NYT produces plenty of "fake news" and biased hypocritical trash. All of the big media outlets are flaming dumpster fires, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.
There's been a few occasions where I've found an interesting article on Fox News and I won't share or link it here or on Reddit, because I know that the bias is so strong against Fox as an organization that few people would consume the content with an open mind. So I go and track down another outlet covering the same story and link that instead. I'm sure other members here do the same sort of self-censorship, essentially. That's part of why you'll see 6000 submissions from NYT and only 90 from Fox.
> So I go and track down another outlet covering the same story and link that instead.
That's exactly what I do on Reddit. I haven't had occasion to share a Fox News link here, but I think I would do it because I trust this place more to make judgements based on the content of the article.
It depends on the subject. Sometimes it’s fine. I browse the headlines on CNN and Fox regularly just to understand what both conservatives and liberals are saying. Some Fox stuff is bad, some isn’t.
As someone who tries to find good sources news, I loathe Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. I find NPR, Reuters, Al Jazeera, The Intercept and various independent localized publications (e.g. LA Times, Voice of San Diego) much better.
Some of those are left leaning (esp. The Intercept), but NPR is somewhat center right so I think it is a fair balance.
The problem with mass media organizations, particularly those that are geared toward television, is that they prioritize entertainment over actual investigative journalism. In doing so they become nearly useless, often offering only a knee jerk response to a carefully curated subset of current events. They do not offer any unique or engaging perspective on the issues they cover, and they fail to report on important details and stories.
While the first half kind of threw me, your second half lined up with what I see. Im quite surprised you believe and state it more than once that NPR is right of center. Just recently their CEO wrote a book about how LEFT leaning they were and how bad he was. He realized that he needed to venture out and how bad NPR was.
Is that not the hallmark of someone with no ability to make sense of the world? or a liar, or someone who adds nothing of value to a situation? someone with no perspective or understanding of the facts?
i honestly prefer to read the opinion of two opposing parties that actually believe what they say and have assimilated the presented facts from a publicly stated perspective. (note the perspective can be that they "don't know what is right" - but they should at least have eliminated what they know is bull)
Many publication try to cover all aspects/angels - however this is very dangerous.. as it means that perspectives that even people who literally no one thinks are correct get represented. if we let two (or more) opposing biased journalists report on what they thought was relevant, the true nut jobs would never get a platform.
For example, BBC posts article about 5G causing covid, they have an expert and a non-expert on. many viewers/readers/listeners will assume that these two parties are equally possibly correct as you the expert journalist have presented them for my consideration.
*its also kind of a lie to pretend you don't have an opinion or perspective as its not actually possible. so by trying to to say you are presenting both arguments is sort of lying and trying to cover up your true beliefs no?
The “center” in America between Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans is “center right” in other places, like Europe. And I use “Liberal” to mean “right of Progressive”. “Progressives” are seen as “very left” for advocating for things that are “center” in Europe. It is common in some circles to bind your language to the European standards, in which case NPR is center-right as a more conservative presence in the American Liberal Democrats. At least that’s how I see all this.
Outside of their opinion articles, it's generally not what Fox News is reporting on or that their reporting is wrong, the problem is when they choose selective reporting. Fox News simply just doesn't report on a lot of things that are politically uncomfortable for their readers.
All news agencies have this problem. And both Fox and, say, CNN, don't report on certain subjects in the same way. They both ultimately need to be "advertiser friendly".
Like I haven't seen anything on CNN about the US ramping up bombings in Somalia, which is a pretty serious thing!
I could have sworn foxnews.com domain was shadow banned on HN?
All you need to know about voting / shadow banning / right vs left / etc on HN is the following, which I stole from somewhere and am too lazy to track down for attribution:
HN is open minded about intellectual inquiry as long as that inquiry doesn't challenge anything an average Californian already believes
Man against Mother Nature - - - too often man looses.
Surfers, especially in that geography wear wetsuits which give some buoyancy, but not like a life jacket does, and I don't know any surfers who wear life jackets.
I was a WSI, a life guard trainer back in college, still swim 5,200 yds a week which really is nothing compared to swim team, and I scuba dive down to the bottoms of our nearby lakes to set submersible pumps for a living (diving 41 years), my dive gear has a BC vest that can act as a life jacket (if) it is not damaged and (if) my regulator is functioning and (if) I have still have air in my tank and (if) I have not blacked out by like a boat hitting me, too many ifs, but I absolutely will not venture out onto surface of bodies of water on watercraft without wearing a life jacket for a whole host of reasons (surfboards are some sort of watercraft).
I assume they were more or less "drowned" in the foam, unable to breathe, suffocated.
The most professional solution for fighting most fires is foam which puts out fires by sort of drowning them too.
I’ve been in foam that was similar to this (at least by description) and no pfd will have buoyancy that will float you out of it. It’s also less turbulent than the water, so if it were swimmable they would have done it. I expect they were in the surface of the water and engulfed in foam too dense to swim up through and disorienting enough that they couldn’t just head for shore in.
Surfers can't use traditional life jackets. Partly because of the bulkiness. But also because surfers typically need to be able to go under the water. The surface of the water when a wave breaks is very turbulent and powerful, and the white water is similar to the foam in this story -- too much air to float, too much water to breath. Surfers duck dive (or bail their boards) to get under the white water.
The same is true in a big barrels. If a surfer knows they won't make it, they will pin drop and try to get as deep into the water as possible. If they fall and stay on the surface of the water in a big barrel they will probably be swept over the falls and be driven down with crazy force.
The buoyancy of a traditional life jackets wouldn't be good for surfers.
What big wave surfers use is inflatable vests with CO2 cartridges[1][2]. They pull a tab to inflate, and another one to deflate. They have multiple CO2 cartridges, sometimes surfers will have to inflate to get to the surface, take a breath, deflate and dive back under water for the next wave, then inflate again, until a jet ski can rescue them.
But inflatable vests aren't a thing normal surfers need, they are only for big waves in deep water (Mavericks, Jaws, etc.).
There are also impact vests and wetsuits[3][4] that provide a more passive form of flotation, enough to raise an unconscious surfer to the surface. These are used in big waves, including ones in shallow water (Teahupoo, Pipeline).
The problem with sea foam is that it's mostly air, so you sink in it. If they were experienced surfers in storm conditions, they were almost certainly on shortboards or mini-guns, which barely float them to begin with, by design. They would have leashes holding the board to their ankle, so they would have their flotation device but if the combination of board and body don't float, the leash won't help.
I suspect some light seafoam got sucked under denser foam by currents and then, as it upwelled, basically opened a hole under them. I can't say I've experienced anything at the scale that would drown 5 men, but falling into upwelling foam is definitely a thing.
Maybe a stupid question but why don't surfers carry a small emergency air supply on their body? Not anything big, I'm thinking just about the size of a soda can or something.
SCUBA divers may carry "spare air", but I've never seen surfers do this.
Masses of water moving around are really powerful. They toss around and break human bodies. As a mediocre surfer, I imagine it would be quite difficult to deploy an emergency air system while being tossed around by a wave, and that a permanent breathing tube would need a pretty hefty retention system to keep it from getting knocked off or damaged.
Some big wave surfers do. Apparently it's pretty disconcerting, as you need to let go of the air you're holding before taking a big breath on the device, which may or may not work...
Sea foam can be natural... But a lot of it has artificial origins from various pollutants.
I really wouldn't be surprised if the extra foamyness leading to these deaths couldn't eventually be tracked back to some heavy nitrogen fertilizer applied to local fields a week ago, and a rainstorm...
To be fair, is this a big deal statistically? I have surfed for a very long time and I've never heard of this. Am I just ignorant and this is not uncommon (presumably in areas/conditions I don't surf in)? Or is this just some sort of freak occurrence? Unless this is much more common than I believe I think we really should just file this under "really bad luck" and move on and focus on the more statistically dangerous problems surfing.
I mean I guess we can all think to ourselves "deep foam can be a dangerous", but I wonder if anyone given that message would ever end up saved by it given how unusual (my assumption) it is.
I had a conversation with a well known shaper (surfboard maker) about this and some of the things which went on on the North Shore. He said : "In your 20's you try a bunch of stuff and you don't die. So you think you can get away with it. Most of the time, you don't die. Then as you get into your 40's the law of probabilities catches up with you and your either die or have a near-death experience, and then you back way-the-hell off".
I.E. the probability of a serious problem is moderate to small, but you can have long runs of winning at dice. But eventually, unless you change, it will get you. Several famous people have gotten this message, including Jack Johnson (who was on the trajectory as a pro surfer before he became a musician - incident at pipe). Jamie O'Brian, etc.
I don't see how any of this contradicts my point. If the probability of something like this occurring is extremely small, then why focus on it over other much more likely problems? Is this foam issue a statistical fluke? If so, then no, it won't eventually get you. At least not until the huge number of other things get you first.
46 comments
[ 24.7 ms ] story [ 1859 ms ] thread6,612 articles from nytimes.com [0]
91 articles from foxnews.com [1]
[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=tru...
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_controver...
Although I would much rather them than Fox if forced to choose. (As it is, I follow neither).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzVzG_6jsZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v18b5ip95Es https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZewXzRxRen0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfxHG6yM5Fs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIGH7J5CLtQ
There's been a few occasions where I've found an interesting article on Fox News and I won't share or link it here or on Reddit, because I know that the bias is so strong against Fox as an organization that few people would consume the content with an open mind. So I go and track down another outlet covering the same story and link that instead. I'm sure other members here do the same sort of self-censorship, essentially. That's part of why you'll see 6000 submissions from NYT and only 90 from Fox.
That's exactly what I do on Reddit. I haven't had occasion to share a Fox News link here, but I think I would do it because I trust this place more to make judgements based on the content of the article.
Some of those are left leaning (esp. The Intercept), but NPR is somewhat center right so I think it is a fair balance.
The problem with mass media organizations, particularly those that are geared toward television, is that they prioritize entertainment over actual investigative journalism. In doing so they become nearly useless, often offering only a knee jerk response to a carefully curated subset of current events. They do not offer any unique or engaging perspective on the issues they cover, and they fail to report on important details and stories.
i honestly prefer to read the opinion of two opposing parties that actually believe what they say and have assimilated the presented facts from a publicly stated perspective. (note the perspective can be that they "don't know what is right" - but they should at least have eliminated what they know is bull)
Many publication try to cover all aspects/angels - however this is very dangerous.. as it means that perspectives that even people who literally no one thinks are correct get represented. if we let two (or more) opposing biased journalists report on what they thought was relevant, the true nut jobs would never get a platform.
For example, BBC posts article about 5G causing covid, they have an expert and a non-expert on. many viewers/readers/listeners will assume that these two parties are equally possibly correct as you the expert journalist have presented them for my consideration.
*its also kind of a lie to pretend you don't have an opinion or perspective as its not actually possible. so by trying to to say you are presenting both arguments is sort of lying and trying to cover up your true beliefs no?
Like I haven't seen anything on CNN about the US ramping up bombings in Somalia, which is a pretty serious thing!
https://theintercept.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-somalia-airs...
All you need to know about voting / shadow banning / right vs left / etc on HN is the following, which I stole from somewhere and am too lazy to track down for attribution:
HN is open minded about intellectual inquiry as long as that inquiry doesn't challenge anything an average Californian already believes
Wow. That adds a bit of an extra dimension. What a sad event.
> “They were busy training," he said Tuesday. "They then disappeared under the foam like it was some sort of avalanche.”
.
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/ungluecke/mindesten...
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0512/1137952-surfing-deat...
https://regio15.nl/nieuws/lijst-weergave/31-waterongevallen/...
https://twitter.com/regio15/status/1260070967822503936/photo...
Surfers, especially in that geography wear wetsuits which give some buoyancy, but not like a life jacket does, and I don't know any surfers who wear life jackets.
I was a WSI, a life guard trainer back in college, still swim 5,200 yds a week which really is nothing compared to swim team, and I scuba dive down to the bottoms of our nearby lakes to set submersible pumps for a living (diving 41 years), my dive gear has a BC vest that can act as a life jacket (if) it is not damaged and (if) my regulator is functioning and (if) I have still have air in my tank and (if) I have not blacked out by like a boat hitting me, too many ifs, but I absolutely will not venture out onto surface of bodies of water on watercraft without wearing a life jacket for a whole host of reasons (surfboards are some sort of watercraft).
I assume they were more or less "drowned" in the foam, unable to breathe, suffocated.
The most professional solution for fighting most fires is foam which puts out fires by sort of drowning them too.
The same is true in a big barrels. If a surfer knows they won't make it, they will pin drop and try to get as deep into the water as possible. If they fall and stay on the surface of the water in a big barrel they will probably be swept over the falls and be driven down with crazy force.
The buoyancy of a traditional life jackets wouldn't be good for surfers.
What big wave surfers use is inflatable vests with CO2 cartridges[1][2]. They pull a tab to inflate, and another one to deflate. They have multiple CO2 cartridges, sometimes surfers will have to inflate to get to the surface, take a breath, deflate and dive back under water for the next wave, then inflate again, until a jet ski can rescue them.
But inflatable vests aren't a thing normal surfers need, they are only for big waves in deep water (Mavericks, Jaws, etc.).
There are also impact vests and wetsuits[3][4] that provide a more passive form of flotation, enough to raise an unconscious surfer to the surface. These are used in big waves, including ones in shallow water (Teahupoo, Pipeline).
[1] https://www.quiksilver.com/highline-pro-airlift-vest/
[2] https://www.patagonia.com/psi-vest-purchasing/
[3] https://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-yulex-impact-wetsuit-...
[4] https://buellsurf.com/collections/job-collection/products/rb...
I suspect some light seafoam got sucked under denser foam by currents and then, as it upwelled, basically opened a hole under them. I can't say I've experienced anything at the scale that would drown 5 men, but falling into upwelling foam is definitely a thing.
It sounds like the bigger problem was that they got lost in the sea foam - couldn't see where they were going.
You're absolutely right about the suffocation risk due to foam/bubbles though.
SCUBA divers may carry "spare air", but I've never seen surfers do this.
I really wouldn't be surprised if the extra foamyness leading to these deaths couldn't eventually be tracked back to some heavy nitrogen fertilizer applied to local fields a week ago, and a rainstorm...
I mean I guess we can all think to ourselves "deep foam can be a dangerous", but I wonder if anyone given that message would ever end up saved by it given how unusual (my assumption) it is.
I had a conversation with a well known shaper (surfboard maker) about this and some of the things which went on on the North Shore. He said : "In your 20's you try a bunch of stuff and you don't die. So you think you can get away with it. Most of the time, you don't die. Then as you get into your 40's the law of probabilities catches up with you and your either die or have a near-death experience, and then you back way-the-hell off".
I.E. the probability of a serious problem is moderate to small, but you can have long runs of winning at dice. But eventually, unless you change, it will get you. Several famous people have gotten this message, including Jack Johnson (who was on the trajectory as a pro surfer before he became a musician - incident at pipe). Jamie O'Brian, etc.