ObjectivityIncarnate

I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.

You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.

The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.

So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.

Criminal charges isn’t a fucking conviction.

Nobody said it was, straw man builder. But the headline is deliberately misleading, and that’s what I was pointing out.

There is literally zero reason to cherry-pick specific cities when assessing ICE’s actions as a department.

What point are you trying to make about it being higher than the general population?

…that that demographic contains more than double the incidence of violent criminals than the general population. What else?

That they are doing ever so slightly better than arresting people at random?

The crime ICE is arresting people for is not a violent one, so this is a complete non-sequitur.

Ostensibly, at least.

With violent conviction: 7%

That’s a lot higher than the general population, isn’t it? Google says it’s 2-4% estimated (there’s apparently no explicit data collected on specifically violent convictions—there is for “felony” convictions, but there are a ton of non-violent felonies, so that’s pretty useless for this kind of comparison).

I also can’t help but notice that the article, especially the headline, is very careful to say “most” only about certain “city crackdowns”. According to the same chart in the article, among all ICE arrests across the US from Jan 20th to Oct 15th, only 33% had “No criminal charges”, which means 67% of them did have criminal charges. Pretty stark contrast to what the headline would like to imply, isn’t it?

Overall, pretty blatant cherry-picking. I hate that it’s so difficult to find media that will just present the facts without any spin.

That’s not the number of people using Amazon, that’s the number of people paying for a premium subscription service on top of their Amazon usage. No one, whether they buy things on Amazon or not, needs Prime.

That is the point they’re making.

of course they wrote the article about the 25% that showed men were worse off.

What do you mean “of course”? In the vast, vast majority of cases, female suffering is given more attention and sympathy than male suffering in the media.

Remember when 11% of killed journalists being women led to a social media campaign from the UN about ‘stop targeting women journalists’?

Or when 25% of homeless being women was the focus of articles talking about homelessness?

Or when Boko Haram kidnapping girls generated massive media outrage, while them murdering boys didn’t? Even the headlines would make no effort to even mention the sex of it wasn’t female: you’d see “schoolgirls” or “girls” for the former, but just “children” or “students” for the latter.

There was widespread outrage about sexism in colleges when women were in the minority of graduates. Today, it’s men that are significantly in the minority, and no one gives a shit.

Suicide rates increasing faster among girls than boys is given more attention than the fact that boys are still four times more likely to do it than girls.

“Of course”, indeed.