Decades ago, the news networks used to beam AV via satellite directly from the remote station in the field back to headquarters to be broadcast. They didn’t encrypt those signals, so anyone could pick them up if they knew how. This was raw footage, so there would often be candid segments showing people setting stuff up or getting ready for an interview.
Someone recorded a lot of these and later published a multi-hour compilation of them on YouTube. I forget the name of that compilation, but I can tell you that the following is by far the most interesting segment from it.
When I try to tell people about this segment, they don’t believe me. They write me off as being insane. Decide for yourself. Don’t believe what the news media tells you.
Edit: DanG, why is my comment being collapsed when it has ~20 upvotes?
And you would say the same thing if the same footage came out but it was Bill O Reilly, Rupert Murdoch and George Bush instead of Clinton, King and Turner?
In what context should billionaire media moguls be serving, colluding or collaborating with politicians of any kind, let alone a presidential candidate?
There is a long history of presidentially-appointed people saying they "serve at the pleasure of the President." It simply means that they hold the job only so long as the president wants them there.
This has extended "serving" to broader, more casual usage when speaking about people who work for the president as you can see here. It's not "serving" like working as a servant/a billionaire doing whatever the president says in a controlling/exploitative way, it just means that Larry King thinks that Ted Turner wouldn't turn down a cabinet appointment.
You can also infer from the way King says that "what's he got left in life to gain," and Clinton's surprised "you're kidding," that they both consider this kind of service to be a major downgrade from the billionaire life - King saying here that Ted Turner has nothing left to gain indicates a separation in his mind between personal gain and working for the Clinton administration. Clinton's surprised response tells us he feels the same way, surprise that a billionaire would want to work for the president.
"Deciding for yourself" doesn't mean jumping to conspiratorial conclusions based on an ambiguous, off-the-cuff remark from 1992, though. And just looking at the comments on that video you can see what sort of agenda these people are bringing to their judgments.
Most journalism has an editorial line, which is usually aligned with the people that pay the bills. It is the case for newspapers, radio, TV... even websites.
Very rarely you have journalism with neutral editorial lines.
There's no such thing as neutrality. Usually when people talk about neutrality, they really mean status quo, or worse giving equal weight to "both sides" (implying the major US political parties are the only possible views on a subject), without even trying to assertain the truth of the matter.
Journalism isn't simply putting facts down on paper, but it's also interpreting how it affects the reader. Even if you pretend to simply write the who what when and where of a story, you still have to choose what to cover. That in and of itself has no right answer, you inevitably make an idological choice.
You can argue "there's no such thing as neutrality"... but consider the following:
News Station A:
1. Heavily edited clip of political candidate saying something.
2. News anchor provides a 10 min opinion of what happened.
3. An analyst is invited to give their opinion about what happened for 30 min..
News Station B:
1. Video of what happened.
2. News anchor describes when it happened and where. No accompanying opinion is provided.
What is more neutral? News Station B, for sure. The first format is the only one available in the US, in my country that format is considered yellow journalism and is unacceptable.
If this hypothetical political candidate is saying something that's not true (or is disputed), and news station B just runs a raw video of their speech, you could argue it's favoring that candidate by allowing their message to spread without providing the appropriate context.
But in this scenario, the news station is not providing enough information for the citizen to develop an informed opinion. I guess there's room for a service like that that just has raw video (as one element of a wider media ecosystem), but it's also valuable for the news to actually explain events in a larger context.
No leaked videos are even necessary. It should be obvious to any critical thinker that CNN is the Democrat version of FOX news with a small amount of viewing.
I don't see anything wrong with this. I mean it's like I'm talking to Elon Musk. And I have a friend who really wants to work at Tesla. Yeah I'd be a good friend and mention him to Elon Musk.
yikes, what a sleazebag. Larry hit the anti-Semitic trifecta (Jews, Israel and media moguls in bed with politicians) in under a minute of just random chit chat. The mind reels at the shady backroom deals this man was responsible for.
Nothing especially bad. He talks about how incredible it is he reaches so many countries with his broadcast-- at the time a staggering thought-- and to illustrate tells a story of seeing a praying Rabbi at the Wailing/Western wall in Jerusalem who turns to ask king about domestic US politics (Ross Perot, who ran against Clinton and Bush).
Then he basically says Ted Turner, founder of CNN, is a nice guy to work for and is a fan of Clinton (as if he is not allowed to be?) and could "serve you" whatever that means which I guess could be as ominous as your imagination allows but probably means in his administration.
There is zero antisemitism expressed. Only Larry King and the Israeli rabbi interested in American politics are Jewish. Clinton, Perot, and Turner are not.
The way I interpret it, Mr. King is suggesting to Clinton he (Clinton) might be interested in establishing a reciprocal relationship with one of most prominent media moguls and politically influential billionaires, Ted Turner.
Teddy helps Billy with the optics on CNN, maybe funding various campaigns, and in turn Billy helps Teddy with his own projects, like I dunno, passing a bill to kill off competitors and so on.
Long and short of it: Ted Turner is the guy who created CNN, a very influential news source in the US. Many people consider CNN to be a "left-wing" news source, and in the clip King talks to Bill Clinton, a democratic politician, about Ted Turner "serving" Clinton after he was elected president.
The use of the word "serving" is the issue, as it sounds like a quid pro quo.
You have to see this through 90's lens: back then the media wasn't nearly as polarized, and the public had much greater trust in news networks, especially in CNN. "Fake news" was mostly relegated to the domain of conspiracy theories, and blatant promotions of political agendas as neutral news wouldn't fly back then (although, of course, the networks did have an agenda and did promote it, but they were... much more subtle and civil about the whole thing).
In the 90's the bias was shown in the stories they choose to cover and what they choose to ignore not in the coverage itself
this is still true today but now in addition to this bias there is almost zero "strait" reporting, everything has political commentary mixed in, some more subtle than others but it is still there. Even in places like APnews where it is more subtle
CNN is not really “left-wing” in a broad ideological sense. It’s the unofficial mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and the “liberal” side of the US culture war. Note for example how poorly they treated Sanders who was further left than any of the other mainstream candidates.
I'm tired of fact-based and reason-based news being painted as 'left-wing". CNN is just the news. I miss when we all watched the same news and it tried to be objective and half the country wasn't watching provably false news and wanting to split off into madness and domestic terror cells and make the human race go backwards.
If you believe CNN is "just the news" then you are suffering from reinforcing confirmation bias as well as echo chamber.
You agree with the positions CNN takes there for it is "news" and outlets that have differing positions to those you agree with are "fake news" and "want to make the human race go backwards"
There is a difference between “this news source strikes me as not being too politically extreme in either direction compared to my own views” and “this news source is completely neutral and objective with respect to all political views.”
How can you be sure you’re not seeing the former and calling it the latter?
It is 100% NOT the liberal side of the cultural war. There really is no liberal side
The right side is theological authoritarian, the Left side is illiberal Identitarianism which is ironic because identitarianism started out as a "far right" ideology but in a real world example of the horseshoe theory of politics has become far-left authoritarian
Speaking of radios, I’ve been trying to understand light recently and it’s difficult. I find that for most things, I have a visual intuitive model to reason about things. But I have a hard time visualizing RF light. There aren’t any good videos out there of just a straight forward visualization of RF light. It’s all abstractions with a sine wave, but no visceral visualizations, rendered or otherwise. The closest thing I’ve found is thought emporium visualizing wifi.
And also, why can visible light pass through other visible light without causing interference? Why can’t they make visible light with an antenna? Why are large arrays of RF receivers not more widely used for small-scale RF imaging?
> Why can’t they make visible light with an antenna?
You can. The antennae are the size of molecules. LEDs emit light, your retinas receive them. The retinal dye molecules are tuned for specific frequencies just like you'd tune a macroscopic antenna.
Richard Feynman has a short book on Quantum electrodynamics for dummys. Otherwise known as QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Read that as many times as you need to break you of any preconceived notions about how light works.
As for sin waves etc. It's better think of light oscillation between it's energy as an electric field and a magnetic field at right angles to each other. Although I think that's kinda gross and wrong.
As for an antenna producing visible light, in theory there isn't any reason. Because radio waves are light. The problem is practicalities.
The best things I can recommend is to play with GnuRadio, IQ data, false color representation of a freq or set of frequencies bound to color/decibel strength, and ParaView and importing said IQ data for graphing.
Think of the frequency of light as its color, and dB strength of how bright it is. However at cm and m wavelengths, voids happen much more regularly. That light can 'bend' around, and go through objects.
> There aren’t any good videos out there of just a straight forward visualization of RF light.
There's quite a few false color images. If you look at hydrogen line radioastrometry, there's a ton of false color images. There's also this HackADay that mapped wifi for a wide area covered by their CNC gantry https://hackaday.com/2015/02/17/mapping-wifi-signals-in-3-di...
> And also, why can visible light pass through other visible light without causing interference?
EM primarily only directly affect things with an electric charge. EM radiation itself doesn't have an electric charge, therefore EM usually doesn't affect other EM. However, if we include gamma (+10^19 Hz), then if those collide, they can create an electron and a positron. But that's only theorized with energy vector diagrams and not actually seen.
> Why can’t they make visible light with an antenna?
You can... You just have to pump enough energy in it to make it glow! /hahaha
> Why are large arrays of RF receivers not more widely used for small-scale RF imaging?
That's primarily a cost issue. Go look how much a single RF frontend chip and an a/d chip costs. (Price gets to stupid levels at, say 24 bit A/D).
Now instead, lets look at human vision. Humans can see (eyes are receptors of radio from 380nM to 720nM). When converted to Hz, we're talking 372.55 THz wide spectrum vision.
My SDR on the table can see 112 MHz, or .0000112 THz
Now, in order to replicate what's going on in the eye, you'd need millions of antennas AND data acquisition (of some sort). And then, even with current SDRs, these generate 60GB/min - you need the disk, memory, and CPU to do stuff with that. It's NOT a trivial problem.
Now there are some RF arrays out there. KerberosSDR is one such array. However, its max bandwidth is 3 MHz @ 8 bit. And it can only do 4 inputs, which is enough to do geographical tracking of radio signals (within 24MHz to 1.7GHz). I know of one person who's trying to do some VR work with a KerberosSDR.
The other problem, once you have the millions of antennas and data acquisition, is a matter of synchronization. Timing is also another stupidly hard area, which increases geometrically with more sensors. And remember that 1nS = 11.8 inches deviation.. So whatever processing you're doing had better be time consistent and local to the device.
Eventually, we'll get to what you're proposing. A lot of us are wanting that. But we're decades away.
> Why can’t they make visible light with an antenna?
Why can't an oscillator and antenna emit matter? Is some matter transparent to other matter in the same way that some matter is transparent to light? This idea that matter and energy are equivalent and that the same wave physics underlies it all doesn't seem to be true in reality. Instead it seems that phenomena are divided into regimes and in each regime behavior is very different. Sure it's tough to build an oscillator at the frequency of matter, but is it really impossible to build a matter emitter? I only have a BA in physics but I remember while learning (and in later reviews of physics) that it seems like theory doesn't always scale and there are a lot of very weird assumptions and "explanations".
You can (for the most part) produce bosons (e.g. photons, aka light), individually or in big piles, out of thin air. You cannot produce fermions (e.g. electrons, protons, neutrons) out of thin air like this. To make an electron, you need to also produce a positron or do something else that satisfies the various conservation laws. You can make an electron-positron pair in a collider, but doing this in large amounts takes absurd amounts of energy.
> And also, why can visible light pass through other visible light without causing interference?
Radio passing through radio doesn't interfere with thr signal. Its just more likely that the interfering signal will also be picked up by a receiver.
Think about a bright white lighbulb next to a small red LED; you won't be able to see the small LED.
The other part is that out eyes are essentially 2d grids that are fairly large in both directions with respect to thr wavelength of light. Radio receivers are essentially a single point.
We can also bend and focus light with lenses fairly easily with many different substances, due to the refraction index of the material.
If you move the red LED away, you will be able to see it more easily. This is because we can focus the light onto more than just a point receiver so that the the bright light doesn't entirely overwhelm all the sensors. If you do photography, you know that overexposure is problematic and can cause areas around bright areas to be overexposed as well.
While we cant use glass to bend radio waves, they can be be bent in the same way as visible light. Ham radio operators do this all the time by using the ionosphere to bounce radio off of to make long distance contacts that are beyond normal line-of-sight.
Radio and visible waves are also subject to gravitational lensing.
They are also both subject to diffraction, where the light will bend slightly around the endge of an object. Ham radio operators also make use of this to make contacts near the edge of obstructions, like mountains.
Visible light can be used in fiber-optic cables, and waveguides are a similar device used for microwave-frequency light.
> Why can’t they make visible light with an antenna?
In terms of normal radio antenna designs, you could, I think, but antennas need to be sized proportional to the wave length of the light.
However, since visible light is higher energy than radio light, and near many of the transition energy found in atoms, we make extensive use of that additional energy when detecting (e.g. photoreceptors in our eyes and photodiodes), emitting (e.g. LEDs and incadescence), and using (e.g. photo etching and film photography) visible light.
> Why are large arrays of RF receivers not more widely used for small-scale RF imaging?
You can only image something down to a resolution of the wavelength used.
You do see some applications of this, viz millimeter wave imaging at airports.
I can't find the link, but a week or some ago, there was an article on hackernews about radio imaging of cities from satellites? If I find it I'll edit it in. Resolution on the order of meters is adequate for that purpose. (For reference: WiFi is roughly 12½cm. Fm radio stations are roughly 3m. Am radio is roughly 300m.)
Also, this is a limitation of visible light microscopes as well. We can't imagine, say, molecules, because theyre smaller than the wavelengths of visible light.
----
One of the biggest difference between visible light and radio light when it comes to thinking about propogation is what absorbs it. Your WiFi router can be on the otherside of a wooden wall because wood doesn't absorb or reflect substantial amounts of rf energy; a metal wall does. 5ghz doesn't propogate as well as 2.4 because it's absorbed by water in the air and things more than 2.4ghz is. Visible light is absorbed by most things some amount.
So, the big differences are how the physical world affects the light, but in broad strokes it behaves the same way to the same situations, its just that those situations (e.g. what can reflect, refract, diffract, and absorb it) are frequency/wavelength dependent.
>> Why can’t they make visible light with an antenna?
> In terms of normal radio antenna designs, you could, I think, but antennas need to be sized proportional to the wave length of the light.
There is also one more difference to mention. For antenna design in radio frequencies the metals are taken as perfect conductors—meaning that the fields inside the metal are zero. This assumption relies on the fact that electrons in the metal respond the electric field basically instantaneously. However, the optical frequencies are significantly higher, so the movement of the electron cloud in the metal is no longer instantaneous relative to the outside fields. As a result metals at frequencies of visible light are way less "metal-like" when looking from the perspective of RF antenna design, so you can't directly use the exact same approaches for designing antennas.
No, I am subscribed to the Youtube channel Low Carb Down Under. They have hosted some great speakers. I've linked the video here on HN a couple of times as related discussions have come up.
Over the past two years I have fallen down a medical rabbit hole that has revealed some really weird things to me. I don’t know how to explain it convincingly so I’ll just get it out:
The reason why this is happening is also part of why autism is going up (even when controlled for broader diagnosis) and autoimmune complaints are going up, as well as many other things. It’s because we have systematically eliminated fat and red meat from our diets over the past half decade, and also because we dialed up on sugar. In a bizarre plot twist, it turns out that everything we think about diet is wrong and a diet of beef, beef tallow and salt not only doesn’t screw up your cholesterol, it fixes almost every medical problem that people have. Again, it’s too wild for me to convince anyone. It’s too crazy. If you don’t believe me then go see for yourself. Meatrx slash success stories.
Extraordinary claims require.. one anecdote? Globally we eat more meat per person today than ever before. Only very few people have been on a high beef diet ever in this world
This is actually incorrect. For millions of years humans ate nothing but animals. When you eat an entire animal, including its organs, you are getting every macronutrient and micronutrient required by the human body. The forms that vitamins take in animals are the most bioavailable to humans.
We have been eating meat and saturated animal fat much longer than abundant carbohydrates have even existed. Combine this with the fact that all your health problems go away on carnivore, it’s pretty obvious that we were designed to eat meat.
It isn’t until you go carnivore that you realize how a plant based diet is actively trying to destroy your mouth and take away your teeth. Do you think ancient humans were brushing their teeth and flossing?
And it’s not just that your health problems go away. You become practically super human. You get ripped without going to the gym. Reports of higher energy and mental clarity are practically universal.
I know it sound crazy and that’s why I qualified my comment the way I did. There are hundreds of video testimonies that back up what I say on meatrx.
One of the things that is also universal is an increase in testosterone and aggressiveness.
Today the infrastructure for serving information over the internet is privately owned, and liberals say that it’s ok for private companies to censor people on their platforms, and they are right. Tomorrow, the internet will be a public utility, the infrastructure will be publicly owned and conveying information over the internet will be universally appreciated as the way that communication between people is done — to be cut off from it would be like having your tongue cut out. The only difference between today and tomorrow is a few strokes of legislative pens — nothing, basically. The argument that this is ok because it’s private companies is a cop out.
Internet infrastructure was actually built with a lot of public money and the internet is already accepted as the way that communication between people is done. You’re a little late with this comment, I’m afraid.
If the internet were publicly owned, wouldn’t it actually be _considerably harder_ to cut someone off from it because of the government’s responsibility to ensure equitable access to utilities (like you propose the internet will become)?
I have literally never heard an account of someone who is an expert in a field or topic being impressed with the accuracy of a mainstream media report on that field or topic. What has the world come to when rolling stone a better source for news than 60 minutes or cnn?
People talk about Karys inexplicable beliefs about HIV. Why does nobody point out, as written in the speech, the fact that prior to PCR Kary explained the process of PCR to all of the biochemists around him in great detail, and nobody even raised an eyebrow. nobody believed him. How could anyone call himself a biochemist if they couldn’t recognize a biochemical revolution after being slapped in the face with it by the person who invented it? There wasn’t a single missing step according to Kary, the entire process was mapped out and consisted of procedures and chemicals that already existed. This amazing paradox is lost on most people. They overlook it just like those fools overlooked PCR-on-a-silver-platter.
It’s the dark truth. Most scientists and doctors are basically frauds. They just memorize what the real scientists have figured out so far.
> Monday morning I was in the library. The moment of truth. By afternoon it was clear. For whatever reasons, there was nothing in the abstracted literature about succeeding or failing to amplify DNA by the repeated reciprocal extension of two primers hybridized to the separate strands of a particular DNA sequence. By the end of the week I had talked to enough molecular biologists to know that I wasn’t missing anything really obvious. No one could recall such a process ever being tried.
> However, shocking to me, not one of my friends or colleagues would get excited over the potential for such a process. True. I was always having wild ideas, and this one maybe looked no different than last week’s. But it WAS different. There was not a single unknown in the scheme. Every step involved had been done already. Everyone agreed that you could extend a primer on a DNA template, everyone knew you could melt double stranded DNA. Everyone agreed that what you could do once, you could do again.
There's lots of things that sound good on paper. People have been working on things like fusion energy for decades. Actually demonstrating a breakthrough is very different.
That people were unimpressed until the point of demonstration is just rational. If someone were excited and impressed by every promising-sounding hypothetical they would end up on a lot of wild goose chases.
I don't think any of this shows any deficiency in the scientific community. Quite the opposite. A strange guy with off-beat ideas was able to come in and demonstrate an achievement, and he was awarded recognition for it and his technology adopted on a widespread basis.
You lack good reading in history. If everyone thought like you, science would stagnate. You make the common error: to see all “on-paper,” unproven ideas as equal. Comparing the reaction mechanism of PCR to the equations involved in human-scale fusion. They aren’t the same, no two hypotheses are the same. Real scientists actually read hypotheses and try to understand what’s going on in this hypothetical scenario — reason about it. People that do this are often excited about “wild goose chases” because they aren’t actually wild goose chases. They are hypotheses that contain pieces that work with a lower level of ambiguity than most ideas. And here’s another detail the phonies gloss over: sometimes the pieces are better than other times. Most times there’s some ambiguity but sometimes there’s very little and you can be more sure. That was the case with PCR. That’s how real scientists think. They think with models, trying to understand the world. Most people don’t do it and they are utterly unmoved by convincing ideas. They can’t distinguish between convincing ideas and rubbish. It’s the hallmark of someone who doesn’t get it.
Someone recorded a lot of these and later published a multi-hour compilation of them on YouTube. I forget the name of that compilation, but I can tell you that the following is by far the most interesting segment from it.
https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4
When I try to tell people about this segment, they don’t believe me. They write me off as being insane. Decide for yourself. Don’t believe what the news media tells you.
Edit: DanG, why is my comment being collapsed when it has ~20 upvotes?