I can't believe that anyone in the world has had Airdrop work for them perfectly, every time, every day. It has a less than 50% success rate with me, and that makes it sound better than it is.
> You just wanted to move the cursor. Now everything is selected.
> You want to position the cursor at the end of a line. You tap. It selects the last word. You try to grab the handle — it doesn't respond and deselects. You tap again, now it selects the whole sentence. You tap blank space to deselect — nothing. You tap five more times. On the fifth, it selects all. You switch apps hoping the selection disappears. You tap and hold — sometimes text selects, sometimes a menu appears, sometimes nothing. Got a Magic Keyboard? Good luck — trackpad selection just doesn't work half the time, but touching the screen does. Eventually you select all, delete everything, and retype from scratch. Apple has had 17 years to figure out touch text selection. This is where they landed.
In this case the point wouldn't be their truth (necessarily) but that they are a fixed position, making convenience unavailable as a factor in actions and decisions, especially for the humans at Anthropic.
Like a real constitution, it should be claim to be inviolable and absolute, and difficult to change. Whether it is true or useful is for philosophers (professional, if that is a thing, and of the armchair variety) to ponder.
Isn’t this claim just an artifact of the US constitution? I would like to see if counties with vastly different histories have similar wording in their constitutions.
You can simply do a Wikipedia search for "misinformation doctor" and get plenty of results, even with its search system, let alone if you use a search engine to power the search.
I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited. Do you have some better reason to want a particular name?
If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected. Unless you are claiming that all hits for "misinformation doctor" are incorrect, a few examples to verify and correct would be helpful.
I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff.
Have you ever tried changing something on Wikipedia regarding politics (which now includes several health issues) or religion?
Edit: also, I did write "I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited." and yet you're suggesting I get into that argument. I quite clearly don't want to because it's pointless, and we had years of it anyway.
> I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff.
Some 'misinformation' is hard to correct because the corrections are reversed by those who are intent on spreading the 'misinformation'. This is especially prevalent around contentious and/or politically sensitive subjects like the mentioned SARS2-related cases. This is what makes it hard to trust articles on such subjects on Wikipedia.
If this is quite widespread, it should be fairly straightforward to point to an example of a page that's being defaced with misinformation, which would include an edit history and perhaps a Talk page documenting whatever sides to the debate there is that's preventing consensus.
I don't disagree that weird bullshit occasionally happens on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that as soon as light is cast on it, it usually evaporates and a return to factual normality is established.
My go-to example is the "Constitution" of Medina[1]
> It is widely considered to be one of the first written constitutions of mankind.
Now go to the page on constitutions in history[2] and see how far down the list that one is.
Now go back to the Constitution of Medina (itself an example of misinformation, since it should be charter or even more precisely, treaty, but those protecting the page have meddled with the title too) and look at the reference it uses[3] and what it says to get a feel for the kind of "reference" that is being used there, and then try and update said Wikipedia page by removing the parts about its being the first.
The talk pages of both show that invested groups have been trying to force their views, and they've done it quite successfully.
Let us all know how you get on with that, and then I'll point you to the next example, and the next example…
Some other notable things to check are co-founder Larry Sanger's 9 theses[4], and the news that broke yesterday about a PR firm doing "Wikilaundering"[5].
I don't really understand how you've come to that conclusion. If you look at the protection log[1], Constitution of Medina was protected in 2016 for a bit under a month, and never outside of that. The "earliest constitution" was also discussed in 2016[2][3], and there was consensus not to include the claim. Then, in November 2025, it was re-added by a new editor who made no other edits[4].
Looking at the talk page of Constitution, it was discussed exactly once, in 2005[5].
>> those protecting the page have meddled with the title too
> Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included?
Because anyone can dispute anything. But saying it's some kind of agenda by a group of admins is incorrect.
You’re taking those questions too literally. The need for dispute resolution implies a dispute, well done… if you’re in to one-step thinking. Explain how there was a dispute over the facts there and how it wasn’t intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties that have continued to press their case from before that date until now.
Or, you can put it down to an honest mistake or difference of opinion. That really is the oldest written constitution in the world, or it’s got a valid claim to be, and those people don’t want to add any respectability to their pet project.
Tough choice. The phrases “die on that hill” and “never interrupt your opponent when they’re making a mistake” come to mind. Do continue.
I cannot fathom where you get "intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties". You're welcome to read the original dispute at [1]. Such things are not uncommon when collaboratively editing. There doesn't need to be a cabal of editors behind it.
This must be one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard.
Again, please explain how such an obvious piece of misinformation wasn't misinformation but an honest mistake, yet occurring over several years and with several people, some of whom were sock puppets and still it persists in some form.
"Arguing in bad faith" - what would that actually mean? Would it be the same as using a sock puppet to push an agenda? That wasn't me, that's what I'm pointing out and you're dismissing for no good reason.
Regardless:
- The page is still titled "Constitution…" when the opening paragraph contains "The name "Constitution of Medina" is misleading as the text did not establish a state." Make that make sense.
- "and the first "Constitution"" is still in the page
It persists.
Now, what I might consider bad faith is:
- being unwilling to answer simple, straightforward questions, which is apt, considering Socrates was an Athenian
- having such an interest in the page that you claim you made edits
- not checking properly and thus thinking this only happened twice, and wasn't part of attritional arguments, rollbacks, edits and counter-edits
Wikipedia must be alright if one does not wish to see a problem.
I'm not above ad hominem, so I'll point out that Young's own views are also not without obvious political leanings.
A much better point about the poll was made in Slate[1]:
> Rasmussen said 13 percent of poll respondents were Black, so about 130 people. If we take the results entirely at face value—which I’d discourage—that means it found about 34 Black people who answered “disagree” or “strongly disagree” with the statement “It’s OK to be white.” We have no more information about why.
Although they also allow people the benefit of the doubt by presuming they know the context behind a catchphrase that a) knowledge of is a sign of being online far more than the average, and b) is designed to show bias in anyone who opposes it. That's how biased these journalists are, they don't even notice the trap, they stand in it and brazenly opine on it.
There's something very revealing about the need to caveat an expression of admiration for someone's work with "of course, he was a terrible man", and it's not revealing about the man in question.
Been doing it the same way for centuries so, care to elaborate on what's wrong with how they farm?
Also, just because their setup isn't optimal, doesn't mean it's the cause for some ecological crisis like you seem to be implying. I live in Japan, I watch people farm every year, there is very little going on that makes me suspect there is some wide-spread ecological damage being done by people who want to grow massive pumpkins, even though, people do grow massive pumpkins.
You telling everyone that gardening is bad for the environment is interesting because I absolutely cannot imagine what is worse for the environment than the industrial scale monocrop style farming that goes on most developed countries. Like, holy shit...
People need to eat and industrial scale farming is what enables us to make enough, affordable food.
It has plenty downsides. But it’s a brilliant and truly efficient system that is being perfected by thousands of scientists and it has prevented hunger and chaos for decades now.
If you want to see real change, people would need to have way more time, be less lazy, have more money and be less demanding when it comes to variety and availability.
In other words, it’s easier to keep perfecting the system we have because it’s easier to change procedures than it is to change people.
Didn't say we can do away with Industrial scale farming, just that I live in a part of Japan where people grow so much of their own food, they struggle to give it away by the end of the summer. So yeah, didn't mean to imply industrial scale farming is "naughty", just that Japan is notorious for smaller farming operations and I've seen a lot of food grown successfully here at small or micro scale. I think a healthy mix of both things is important.
Look at Australia, basically no one grows any food and they're completely at the mercy of insanely inflated food prices dictated by corporations like Woolworths. At least in rural parts of Japan, a lot of people can lower their grocery costs with supplemental, home grown food. I actually have notice a bit of a rebellious culture amongst farmers here. It's interesting but for a different topic I guess.
Commercial farm infrastructure is far more resilient and lasts longer while consumer gardening gear is cheap and disposable. Consumer gardening gear manufacturers factories burn tons of resources to crank out tons of low quality kit, consumers burn through piles of it. That's not sustainable either.
You seem to be implying that people gardening are doing a disservice to the environment because we're buying disposable gardening tools (not true). I've had plenty of gardening tools for decades, I even use tools handed down from previous generations. I bet tractor tires aren't great for the environment either?
The rice shortages were not because of poor farming practices, this is basic knowledge now: https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/10/18/japans-rice-crisis-show.... Yes the weather was bad in 2023 for farming rice, but it could be bad anywhere in the world. Australia does plenty of industrial scal farming and there are years were certain crops are decimated.
Anyway the government dipped into the stockpiles and all is good now.
It's as if you didn't read the article - this is just the summary they give:
> Japan faced a rice shortage in the summer of 2024, exposing flaws in its food security policy. Despite declining consumption, small shocks caused market disruption. The government refused to release stockpiles, prioritising producer interests over consumer needs. This reflects political considerations, with upcoming elections influencing policy decisions. The crisis highlights the need for a more balanced approach to food security, emphasising both physical stockpiles and effective public communication. Japan must reassess its agricultural policies to ensure long-term food security and market stability.
The actual meat of the article goes in to further, damning detail.
reply