"Incorrectly" is a judgement. It is a judgement that the statement is false. To illustrate the issue, let's use your example: “X incorrectly states that the sky is yellow”. Let's imagine that the BBC writes, "Trump incorrectly states that the sky is yellow." Trump and supporters reply, "but the sky is yellow during certain atmospheric events common in the morning and evening. Here is a picture of a yellow sky." Now the BBC is caught defending a truism which is, in fact, not always true. Supporters of Trump can rightly point out the BBC's inaccuracy, and would likely consider it a form of bias and partisanship. In order for the BBC to avoid this, they would need to append a long legal disclaimer at the bottom of every headline, every article, every video, and every news report, thoroughly detailing the various ways in which the judgement could be interpreted, how and why the BBC came to that judgement, their peer reviewed citations and statistics, the background of the analyst who made the judgement to ensure that they aren't biased, etc. This still wouldn't be enough, because Trump supporters would then ask, "but why didn't you write an article about all those times Kamala Harris lied about Biden's mental acuity? You didn't use the word "lie" even though she clearly lied." They'd be right. Now the BBC has opened themselves up for criticism of instances in which they didn't editorialise.

Judgements, no matter how factually correct, are judgements. They lead to a race to the bottom. I don't see how you could look at American media and argue that that is what the BBC should do.

I don't place much stock in anonymous complaints. There are many examples of bias in Palestine's favour, too. The most recent example is the Gaza documentary, funded by the BBC. It was so biased that the BBC had to apologise and remove the documentary. They literally gave money to Hamas. In the translations, all mentions of the word “Jews” were translated to “Israelis” or “Israeli forces,” and all mentions of “Jihad” were translated to “battle” or “resistance.” For example, one woman interviewed stated "Sinwar was engaging in resistance and jihad against the Jews,” but the subtitles read “he was fighting and resisting Israeli forces.”

The nature of very large organisations with international presence is that there are many people with many different political beliefs all under one umbrella. In the last few decades, journalism has tended to attract many more left wing people. It would not surprise me that more BBC employees wanted a left wing bias on reporting, and perceived objective journalism as biased.

Under the Tories the BBC would constantly say “X said the sky is yellow” and leave it at that. It’s totally impartial to say “X incorrectly states that the sky is yellow”.

There is a long history of objective journalism refraining from passing judgement. This is the distinction between news journalism and editorials. There is nothing wrong with partisan journalism, but the BBC is by and large not that. When I look over at the hellscape that is U.S. "journalism," I don't see a compelling role model. In fact, I think that is irrefutable evidence that the BBC is correct to remain impartial. Remember: impartiality is subjective. Making judgements - even ones which appear reasonable to you - open the author and publication up to endless accusations of editorialism. If the BBC were to ever switch to U.S.-style journalism, I believe they would be defunded almost immediately.

I would agree as a strictly logical exercise, but please note that I am talking about democratic politics: the system within which the BBC receives funding. What matters in a democracy is how people feel. There appears to be equal proportions of each aisle unimpressed with the BBC, and in a democratic system, this implies a healthy compromise and continued funding. Should the BBC obviously favour one side, it would eventually be shut down or gutted, and I think that is much worse than arguing over the minutiae.

The BBC is under constant accusations of political bias on both sides. The fact they have weathered this partisan storm angering both sides in the current political climate is testament to their ability to remain as close to objective as is possible. The current alternative to the BBC is no BBC, and I think that would be a shame.

That said, highlighting instances of questionable judgement, like this, has value. The BBC isn't perfect, and the public should keep leaders and management on its toes.

My kids keep life interesting and spicy. They keep my perspective of myself, my community, and the world grounded in reality. They don't give me time to doom scroll. They make sure I remain present and can still laugh at a good fart. 10/10. Would have the little farters again.

I'm much more optimistic about nuclear power in Europe. Given the high pricing volatility induced by renewables and the gas supply shock after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, nine European countries are now intending to build new reactors. Even Denmark is softening its stance on nuclear power, with the entire right wing bloc proposing lifting the ban. France intends to build 14 new reactors by 2050. While conventional reactors are expensive, they're four times cheaper than solar and wind with all costs imputed. Further, we are about to enter a new age of SMRs, and all preliminary data suggesting a per unit capex cost of almost half, and the ability to extend networks as needed far more flexibly to better align with modern grids comprised of more renewables.

Ironically, I think Fediverse suffers from a high amount of tech expertise and not enough project managers, lol.

I 1,000% agree. FOSS projects are dominated by skilled developers who have to work under the direction of managers in their day jobs and FUCKING HATE IT. They dream about breaking the shackles of idiotic managers who are suppressing their talent and creativity, so they work on FOSS projects. Only to learn that developers without clear direction is like herding angry cats at a Metallica concert. The end result is a patchwork of features each developer would personally like, but normal people hate.

I am probably biased here because I am one of those managers. The reason we don't work on FOSS projects is because 1) they don't want us working on them, and 2) we fucking hate our jobs as-is, and don't want to spend one more minute than necessary herding angry cats.

Well spotted. The difference between the UK and the rest of the EU is that the latter relies more heavily on contracts for difference. Renewable projects and installations negotiate a strike price up front (and often on an ongoing or scheduled basis). If the highest bid price (e.g. gas) exceeds the strike price, the renewable installation repays or foregoes the difference. The UK is very slowly moving in this direction, but has been criticised for its lack of action on older installations (which retain their direct pricing mechanisms), and slow pace of change for newer installations.

This is compounded by the UK's comparative lack of EU interconnections which help these other countries smooth out volatility. By, for example, relying more on France's nuclear power generation. This means the UK more frequently sees high clearing prices.

They are allowed to do so in most European countries. The UK is a notable exception.

This is settled law. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) allows immigration officers to conduct warrantless searches and interrogations “within a reasonable distance” of the border. The term “reasonable distance” has been defined by regulation (8 C.F.R. § 287.1) as within 100 miles of any U.S. international boundary or coastline.

There is one exception in case law: they cannot stop vehicles at random without “reasonable suspicion” outside of fixed checkpoints (based on United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)).

The judge has not decided the case yet, but she likely understands the above well, and any judgement will be narrow and specifically within the confines of existing statute and precedent. U.S. border security laws have always been incredibly broad and arguably draconian. Successive administrations on the left and the right have kept it that way.

This one is pretty good.

Lots of people have opinions, not many people want to organize their thoughts into, eg. an effective advertising campaign, a github pull request, or basically anything other than meaningless musing.

This is the nature of free work. Any donation of time is sparse and intermittent. People have bills to pay. The best and brightest want to be paid well for their time. This requires a business model of some kind, and monetising that work. This is antithetical to FOSS projects, and is the reason they will almost always be inferior to projects with large budgets with teams of UX designers. /obligatory COME AT ME BRO

While I agree that energy-intensive business should always be pushed onto flexible-pricinv contracts, as a private consumer, uniform pricing is an advantage imo. You don’t need to think about whether running the washing machine will cost you 0.2¤ or 0.6¤ or whether there’s a price surge, and it’s even more expensive.

Fixed pricing happens in Europe too. The retailer prices the volatility into a fixed pricing plan. It still ends up much cheaper than how the UK has structured their grid, which ensures electricity companies are making massive piles of money.

UK’s uniform pricing is intended to ensure renewables are artificially profitable, incentivising more production. In most other countries, suppliers charge competitive rates, and brokers buy on an open market. This allows demand-based generators (like gas) to charge more during high demand periods (when wind isn’t blowing and sun isn’t shining). The flip side of this is that prices crater during high wind and sun periods. This leads to volatility which can be smoothed with futures contracts. The net effect is that renewables become less profitable, but consumers pay a lot less for electricity.

The UK needs to restructure their energy market to better align with the rest of Europe. It would significantly reduce prices for everyone.

And then Einstein clapped.

IMDB rating: 4.2.

It’s hilarious that literally minutes after your comment someone replied with, “BUT MY NEIGHBOR REALLY IS THE ENEMY!”

I've had exactly the same experience. Lemmy has been far more hostile than I ever experienced on Reddit. Any opinions which aren't far left are called "Nazi," and users are very quick to justify violence against "Nazis."

That's coherent. Unfortunately most people who use it today literally mean "someone who disagrees with me." It really muddies the water because it's often accompanied by threats of violence. The net effect is raising the temperature in the room on both sides, because it's effectively dehumanising others who have perfectly valid political disagreements, and calling for their death.