An understandable question, but this opinion article is by the editorial board; the source and the author in this case are functionally identical, so it’s entirely valid, in my opinion, to point out contradictions like this.

I don’t think you should be downvoted for what would otherwise be a reasonable, level-headed response.

Edit: by the way, @SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone, maybe a source besides a screenshot of a ChatGPT log is appropriate here.

Edit 2: In part because I think some of that is even hallucinated. E.g. point 3, the real headline is: “Trump’s Remarks on Migrants Illustrate His Obsession With Genes” Did you check any of this before you posted it here?

Trump campaigned as anti-war.

Trump also, to anyone with a functioning brain, campaigned as a rat fucking liar who’d go back on any and all promises when it was expedient for him, so they therefore voted for whatever Trump feels serves his own interests and by extension any such wars.

They will obliterate the Israel.

Utterly deluded, and I hate that genocidal wart on Earth’s face.

I think you’re in the same boat I am where I fucking haaaaaaate the culture on link aggregators (and probably other social media) where people will bitch and moan to no end that their preferred format (publicly reacting to disconnected headlines whose articles they haven’t read) isn’t giving them literally all the information they need to form a cogent opinion.

• “I had time to write a 300-word short essay about this headline, but I’m going to whine if I get called for something in the first paragraph that invalides everything I said.”
• “I can’t believe this headline mentioned a pretty common thing I’m not personally familiar with but the publication’s target audience obviously is.”
• "Headline didn’t answer every single question I could possibly wonder? Uh, clickbait much?
• “The headline writer didn’t account for this batshit non sequitur I drew from it, so they’re basically lying.”

They genuinely think that the article body should be effectively superfluous to the headline – not just to have a basic gist of but to discuss and debate current events, which is insane. It reminds me of people who think they can learn math and physics by passively watching somebody else do it – which is true only to an utterly incosequential extent.

Speaking as someone who’s read thousands of articles for research, I feel confident saying that reading the article is an insane force multiplier to understanding. Any time you spent reacting to the headline would’ve been 3x as effective put into reading even just part of an article. This doesn’t just apply to current events, and even I haven’t thoroughly learned this lesson; so many times I’ve been editing Wikipedia and arrived at a point where reading one goddamn article for three minutes would’ve saved me half an hour of fucking around (“two hours of debugging can save you five minutes of reading the documentation”).

This is my way of pleading with you (you, the non-CombatWombat reader): it’s enriching once you can steel yourself and work through the initial dopamine drought, and it quickly becomes enjoyable. It’s not your fault it’s so hard psychologically; this was done to you by formats that value engagement with the platform over engagement with the material.

But if you don’t, please at least accept that headlines cannot always contain everything you want.

Yeah, there’s no fucking way “Well Grok told me these are the prompts they used” would be admissible as evidence of any kind.

Look, by the time you’re resorting to asking about dissolving and reconstituting the EU as a mechanism, I’m going to boldly suggest that you aren’t going to find anything the army of career civil servants navigating this crisis first-hand haven’t already considered.

Edit: Just saying, though, that we could go with The Onion’s idea.

Congrats, Jordan! Take as much time as you need. If things get out of hand here, there’ll always be people ready to help.

“What makes people who’ve spent years studying and practicing law so qualified for and interested in writing and executing federal law? Golly, it’s just such a mystery why one might value a law degree for the person tasked with directing the principal law enforcement agency of the United States.”

The fact that @Lodespawn@aussie.zone had to defend “law degree” as a qualification to lead the FBI (not sufficient unto itself, but just a qualification) shows how insular places like Lemmy are. Just staggeringly asinine. You would be laughed out of the room if you asked this anywhere else.

Here’s the local 11Alive (WXIA-TV) story. The International Business Times is a churnalism rag that I wouldn’t trust to tell me the sky is blue.

“Hello, citizens of Medici.”

Is the issue that there are people paying for YouTube Premium?

Buddy, I don’t like the culture of ragebait that the Internet has fomented either, but this isn’t that. This is an LGBTQ magazine reporting on an influential figure’s intentions to disenfranchise every trans person in the US.

The news in its ideal form exists to tell you about important things that are happening, not to balance itself to make you feel better about the world (and things generally are pretty terrible right now).

The examples of “Young Doctor Wants to Improve Healthcare” or “Environmentalist Wants to Protect Our Forests” are totally nebulous in what they want to achieve, ambiguous in how they plan to achieve it compared to an org that’s been systemically dismantling the US from the inside for over a year, and a type of story that gets reported on all the time when it’s actually consequential.

Every article I read about Intel makes me more thankful that I got a Ryzen 1700 in 2017 and never looked back.

And floss!

I don’t want to distract from the article itself, but on a generic level, The Signpost is worth reading for anyone interested in the “behind-the-scenes” of the project. They published another article about this a couple weeks ago.

I wouldn’t use Mullvad when it’s openly hostile to peer-to-peer torrenting. Even outside of the obvious – piracy is one of the best and most unique use cases for a VPN – I use torrents wherever the option is available for legal downloads because that’s normally faster, spares a load on the server, and strengthens the download’s resiliency. That Mullvad wants to restrict that is their (reasonable) call, but it’s not one that’s going to get my money.

Wow, thanks! Let’s switch topics. I’m trying to start a business where I sell fruit to weathermen. Can you help me with that?

It’s not even the style on its own*; it’s that you wrote a frankly bloviating short essay about an obvious concept that can be summarized as “most people who watch the weather don’t know what a public key is or how to use one”. I’m disgustingly long-winded, and even I wouldn’t expend that much effort. The style is what escalates that from “padding a high school essay” to “Oh, yup, a GPT wrote this.”

* “It’s not X, it’s Y” yeah, yeah, I know.

Dude, I’m sorry for saying this (because I get this a lot for my often overly formal writing, and I get it’s ironic on this post), but…

Your writing reads like it’s LLM-generated. Like, really heavily reads like an LLM wrote it. Long scrawls for pretty simple concepts, I don’t know how to describe why the cadence feels LLM-y other than “vibes”, flawless grammar, needless lists of nouns and adjectives, “it’s not X; it’s Y”, and this weird fucking lifeless demeanor that feels like it has no voice.