Those wouldn't be detectable in quite the same way as the reddit "repost a post from awhile ago that got a lot of upvotes because that post is proven to be popular" type karma farmer bots though, I'd figure? Especially given that AI nowadays would allow for them to not just repeat the same comments
How often are facts truly verifiable though in practice, especially for a reporter, rather than just deciding that a certain set of people are honest and know what they are doing and asking them for their thoughts and evidence, which is really just taking the side of those people? Like, consider science reporting (because its probably a best case scenario, where claims made are supposed to be statements of objective truth about what was observed that can be physically verified, as opposed to being full of emotions and values). If youre a reporter reporting on something some scientists at CERN or whatever are telling you they've found, its not like you as a reporter have access to the equipment they use, or the know how to use it or understand what the data it generates implies. You pretty much just have to take their word for it. You could choose to go ask some scientists in the same field at a different lab who have been replicating the experiments about it, but then youre still just trusting those scientists too, rather than truly "verifying" the original scientists claims in a way that doesnt require taking somebody's side on the issue by trusting their word or the authenticity of the evidence that they present. Now, with the scientists this is usually good enough, they dont usually have a ton of incentive to lie, and when they do, their colleagues dont have a ton of incentive to help them with it, but with politics, theres a lot of incentive to lie, a lot of incentive to support people on the same side as you, and a lot of incentive to try to undermine those on the opposite side even when the first side wasnt lying, so that trust is a bit more tenuous.
This isnt to say that I think we should take Trump's blatant lying about the election seriously or anything, but its not like reporters reporting on it can prove for sure that there cant have been some kind of vast all encompassing conspiracy against him, including the legal system and therefore any evidence brought up in the various court cases on the matter, they can just point to those myriad of court cases and conclude that the odds that it was all some kind of conspiracy must be so low that the idea is laughable and not worth considering. Which isnt technically actually verifying that it is false, so much as pointing out that it makes far less sense to take Trump's side on that than the side claiming he's a liar such as to be safe in taking the side of the latter.
its a scene from the muppet movie (the original one) The man talking to Kermit (same guy in all the panels) was physically thrown out of the bar, and Kermit suggests that he complain to the bar's owner, but the man in question reveals that he is said owner, who has been thrown out by the bar's violent patrons.
Sweden in general seems to have way more good game dev companies than most countries, especially most of similar size. I kinda wonder why.
Tbh, If I'm feeling sick especially if it involves sinus congestion, I'm generally feeling far too icky to want to do that
At some point this kind of nonsense starts to sound like the sort of thing you'd expect from malicious fairies in a fantasy rpg
I guess photosynthetic life has been responsible for catastrophic climate change before
dont forget star trek
the literary equivalent of:
The ironic thing is, conflating any and all criticism of the state of Israel with anti-semitism could be argued as anti-semitic itself, because to suggest that jewish people in general and the Israeli state/military are one in the same such that criticism of the later is also hateful towards the former, is also to suggest that jewish people as a whole are responsible for the actions of Israel.
As cultural groups as a whole are inherently unable to be guilty of crimes (since even if a large number of people belonging to one commit some crime, such a group will also contain members that cannot be guilty of it, like young children), but states and similar entities, being organized and capable of decision-making, can be, then any attempt to link the moral culpability of a state and that of a cultural group is inherently to apply unfair accusations to that group, and thus hateful to it.
I mean, the United States has, to be fair, developed a food culture that emphasizes using a lot of meat, especially over the past century or so. It's not surprising that people from an area that eats so much meat, who go vegan, are going to want to look for ways to still make dishes familiar to them
I mean, while one must imagine a mutually recognized Palestinian state would probably still be on Iran's side of the conflict between Iran and Isreal at this point, if it was more focused on rebuilding itself than in conflict to free itself from Isreal, that would technically be closer aligned to Isreal than the current situation of Hamas being actively at war with them, if only in the sense of "a less negative number is closer to a positive number than a more negative one.
I guess there's technically also an option that Isreal could offer to withdraw from and recognize a Palestinian state in return for that state acting as an ally against Iran, but if the resulting state has anything more answerable to it's people than a literal puppet government answering to Isreal, it seems hard to imagine that lasting long.