new york times

  • Post category:all / general

‘the new york times can always be trusted’ has now changed to ‘the new york times can be mostly trusted’.

the rules are kinda simple and easy to understand: when flux is measurable or even predictable it is no longer flux. when stability introduces any amount of flux, it is no longer stability.

i do not have any specific issue with the new york times, just that they are trendy and fashionable, which is a good thing, i guess. everyone is enjoying the post truth era and it is fashionable to mix in some degree of uncertain truth, or pov (point of view) truth, into any reported event. to the degree that bias reflects in any report. there used to be a box, (four lines in a square) where the borders of bias (or projected truth) kinda did not cross. these lines seem to have shifted in a number of ways, post truth. for one, it is no longer a square (hint: the corners added together seem to be a straight line – or close enough to a straight line anyway, so that it may be perceived as a straight line). anyway, i am digressing into quality kak…   point is that there is too much flux in perceived truth, which means no more stability.

i guess the same could be said about ethics, morals and general societal values. does this mean that the race (humans not rats) is stuck in the quick sand of the information age? does the average person even give a kak that the future is more uncertain than ever? and that it is a very dark, very deep rabbit hole.

in the end of all things there will be one black hole that will swallow all the black holes. that winning black hole will die spectacularly when it explodes in the next big bang. never ending cycle of all things. everything has a cycle. a beginning and an end. – now imagine someone ‘borrowing’ my idea and having to credit ‘’  🙂  …naw… they will just borrow it and it will be an ‘unknown source’ or simply pass it off as an obvious consequence of all things black and holey… so many unknown sources, so many versions, perspectives and truths.

there is one salient fact tho: opinions are like assholes. i do not think that there are more assholes, it is just that maybe the time has come for the establishment to disrupt?

imagine if the new york times would file a patent on new technology: change the writer, sub edit, editor path and have topic: writer -> sub and duplicate same topic different writer -> different sub — combine under one editor. (optimally use writers on either pole (as in earth poles) of any chosen topic. – now that will be disruption on a vulcanic scale, nyt collecting process patents and disrupting news tech. does any real disruptive tech for ‘reporting’ the news, even exist?