50 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2021
    1. Today it comes to life in the form a new section called Future Perfect. As Klein describes it, the coverage is “inspired by the idea of what’s important.”

      The power of editorial is its ability to focus attention on what the editors deem to be important.

    1. journalism historian David Mindich

      The View from Somewhere

      Hallin’s spheres

      At 11 minutes into this podcast episode, David Mindich provides an overview of Hallin’s spheres.

      Hallin divides the world of political discourse into three concentric spheres: consensus, legitimate controversy, and deviance. In the sphere of consensus, journalists assume everyone agrees. The sphere of legitimate controversy includes the standard political debates, and journalists are expected to remain neutral. The sphere of deviance falls outside the bounds of legitimate debate, and journalists can ignore it. These boundaries shift, as public opinion shifts.

      Wikipedia: Hallin's spheres

      I learned about this podcast from Sandy and Nora in their episode, Canada’s democratic deficit.

  2. Feb 2021
    1. The Rights Retention Strategy provides a challenge to the vital income that is necessary to fund the resources, time, and effort to provide not only the many checks, corrections, and editorial inputs required but also the management and support of a rigorous peer review process

      This is an untested statement and does not take into account the perspectives of those contributing to the publishers' revenue. The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) relies on the author's accepted manuscript (AAM) and for an AAM to exist and to have the added value from peer-review a Version of Record (VoR) must exist. Libraries recognise this fundamental principle and continue to subscribe to individual journals of merit and support lucrative deals with publishers. From some (not all) librarians' and possibly funders' perspectives these statements could undermine any mutual respect.

  3. Jan 2021
  4. Dec 2020
  5. Oct 2020
    1. I take your point, but I wonder if Trump is just kryptonite for a liberal democratic system built on a free press.

      The key words being "free press" with free meaning that we're free to exert intelligent editorial control.

      Editors in the early 1900's used this sort of editorial control not to give fuel to racists and Nazis and reduce their influence.Cross reference: Face the Racist Nation from On the Media.

      Apparently we need to exert the same editorial control with respect to Trump, who not incidentally is giving significant fuel to the racist fire as well.

  6. Sep 2020
    1. Introduction

      Just a food for thought: wouldn't it be a better style to use a neutral form? I.e., "Because the user controls" instead of "Because we control"

    2. This specification does not require any particular technology or cryptography to underpin the generation, persistence, resolution or interpretation of DIDs.

      I am not sure this is well formulated. The specification does not require, but implementation does require a bunch of particular technologies. I think the intention here is to say something like "This specification does not depend on any particular technology..."

    3. A DID document might contain the DID subject itself (e.g. a data model).

      I do not understand this statement. The DID subject is defined as:

      The entity identified by a DID and described by a DID document. A DID has exactly one DID subject. Anything can be a DID subject: person, group, organization, physical thing, digital thing, logical thing, etc. The document cannot contain a person…

    4. DIDs are URLs

      Strictly speaking, they are not. They are URI-s and there is a thing called DID URL…

      This is only an abstract, but it should still be precise…

  7. Aug 2020
  8. Jun 2020
  9. May 2020
  10. Apr 2020
  11. Mar 2020
    1. I enjoy dissent and debate among commenters, and criticism of my views is also always welcome; you are even free to call me an assclown, a dupe, a partisan ignoramus — whatever you like, as long as you don't insult other commenters.
    2. And since any commenter who only wants to drop taunts at others rather than engage on an intellectual level is a waste of everyone's time, I'll tolerate him or her for a while, a short while, hoping for unearthed maturity; but if this fails, that commenter is gone. Thanks for listening. 
    1. I've been meaning to remind readers that I do read the comments. Some time ago, one disappointed commenter mused that others' reflections seemed to go (as I recall) "into a void," because I remained silent to each. Perhaps I was ignoring readers' remarks? I assure you that is not the case. I read them all — although on this site, for some reason, "all" means somewhat sparse — and I find them nearly all remarkable in their perceptiveness. I especially welcome, and enjoy, intelligent disagreement. I choose not to respond, however, only because of my editorial philosophy, which holds that the comment section is, rightfully, for commenters — and commenters alone. I've already had my say, and it seems to me rather rude to take another whack in reply. Whenever I'm so substantively shaky or incoherent as to make my case unpersuasively the first time around, I figure I should live with the consequences. And whenever I find criticism flawed, I figure readers — perceptive as they are — will see the flaw as well, therefore there's no need for me to rub it in. So, I beg you not to take my silence personally.
  12. May 2018
  13. Mar 2018
    1. Cette récente initiative (2018) montre combien ce système universel d'annotation du Web est prometteur.

      J'espère que la méfiance croissante des internautes à l'égard des réseaux privatifs, suite à l'Affaire Cambridge Analytica, les encouragera à regarder ce qui se fait dans le monde du libre : hypothes.is, en l'occurrence, mais aussi Friendica, diaspora et le reste du Fediverse et de la Fédération, du côté des réseaux sociaux conventionnels.

  14. Jul 2016
    1. A fellow Googler pointed out several factual inaccuracies in this post, and thus I have removed it.

      Before correcting those inaccuracies or instead?

  15. Jun 2016
  16. Nov 2014
    1. Exogenous corticosteroids can cause reactivation of TB and candidiasis (blocked IL-2 production).

      This should be moved to Column-2, under the line "Blocks IL-2 production"

    2. Bound

      change to "Binding"