Welcome to the Lounge

GKP19925-Dec-23 18:58

GKP1992

5-Dec-23 18:58

Although somewhat broken, if you play the video with auto translated subtitles, you may get the gist of it.
Other wise I can put a summary for you when I find the time to watch the whole video.

Southmountain6-Dec-23 3:44

Southmountain

6-Dec-23 3:44

please write a summary when you get time. I think it is worthy your time Rose | [Rose]

diligent hands rule....

megaadam5-Dec-23 22:26

megaadam

5-Dec-23 22:26

And looking for an English video on the subject, or text, was not applicable ?

"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"

BernardIE53175-Dec-23 23:36

BernardIE5317

5-Dec-23 23:36

if you wish to make a project out of it the cc text which by the way can be placed wherever you wish can be screen captured then w/ OCR results sent to Google Translate and of course accept the summed errors .

Rich Leyshon6-Dec-23 1:00

Rich Leyshon

6-Dec-23 1:00

Learn Hindi! Big Grin | :-D

dandy726-Dec-23 4:47

dandy72

6-Dec-23 4:47

Google says there's 48 officially recognized dialects of Hindi.

One of the articles near the top of that search goes on to say India has a total of 19,569 languages and dialects.

Where should one start? Smile | :)

jschell6-Dec-23 8:27

jschell

6-Dec-23 8:27

dandy72 wrote:
Where should one start?

42?

Nelek6-Dec-23 10:49

Nelek

6-Dec-23 10:49

dandy72 wrote:
Where should one start?

By the first one of course.

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

Wordle 900

StarNamer@work5-Dec-23 14:09

StarNamer@work

5-Dec-23 14:09

Wordle 900 3/6*

🟨⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟩🟨⬛🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Amarnath S5-Dec-23 14:43

Amarnath S

5-Dec-23 14:43

Wordle 900 4/6

🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟨🟨⬜🟨🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Sandeep Mewara5-Dec-23 16:43

Sandeep Mewara

5-Dec-23 16:43

Wordle 900 3/6

⬛⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟩🟨⬛🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Latest CodeProject post:
Quick look into Machine Learning workflow
How to solve Word Ladder Problem?

To read all my blog posts, visit: Learn by Insight...

Shane01035-Dec-23 18:10

Shane0103

5-Dec-23 18:10

Wordle 900 5/6

🟨⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟩⬜🟩⬜
⬜🟩🟨🟩⬜
🟨🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

GKP19925-Dec-23 18:18

GKP1992

5-Dec-23 18:18

Wordle 900 3/6

⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Re: Wordle 900 - 4 4 me

pkfox5-Dec-23 21:59

pkfox

5-Dec-23 21:59

⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟨🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP

ChandraRam5-Dec-23 22:01

ChandraRam

5-Dec-23 22:01

Wordle 900 4/6*

⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟨⬜🟨🟨⬜
🟨🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche

Revisionism in journalism

Cp-Coder6-Dec-23 9:39

Cp-Coder

6-Dec-23 9:39

Wordle 900 3/6

🟨⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟨🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!

dandy725-Dec-23 10:26

dandy72

5-Dec-23 10:26

I've been subscribed to the BBC World News RSS feed for years. Yes, RSS feeds are still a thing. I wouldn't have it any other way either, given that nobody places ads on those feeds (or perhaps rather, don't bother to, for some reason). But that's not the point.

I've been noticing for quite a while now that they'll often re-surface old articles - days, weeks, even months old - articles they've already published before, but republish them with updated bits and pieces - adjust some numbers, add some details that weren't there before, that sort of thing. Some of these (the same articles) show up repeatedly time and time again.

I never find these to be of particular interest (no matter what got updated), so I just delete these "new" entries that show up as unread at the bottom of the chronological list.

I really wonder who those updates are there for. RSS has fallen out of favor, so very few people should even notice. I can only assume that, among the population at large, only people searching for an article on a specific topic might find them, and read the latest version as if it were the first published instance (and really, how might one even know, unless they're marked as such, which they never are?) What's the point? After a while, if something's really worth bringing up again, doesn't it warrant having a brand new article written instead? If it's not, then presumably you're concluding people shouldn't care enough, so as a reporter, you should just let those old articles go...

I don't like to see history rewritten. If it has to do with fact-checking, or new details having come to light, I've seen newspapers publish follow-up articles, corrections as part of an addendum, that sort of thing. These online articles however don't get an addendum; the original gets modified and then passed off as if these were "as originally written".

I'm not sure whether this is common and other news sources do the same, as this is the only news feed I subscribe to. And they're the only ones who do it.

Anyone know anything about journalism that can shed some light as to what the real motive might be?

I'm sure I'm reading too much into this, as the topics in those revised articles are generally rather benign.

Richard MacCutchan5-Dec-23 10:37

Richard MacCutchan

5-Dec-23 10:37

dandy72 wrote:
I've been subscribed to the BBC World News RSS feed for years.

They are probably having to correct the bits that are incorrect/downright lies.

MarkTJohnson5-Dec-23 11:46

MarkTJohnson

5-Dec-23 11:46

They gave the job to AI.

I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.

trønderen5-Dec-23 12:54

trønderen

5-Dec-23 12:54

That is a fundamental property of the Internet: You cannot rely on information being stable or remain available.

If you really need to have something documented, make a copy of that web page. It may be difficult sometimes; you may have to revert to PrntScrn - Save Page as... may not capture all you want to save. Always check the saved page.

Updating news articles is common practice with web newspapers. Sometimes, when reporting from an ongoing event, they put something along the lines of 'This story will be updated', but often they do not. Often, the 'breaking news' updates the first few paragraphs of the story, but if you read to the bottom, there can be a lot down there that they didn't remember to update - such as 'Due to the car accident, the E6 is closed for all traffic', but the (updated) headline and first few sentences declare 'E6 is now open after having being closed for two hours'.

Sometimes, when revising 'facts', they add a small note indicating that 'A previous version of this story said so-and-so. This has been updated to such-and-such'.

The one newspaper that really p me off was one where I could provoke an update. Officially, they were open to reader comments. If you made a comment that was in conflict with the newspaper's views, the article would be 'updated'. Several times I compared the article as it was at the time when I made my comment, with my comment displayed, showing that it was accepted, with the version marked 'Last updated at ...', and not a single character was changed, except for the 'Last updated' time.

And the list of comments were empty. Each update version had its own chain of comments. So they could pretend to accept disagreeing comments, while wiping unwanted comments by making a no-changes 'update'. If asked, they could present a technical explanation ('Every revision has its own comment chain - that's just how it is!'. And it was true: The new revision got a new URL, so if I saved the URL to the revision I commented on, I could use it to retrieve the version with my unwanted comment still in the comment chain.

I think it is far more honest to simply declare that 'We do not accept comments in disagreement with our views', and either inform the commenter the reason why he was rejected, or leaving an entry in the comment chain indicating that a comment was censored. Preferably both.

BernardIE53175-Dec-23 15:37

BernardIE5317

5-Dec-23 15:37

re/ "You cannot rely on information being stable or remain available." i recently learned the Wayback Machine is useful . it even has copies of my own minor website of many years prior .

trønderen6-Dec-23 2:50

trønderen

6-Dec-23 2:50

If it is "semi-stable", Wayback maybe of use. Often it is not. Observe how many snapshots there is of an article: Sometimes, they come weeks or months apart. Compare the time of the first snapshot with the publication date for the newspaper story: The story may have been through several modifications before the the first Wayback snapshot.

There are lots of web pages not available on Wayback. It crawls from one page to another through links, and if none of its already known pages link to some local web newspaper, Wayback will not discover it. There used to be an entry in Wayback's main page, something like 'Please index this web page!' It may still be somewhere, but I am not sure where (I haven't spent much time looking!)