🍦

You’re a bit of a cunt aren’t you

What qualifies someone to be a judge is simply redefined to be what is popular. A judge should therefore no longer follow the law, but make the ruling most in line with what is popular. Under a voting system that is the sole qualifier.

Yes I agree, and just because there is a methodology doesn’t make the result not arbitrary. Can you explain what number four means? How do I assess it, what’s a 0, what’s a 5 and what’s a 10? How does number 2 relate to bias, isn’t that a factuality rating thing , why is it in the bias rubric? It’s a joke, each rating is totally arbitrary as there is no definition of what each one means beyond some vague description of the category. It’s essentially pick a number, feels based.

I have worked with qualitive rubrics before and this one is barely worthy of the name honestly. Two people could take this rubric away and come to completely opposite conclusions based on their own biases.

Biden: killing Americans in the west bank is totally unacceptable…but we will accept it.

The placement of the yellow dot is determined through a composite score derived from four distinct categories: Biased Wording/Headlines, Factual/ Sourcing, Story Choices, and Political Affiliation. Each category is rated on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0. indicating a lack of bias and 10 representing extreme bias. The average of these four scores is then plotted on the scale to indicate the source’s overall Left-Right bias.

I wouldn’t call picking four numbers 'a whole lot more ’ personally. If you actually read some of the bias analysis it becomes more obvious how arbitrary it is.

Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense now. I think from that perspective, MBFC in my mind is still useless because the why behind their rating is totally opaque, at least to me. I have read several of their analysis and their methodology and I just still have no idea why they give a certain rating. It feels more like a post hoc rationalisation than a process or set of criteria that was followed. Maybe it’s just me though, and it’s clearer for other folks.

How long has Russia been using foreign weapons on Ukranian soil now? Let’s get this fucking show on the road already!

Sounds like I’m just missing your point then. I don’t understand the relevance of the methodology if it doesn’t produce a useful rating beyond the subjective opinion someone would have given anyway, nor establish a coherent reason for the rating.

2cm per hour is an objective measure though. So now we have an objective standard so we can all understand what ‘a lot’ means, which is great but not at all like the bias methodology from MBFC.

Rate the amount of rain from 0 to 10 is still entirely subjective and is closer to the actual methodology used by MBFC.

Having a methodology or a standard and writing about how you came to your conclusion doesn’t absolve you of being completely subjective. It also doesn’t mean that it’s not arbitrary. My methodology could be that I roll a dice, a one is left leaning and a six is right leaning. I can be totally transparent and have a clear methodology, but it’s arbitrary.

MBFC’s methodology is totally subjective and arbitrary. It’d be almost a miracle if two people independently followed their methodology and came to the same conclusion. I think I showed how flawed it is with my previous comment, but if you think otherwise I’d be really interested to understand your reasoning.

I suggest reading the methodology carefully. Picking a number between 0 and 10 is hardly a robust methodology. Any two people could follow it and come to completely different answers.

Finally, it’s time to take some real action and force an end to th-

"In our judgement, Israeli security forces need to make some fundamental changes in the way that they operate in the West Bank, including changes to their rules of engagement,” he said.

…

From memory if you dig further most of those five have been retracted or corrected by The Guardian too. Apparently this does not impact the factuality rating in this case although I have seen MBFC make special note of corrections issued when it comes to other publications.

The problem is that it doesn’t matter if they publish how they came to their conclusions if how they come to their conclusions is nonsense. Your link is a perfect example. In the bias section there is a paragraph consisting mostly of cruft followed by two sentences attempting to justify a left rating:

Editorially, opinion pieces tend to slightly favor the left, such as this Adopt green hydrogen strategy now, Swiss cantons tell Bern. In general, SWI is fact-based and hold slight left-leaning editorial biases.

One opinion piece on green hydrogen is apparently enough justification for MBFC. I actually can’t even tell if it’s an opinion piece because it doesn’t seem to have the author’s opinion in it anywhere, it’s quoting reporting from elsewhere and a letter.

Doesn’t that seem pretty paper thin? I don’t think they even bother referencing any of the categories from their own methodology in this one.

I feel like I’m the only one that has actually read any of their bias justifications because after you read one I don’t see how can take them seriously at all. Maybe I’m missing something though, or I’m just going mad because lots of folks keep referring to MBFC as a serious organisation.

It’s true that it’s based on US standards, but it’s also worth pointing out that the rating itself is completely arbitrary.

Because the bias rating methodology of MBFC is a a joke.

I dunno, it’s already pretty good at writing code and only going to get better. I agree with your conclusion though, mainly because as a software engineer writing code is actually not even the most complicated part of the job. If an AI could write perfect code every time it’d make my job a lot easier but I’d still have to do a significant amount of work such as:

• Figuring out which code to write in the first place! Work discovery if I’m senior enough or clarifying requirements.
• Co-ordination with other teams. Depending on the exact work this becomes more or less important
• Managing the lifecycle of a change including testing, deployment, monitoring and triaging issues.
• Ongoing maintenance. Staying on top of upcoming changes in adjacent or foundational teams, making sure our stuff will keep in working.
• Architecture design. You mentioned this in your post, understanding interactions with adjacent systems and how to organise our own systems to meet current and (reasonable) future requirements.
• Conducting non project work such as interviews, involvement in working groups to help decide overall technical direction of my group, upskilling myself and those around me.

That’s just off the top of my head, I’m sure I’ve missed some things. As much as I love writing code I honestly feel like if an AI could do that part it’d just take stress out of my day and give me more time to focus on those other parts of the job. Of course in reality more work would probably just be piled on but that’s just life I guess.

Yes it is. It’s literally “pick a few numbers between 0 and 10 then take the average”, mate. Can you really say it’s a robust methodology? Hey, if unbiased was something on offer I’d gladly take it but it’s simply not possible. MBFC does nothing but add another bias into the mix.

The ‘methodology’ for rating biases that it uses is little more than one person’s opinion which means it is necessarily biased.