Rose colored glasses. Before the internet virus were transferred by floppys. All the people with kids would need their 'at home' computers constantly cleaned.
We made a rule that anybody with a company computer was not to let their kids use it, buy them their own, then deal with it yourself.
Re:The magic is dead. (Score:4, Interesting)
Computing is pretty much ubiquitous nowadays. When I first got into computing back in grade school around 1981-82, computers were just this incredibly awesome thing.
And no matter how fast technology goes there's a diminishing return, like the difference between CGA, EGA and VGA is never coming back no matter how much people talk about 4K, 10 bit, HDR, Rec. 2020 and so on. Doubling from 1MB to 2MB meant more than 1GB to 2GB. The last time I was genuinely floored by new hardware was in 2002 with Morrowind when I installed a new GPU with hardware T&L. Suddenly the grass looked like grass, the sea looked like sea, things started to have realistic textures and shadows and whatnot. Sure in sum we've come far since then, but never in huge leaps like that. That and modem -> DSL was also huge, but of course not as huge as getting Internet in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Reality distortion is dead...not magic (Score:2)
Only now that Steve Jobs is gone that the tech media now has the "courage" to criticize Apple and their products.
Combine those two causes (Score:2)
2. news organizations without sufficient resources to "dig deep"
Combine those two, and you get "attention-seeking news organizations".
"If it bleeds, it leads." The news organizations are always attention-seeking, and simplified, salacious news gets the most attention, even if it is incorrect.
Re:Left and right (Score:5, Informative)
Nonsense.
Both left and right have anti-science wings, both basically religious in nature. They are both slowly losing power as reality is observed by real world humans.
I'd like to see actual deathmatches between bible thumpers and nature hippies, that would be cool.
Re: (Score:2)
I see little evidence that science is regaining ground. There has been far too concerted an effort in the last ten to fifteen years to demonize scientists, to make them out to be profiteering frauds. In the end reality will very much bring back the pro-science movement, but for now, even on Slashdot, the attitude on everything from climate change to basic research is incredibly negative.
Re: (Score:2)
The _actual_ scientists studying climate change will win in the end. The ones that want to shutdown modern society (nature hippies) will continue to be ignored, the world will not end. Climate models/datasets being advanced today are better than those being advanced 15 years ago. The most extreme of which have since been laughed out of the room (and edited out of the history by those who used to be claiming them as true).
Science is data driven. Lies can only be maintained for so long without just blowing
Re: (Score:2)
Having taken a college-level psychology course (which of course makes me an expert in the field!) I can tell you that psychology isn't necessarily as soft as you think, and while there are certainly holdover schools of psychology that are based on partial or total rubbish, when you start talking about cognitive psychology and behaviorism, these are just as hard a science as physics or geology, to the point that I got the strong impression that my instructor viewed many of the other schools pretty dimly as b
Re: (Score:2)
I said 'almost all' you said 'most'.
Do you have any evidence either isn't true? Sure their are a few people in any field that respect scientific method. But are they more than 1-5% in the soft sciences? How many don't abuse statistics? How many even have enough math to not abuse statistics through ignorance?
Re: (Score:2)
My experience from my coursework was that the cited studies seemed to me to be pretty rigorous. There was an entire section dedicated to what might have been titled "junk science", though as I recall the authors of the textbook used a somewhat more diplomatic term. In there were all kinds of commonly-held disorders like pre-menstrual syndrome, seasonal affective disorder in the like where research suggests that while the disorders may be real, they in fact effect a far smaller group of people than earlier s
Re: (Score:2)
Some will go/remain fully 'religious nuts' like creationists/commune dwellers. No disputing that.
Outside small enclaves of similarly minded nuts, how much influence do you think creationists/marxists have?
The worst they can do it influence things like grade school textbooks (by fanatical persistence). Which is, in fact, good bullshit detection training for growing kids. If a kid can't spot a commie/creationist by now, (s)he is likely too dumb to matter anyhow. The world will continue to need ditch digg
Re: (Score:2)
'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism
Re: (Score:2)
Both left and right have anti-science wings, both basically religious in nature. They are both slowly losing power as reality is observed by real world humans.
They might be losing numbers in terms of people and members, but they're gaining tremendous power these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Between the 1980s and about 2010 the 'bible thumpers' just owned the Rs structure in many states. They _are_ dumb as rocks, but they show up. 'Showing up' is 50% of anything.
The 'nature hippies' never controlled the Ds when the Ds were having a winning year. They don't now either. Sure they get a nominee, once in while, but that nominee is unelectable. They don't show up consistently. Thank dog for all the drugs they are on.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to use a religious test, but 'By their fruits shall you judge them' is pragmatic.
Science produces results, religion, not so much. Find me a religion that says: 'go with what works, make sure you aren't fooling yourself.'
Re: (Score:2)
It's like you just made that up. Oh you did!
Re: (Score:2)
Glad you used AC to post, because you assertions are utterly false. Silicon Valley is a hot-bed of people on the left, and it's been that way since the 1960's. Who do you think actually INVENTED most of the basis for new technology. Sure most of it was based on a Brit (think of Alan Turing), but the capital was in San Francisco, and most of those capitalists are (and were) left-wing thinkers, interested in making money by delivering stupendous new products/services. It's only LATER that Wall Street, and
Re: (Score:2)
Nazis _were_ leftist. Shockley was a Nazi. You are right.
Re: (Score:2)
'Fascism' didn't exist in the 20s. The term was coined by Mussolini. His government was socialist plus nationalist.
The oft quoted statement by Mussolini about corporations neglects to mention the only corporations in fascist Italy were government sponsored ones, non-profit NGOs in modern parlance.
Re: (Score:2)
Silicon Valley is a hot-bed of people on the left, and it's been that way since the 1960's.
Unfortunately, money has a way of turning liberals into conservatives. The legal system is positively littered with ambulance chasers who became lawyers to fight the system from within.
Re: (Score:2)
In the '80s the right was pro-science and technology, and the left (or at least the stereotype of the left) was anti-technology.
Since the Reagan era, though the right has completely swung around and is now anti-science, while the left has only weakly shifted over and embraced science.
I don't see any such change, unless you're counting skepticism on the right about the hard-to-pin-down effect of carbon on weather, even when we observe warming (are we all going to die of thirst, or are we going to drown?) I don't hear much from creationists these days either.
Meanwhile the left hates technology just as much as it did in the Seventies, and has even started hacking away against pure research itself, as evidenced by their crusade against astronomy - a discipline whose vested interest is in a
Re: (Score:2)
The problem being is that the effects of CO2 aren't that hard to pin down. The skepticism is basically fake, fueled by some of the wealthiest companies and individuals on the planet, even as they themselves prepare for the low-carbon future.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any such change, unless you're counting skepticism on the right about the hard-to-pin-down effect of carbon on weather, even when we observe warming (are we all going to die of thirst, or are we going to drown?)
Yes, that is the effect of CO2 on weather. We are going to die of thirst, or drown. That's why they call it a chaotic system.
Meanwhile the left hates technology just as much as it did in the Seventies, and has even started hacking away against pure research itself, as evidenced by their crusade against astronomy - a discipline whose vested interest is in a totally clean environment - first in Arizona, and more recently in Hawaii.
I can't figure out WTF you're talking about in AZ, in fact it looks like astronomers there are winning victories to fight light pollution. The thing in HI is not left vs. science. To the extent that any of the people involved are lefties (which sure, some of them are) they have been whipped into a froth by right-wing politicians. And the battle ties into a fight for the land which th
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't figure out WTF you're talking about in AZ, in fact it looks like astronomers there are winning victories to fight light pollution. The thing in HI is not left vs. science. To the extent that any of the people involved are lefties (which sure, some of them are) they have been whipped into a froth by right-wing politicians. And the battle ties into a fight for the land which the Hawaiian natives, frankly, have not given up fighting. Remember, it's not like they simply chose to join an empire."
You may
Re: (Score:3)
So you really think that these particular people are liberals first, and not wackos first?
Re: (Score:2)
Which are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Which are you?
I am a dictionary-definition liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
Which definition? Certainly not: "Pro liberty'.
Re: (Score:2)
Which definition?
I am opposed to government meddling in what I do in my house, but I am in favor of government meddling in everything that business does. You know, the definition. Conservative, of course, is the opposite. Populists want to control both. Anarchists want to control neither. According to the libertarians I am an upper-left centrist (hey, they have a snazzy test) but I personally think I'm more left than they think I am, and less upwards.
Shift from offering products to exploiting users (Score:5, Insightful)
80 and 90s we get a great deal of consumer electronics and computing products that were sold on merits. Late 2000s and into 2010s we have dominance of software that spies and manipulates user behavior for profit. Mid 2010s and we started to see "spies and manipulates" getting pushed into hardware under ruse of IoT.
Negative tone is a result of "You can't fool everyone all the time" playing out.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolute agreement. Every since the Neanderthals on Wall Street started dictating policy to Fortune 500's (and small firms let it trickle down to them), we've been at a growing war with the 1%. Latest news says there are SIX people who have more wealth than the bottom 50% of population of the WORLD! Their interests are served first. And, yes, Marx predicted that. Now, it's our job to get vocal, get active, and take our Democracy back, including the fundamental Constitutional right to privacy that has b
Re: (Score:2)
Now, it's our job to get vocal, get active, and take our Democracy back,
It has never been a Democracy. It was always an Oligarchy. The rich white men (mostly slaveowners) who were running the country wanted to keep running the country, and wanted to get the Monarchy out of it. But they didn't want every plebe to have a voice, that would be madness!
It's our job to get vocal, get active, and get Democracy. Abolish the electoral college, as well as the practice of denying felons the vote. That only creates more incentive to find those who are politically inconvenient guilty of a f
Re: (Score:2)
It has never been a Democracy. It was always an Oligarchy. The rich white men (mostly slaveowners) who were running the country wanted to keep running the country, and wanted to get the Monarchy out of it. But they didn't want every plebe to have a voice, that would be madness!
You can trash the founding fathers of this country all you want, but they instituted a form of government that gave every plebe far more autonomy than ever existed in the past, even giving the plebes the ability to change it or abolish it if necessary.
It's our job to get vocal, get active, and get Democracy. Abolish the electoral college, as well as the practice of denying felons the vote. That only creates more incentive to find those who are politically inconvenient guilty of a felony.
Here's a thought experiment for you: Do you suppose Democracy would lead to more laws being passed or fewer laws? If the former, would that lead to more felons, or fewer?
I agree that former felons ought to have voting rights restored. But I really think they s
Re: (Score:1)
You can trash the founding fathers of this country all you want, but they instituted a form of government that gave every plebe far more autonomy than ever existed in the past, even giving the plebes the ability to change it or abolish it if necessary.
No. The plebes were not allowed to vote under the Founders' system, only land-owners. And in order to be a land-owner you had to meet quite a few non-monetary requirements as well. They also set up an Electoral College due to logistical considerations (the fastest way to relay information was a courier on horseback) and also to insulate against the possibility of the masses voting in someone totally unqualified. Supposedly, the educated folk in the College would recognize, say, a proto-dictatorial populist
Re: (Score:2)
I see zero reason to keep the Electoral College.
Because removing it turns the country into an empire ruled from the cities. The EC balances out different cultures. Without it absolutely no concerns of rural Americans would be addressed. As an American living in a rural area, this is not in my interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is. Users don't care about privacy, or, for that matter, any hidden consequences (which is why usury thrives). Breaking the spell of rent seeking behavior now corroding our society is a difficult one. Starts with basic education of the technicalities, as well as financial literacy (many of lessons there extend beyond that of financial field).
Paranoia as such is only overreaction to false dillema, often with detrimental consequences.
I'll posit a third (Score:2)
...companies pushing their "revolutionary" products when, in fact, they are pretty boring and run of the mill ( when not flat out crap, which is the norm ). That kind of bombastic nonsense works for a while, but eventually folks see through the bullshit so when any truly impressive product does get released, it's viewed through somewhat jaded lenses.
"Fool me once" and all that jazz.
Or a third option (Score:1)
In the 80s and 90s every new piece of tech wasn't a commercialized POS that was designed first and foremost to collect your personal information. The idea of the thing was to do something FOR you, not TO you.
Not scrappy underdog, now a juggernaut (Score:2)
OR, more likely (Score:1)
A lot of negativism is totally gratuitous (Score:5, Informative)
Right now the lead article on Ars Technica is a highly positive review of the current state of VASIMR rocket engine technology: https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
But the author seems to be a frustrated SJW who couldn't resist a totally irrelevant slam at current US immigration policy, even though nobody has ever accused VASIMR developer Franklin Chang-Díaz of having sneaked across the border on foot.
Re: (Score:1)
But the author seems to be a frustrated SJW who couldn't resist a totally irrelevant slam at current US immigration policy, even though nobody has ever accused VASIMR developer Franklin Chang-DÃaz of having sneaked across the border on foot.
If such things make you angry, perhaps you should consider what about them puts you on the defensive.
Re:A lot of negativism is totally gratuitous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A lot of negativism is totally gratuitous (Score:4, Insightful)
If such things make you angry
If complaints about off-topic and pointless SJW snark bother you, perhaps you should consider what compels you to defend such irrational behavior in others.
Re: (Score:2)
If complaints about off-topic and pointless SJW snark bother you, perhaps you should consider what compels you to defend such irrational behavior in others.
Show me on the picture where the immigrant touched you.
Problem is the reporters (Score:2)
Too much if it bleeds it leads, not enough actual comprehension of what they are writing about.
If you don't understand what's going on someone saying "It breaks matter down at a basic level and coverts it to energy" Is scary. If someone tells you "Invisible rays are passing through you and they can cause cellular mutations and cancers" it's scary. Then there is the basic competition between the people that do things and the people that tell you how to think about them.
Here's the answer (Score:3)
We've almost reached the limits of physics and there's basically no viable competition because modern technologies require capex in an order of billions of dollars. What's there to marvel at or be happy about when, for instance, we've had a stagnation in the x86 CPU market since the introduction of Sandy Bridge (don't remind me of Ryzen: AMD has just reached IPC parity with two years old Intel CPUs)? Also GPUs don't grow as fast as they used to in the past, and even then in the past GPUs required passive cooling while certain modern GPUs have three slots cooling solutions with over 200 watts of power dissipation and have billions of transistors (NVIDIA Pascal Titan X has 12 billion transistors working at roughly 1500MHz).
However in my opinion it's astonishing what we've reached so far: certain modern computer games are just breathtakingly beautiful while not being too far off from being photo realistic: Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Battlefield 1, The Division, Quantum Break and others. Recently, I just gave up on playing in The Division for two hours and just roamed NYC and enjoyed the scenery.
Just look at this [neogaf.com] and compare to this [gamerevolution.com].
Re: (Score:2)
We've almost reached the limits of physics
So you mean I can have a computer that is approaching the limits ofLandauer's principle [wikipedia.org]. Where does one find these mythical machines as I would love one that has the computational power of my desktop yet runs for years off of a single AA battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Work on 3D layouts, 10nm die, quantum computing are all very promising. Don't confuse with lack of competition allowing Intel to stop (or likely hoard) innovation with actual stagnation. Once AMD gets back into the game, we will see return of 90s-era progress.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a great lot of fun while it lasted.
Re: (Score:2)
Buries the lede. (Score:1)
In general, the ITIF found that in the 1980s and 1990s, coverage of technology was largely positive, but this changed from the mid-1990s to 2013, when more negative reports covering the downside of technology, its failure to live up to its promises, and potential ill effects, started to appear. The ITIF attributes this shift to two main causes, the first being that "there has been a significant increase in the number of civil-society organizations and attention-seeking scholars focused on painting a threatening picture of technology," and second, and perhaps most pertinent, "news organizations are under increased financial pressure, and as a result, reporters may have less time and fewer resources to dig deep into technology issues."
(emphasis added) TFA doesn't bother to ask whether the negative coverage is actually accurate.
Probably too much to ask from a vapid hit-piece on journalism, scholars and people who dare to care about civil society.
Fear sells (Score:2)
So simply to compete, websites will promote FUD, warnings, threats. And the
What I learned from Hollywood Bitchslap (Score:2)
Hey guess what else this is true of - everything (Score:3)
was largely positive, but this changed from the mid-1990s to 2013,
The thing to understand is, this is not limited to tech. There has been an assault for a decade or two now on the public being happy in any way. You are meant to be riled up and agitated.... to what end I cannot say. But the end effect is not good, you can tell this is bleeding into everyone's real lives, affecting relationships and general behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Tech Reporting Is More Negative Now Than Earlier (Score:2)
negative emotion overload (Score:1)
Gushing optimisim for anything new (Score:2)
I remember that in the past, PC magazine articles etc were nearly always gushing with ridiculously unrealistic positivity about anything new or novel. If every new thing they wrote about actually changed the entire world even half as much as they all claimed it would, we'd all be living like the Jetsons by now.
I think its acutally a good thing that a little bit of skepticism has crept in since those days.
That said I'm still amazed by how many tech product reviews apparently feel the need to totally avoid d
Things change... (Score:1)
comp.risks (Score:2)
Thete is a huge difference (Score:2, Interesting)
Between something 'negative', as in bias, and reporting facts that are not pleasant. Let's be honest: a lot if tech companies these days are engaged in ridiculous amounts of hyperbole, if not flat out lies about their endeavors and their potential, and engage in practices that are so unethical they make the head spin. Something millennials really need to absorb: just because the truth of a situation is uncomfortable does not mean you bury it. You can't change a situation by running away from it or trying to
It's complete shit (Score:2)
Just take a look at any of the places where we've historically gone for tech journalism. There's very little difference between a publication like Endgadget and the Huffington Post. My complaint is this: for the last two years, tech publications have completely lost their focus on tech in favor of divisive political content. The writers they're hiring are not tech writers. So when you have an article that would normally be a fairly good tech article, by the older standard, it falls on its face because the w
If Apple stopped building macs for vegetarians... (Score:2)
Who apparently lack the upper body strength to lift a sheet of paper, we'd have more positive things to say about them other than pointing out that their machines have sacrificed every performance characteristic for weight. And that their tower, while it may be the best Mac Mini ever made, is not a substitute for an actual tower.
Don't blame the messenger.
Ageing reporters? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
available when you were born is boring
Not really. I'm having quite a bit of fun with my 35 year old atari computer. It can't do crap, but the nerd in me is like - wow I never fully understood how most of this worked when I was a kid, but now I do and it is very clever what those people did with what they had.
A fundamentally flawed study, is what you mean. (Score:3)
Occam's Razor (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying it's a holo promise?
Re: (Score:2)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.