[HN Gopher] Larry King has died
___________________________________________________________________
Larry King has died
Author : Anon84
Score : 384 points
Date : 2021-01-23 13:16 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| janmo wrote:
| HN is turning into an obituary. Brad Cox yesterday, Larry King
| today.
| TillE wrote:
| This has been a persistent issue for years. The obituaries are
| a really weird quirk of HN, which is otherwise not a general
| news site. Some public figure dies, no particular relevance to
| this site's users, nobody has anything especially interesting
| to say, but there's the post at the top of the page. Baffling.
| Simon_says wrote:
| Lotta that goin' around.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| There's a 'hide' button below each submission title. I suggest
| hitting that when some post isn't riveting. Saves on pointless
| complaining.
| janmo wrote:
| Thanks, I think it would be great if HN would have more
| categories/tags. There is already the "Show HN" which is
| great.
|
| And then an option to hide/follow a certain tag/category.
| alexjplant wrote:
| One of the more amusing cultural intersections I've seen is Larry
| King on Snoop Dogg's YouTube channel... though I guess given the
| latter's collaborations with Martha Stewart it shouldn't be
| _that_ surprising. RIP.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8awqtaD3LAI
| king_panic wrote:
| Snoop dogg is as pop culture as Martha Stewart and Larry King
| and has been for awhile
| williesleg wrote:
| Witch wife gets the mother load?
| baxtr wrote:
| I always enjoyed his interviews especially his calm style. It's
| maybe not that relevant, but: he died of/with Covid... R.I.P.
| nerdponx wrote:
| I think it's relevant. He might have had more time, and his
| family would have had more time with him.
|
| All of the US politicians who obstructed a proper pandemic
| response back in March have his and 350k others' blood on their
| hands.
| rayiner wrote:
| > All of the US politicians who obstructed a proper pandemic
| response back in March have his and 350k others' blood on
| their hands.
|
| What about all the other big EU countries that have
| comparable death rates? (The UK, France, Spain, Italy, etc.)
| And what about the countervailing economic devastation caused
| by lockdowns?
|
| How much "blood" does Fauci and the CDC have on their hands
| for lying about masks early in the pandemic?
|
| Moralizing public policy like this is one of the worst ideas
| we've had in the last few decades and we need to goddamn cut
| it out.
| dahart wrote:
| > Moralizing public policy like this is one of the worst
| ideas we've had in the last few decades
|
| Amen. Politicizing and protesting mask wearing is the
| dumbest thing Republicans could have done to their _own_
| agenda of keeping the economy going. I really don't get it.
| What our leaders should have been asking us to do is wear a
| mask to go out shopping safely. At least Fauci admitted it
| was a mistake to say early on not to get masks, at least
| his statements were aimed at protecting COVID responders,
| and at least he corrected it fairly early on.
| craftinator wrote:
| The way I read that whole situation with Fauci, it seemed
| like there was a presidential order not to encourage mask
| wearing. The CDC should've know better; in fact, I think
| they did. I'm by no means involved in the medical field,
| but simple physics tells me that a layer of stuff between
| me and another person means less of my gems get to them.
| If you're a professional in that area of study, I imagine
| there's zero doubt that masks are the right choice. No
| downside, only upside. By similar logic, Fauci knew. Then
| at some point it seemed like he realized he would
| probably get fired no matter what he said, so he grew a
| pair and started speaking truth.
| rayiner wrote:
| Yes, it was incredibly stupid. But so was people throwing
| around "blood on your hands" rhetoric every time someone
| mentioned the very legitimate need to reopen the economy.
| I remember American media flipping out over Trump saying
| we can't stay locked down forever, and then watching
| Germans nod soberly along while Angela Merkel said the
| exact same thing.
|
| We've become addicted to moralizing political decisions.
| Reagan unfortunately is responsible for a lot of that,
| also Gingrich. But since Obama Democrats have run with
| that tactic too.
| skedaddle wrote:
| Angela Merkel is taken seriously because she's a serious
| person. Americans flipped out over Trump because he was
| in complete denial about the crisis. He had no
| credibility when he talked about reopening because he was
| also calling covid-19 the sniffles and inventing
| ridiculous new "treatments" on the spot. It wasn't wrong
| to be alarmed.
| cygx wrote:
| _What about all the other big EU countries that have
| comparable death rates?_
|
| The US actually is fairly unique in that excess mortality
| never returned to baseline.
|
| For example, Belgium is one of the European countries that
| was hit hardest: Mid-April, twice the number of people died
| per week than the average of 2015-19. The numbers were back
| to normal a month later (until the next wave hit in
| August).
|
| In the US, deaths also peaked mid-April. But while deaths
| were up by a factor of 'only' 1.5, excess mortality _never_
| went back to normal for all of 2020.
| schoolornot wrote:
| Fauci should've been fired for his original comments on
| masks. Outrageous! His backpedaling comment on why he chose
| those words was even worse. Given how long he's been in
| that role, I believe there are powers at work keeping him
| in, from Big Pharma or something else.
|
| But I really want to know who decided to abandon HHS' plan
| to mail masks out to every household. If that person or
| team can be held accountable, I can overlook Fauci's
| addiction to being a TV star.
| cmmeur01 wrote:
| The people who make the policies have morals that leak into
| them.
|
| Is it moral to force people into work without protection
| and no recourse against their employer when they get sick
| and their family member dies? Sounds like we should make a
| moral judgment against that policy and the ones who made it
| to me.
| maxerickson wrote:
| "What about all the other big EU countries that have
| comparable death rates? (The UK, France, Spain, Italy,
| etc.)"
|
| Yeah, they shit the bed too, what's your point?
| rayiner wrote:
| Do all those politicians "have blood on their hands" as
| well?
| maxerickson wrote:
| There's widespread criticism of the pandemic response in
| England, France, etc.
|
| Are you just objecting to the phrase? It seems obvious
| enough that Trump is responsible for much of the failure
| in the US, failure that exacerbated the death toll. If he
| had done sensible things instead of dancing around
| talking about injecting bleach, it's painfully likely it
| would have made a difference. And then the choices about
| who led the response. Why was Kushner involved at all? He
| had no obvious experience to suggest he should be making
| decisions (and had pretty much already demonstrated
| incompetence).
| rayiner wrote:
| > Are you just objecting to the phrase
|
| Yes, I am, which is why I referred to "moralizing" above.
| Public policies kill people directly or indirectly. If
| you reduce GDP growth by 0.5% you can convert that to a
| body count.
|
| Rhetoric like saying people have "blood on their hands"
| is just an attempt to emotionalize the issue. And it
| destroys our political debate and discourse.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Somehow I feel like reducing a preventable death toll
| larger than most cities to "rhetoric" is reductio ad
| absurdum.
| oblio wrote:
| > What about all the other big EU countries that have
| comparable death rates? (The UK, France, Spain, Italy,
| etc.)
|
| Isn't the US richer and also... exceptional? :-)
| rayiner wrote:
| Covid death rates seem pretty uncorrelated with wealth
| the world over. As to the US being exceptional--it is in
| many respects, but quick and coordinated societal and
| government response has never been one of those things.
| There is a long-standing joke that "Americans will
| eventually do the right thing, after they've tried
| everything else."
| lucian1900 wrote:
| Several countries have managed to eradicate the virus with
| very few deaths, so it's clearly possible.
|
| All politicians that valued profits over lives have blood
| on their hands, all over the world.
| tptacek wrote:
| I take your point, but the pandemic is different from the
| economy as a whole+, with different incentives. It is
| probably possible to keep society running with total
| indifference to COVID-19, pretending that its death toll is
| essentially the same as a bad flu. Over a million people
| would die, but society can metabolize a million deaths
| without really skipping a beat.
|
| Preventing as many of those deaths as is reasonably
| possible requires sacrifice and expenditure, and really the
| only incentive we have to undertake that is moral.
|
| I don't think the problem is that "blood on their hands" is
| _moralizing_ , but rather that it's _hackneyed_ , _shrill_
| , and _unpersuasive_.
|
| + _cf downthread_
| shimonabi wrote:
| I remember him sitting the whole night in that CNN election
| studio when Kerry lost, looking really upset.
|
| Jon Stewart made fun of his interview style by writing a Larry
| King interview with Hitler:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPK1d5Fh0mE
| danso wrote:
| Larry learning to play the harp, 5 years ago:
| https://youtu.be/9aexdYSarow?t=96
| throwawaycauseT wrote:
| I ended up watching a few videos of his, and I found this one
| of him interviewing Donald and Melania Trump in 2005:
| https://youtu.be/q4XfyYFa9yo
| simmons wrote:
| When I was a kid growing up in a small town in the 1980's, radio
| was my way of finding out about the outside world. I would stay
| up late at night listening when I was supposed to be sleeping.
|
| I often ended up listening to Larry King's late night radio show.
| Although unlikely for the medium and time slot, he was somehow
| able to attract amazing guests, and I learned about a lot of
| things. I especially remember his interviews with Isaac Asimov
| and Douglas Adams, which introduced me to those authors. RIP.
| fattire wrote:
| "Last Chance To See" interview?
| audiometry wrote:
| I never cared for his tv shows but I recall enjoying his late
| night am radio show that I listened to each night at my summer
| university semester in Texas back in 1992. He was pretty quick
| on his feet dealing w obnoxious callers. For some reason I
| still recall (and chuckle) him cutting down a nasty caller
| with, "you, sir, are lonely by the choice of others". Amuses me
| 30 years later.
| xxpor wrote:
| Part of the reason he was able to attract guests was because he
| didn't ask tough or technical questions. That's not a
| criticism, I think there's more than enough room for both the
| Larry Kings and Isaac Chotners of the world, and they're both
| important in their own ways.
| Tade0 wrote:
| I learned English watching Larry King Live, because that was my
| father's favourite talkshow during the 90s.
|
| I didn't understand half of what was going on in those
| conversations, but what stuck with me was the broad spectrum of
| people he interviewed and how consistently respectful he was
| towards his interviewees.
| [deleted]
| xu_ituairo wrote:
| Sad.
|
| (Ora Media inserting themselves into the obit so many times feels
| crass.)
| graupel wrote:
| Larry King spoke at a conference I was at in the early 1990s and
| his speech was so good I bought an audio cassette tape copy of
| it. Wow I sound old!
| hashkb wrote:
| We're all here talking about a radio host.
| cbozeman wrote:
| Radio hosts are just podcasters / YouTubers of yesteryear.
| INVEST_IN_UVXY wrote:
| I couldn't care less about some old white guy. What is with
| America and it's glorification of white not-so-funny "comedians"?
| ignoranceprior wrote:
| Larry King previously stated that he wanted his body to be
| cryopreserved after legal death:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/larry-king-is-pr...
|
| > He has arranged to have his body frozen and then thawed out
| when researchers discover a cure for whatever killed him -- the
| so-called cryonics approach. (Unlike Williams, King does not wish
| to have his dead head cut off.) King told me later that the
| people behind cryonics are ''all nuts,'' but at least if he knows
| he will be frozen he will die with a shred of hope. ''Other
| people have no hope,'' King said.
|
| Also see his interview on Conan:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF7NpKG_S8g
|
| I wonder he actually ended up signing a cryonics contract or not.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| I am surprised because I thought Larry King was of the Mormon
| faith. They have some interesting mind virii mythology about
| post death existence.
|
| ETA: what I meant by 'mind virii' ;
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mind%20virus ..
| certainly wasn't being disrespectful towards anyone's faith.
|
| From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind ..
| the vocabulary of atheism from my younger days still lingers
| even though I am on search mode now.
| nso95 wrote:
| He was Jewish and agnostic
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| Got it. Quick googling shows that his ex was Mormon.
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7970945/Larry-
| King-...
| Netcob wrote:
| That's the Daily Mail, which should be taken with more
| than a grain of salt. According to Wikipedia he was
| indeed Jewish and agnostic.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| I am actually ok with Daily Mail these days. Can't tell
| the difference from main stream media except for the
| occasional typo and annoying ads.
|
| I am not a news/media elitist anymore. Things have
| changed in the past few years.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| Larry Kings former wife is a Latter-day Saint, he is not.
| microtherion wrote:
| Neal Stephenson's most recent novel "Fall; or, Dodge in Hell"
| is about cryonics. As usual, it's sprawling and arguably too
| long, but as usual, there are interesting ideas in there on the
| economics and politics of the idea, on simulation vs
| resurrection, etc.
|
| I found it an enjoyable read.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| Larry Niven wrote an excellent series of short stories on the
| same premises decades earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
| Flatlander_(short_story_collec...
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's a good book, actually.
|
| From another one, different author, same theme:
|
| "Case, promise me one thing: when this gig is over, erase me,
| ok?"
|
| https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Dixie_Flatline
| wrinkl3 wrote:
| I'm a fan of Stephenson's work but I couldn't finish Fall.
| Such a waste of paper.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I agree it's not his best work but it actually has some
| pretty good stuff. It's just not as tight as his other
| books.
| microtherion wrote:
| It seems that like with Stephen King that the more famous
| the author gets, the less power the editors get to push
| back.
|
| In the case of Stephenson, this is counteracted a bit by
| Stephenson improving his craft somewhat over the years.
| His earlier novels all had very weak endings in my
| opinion, and that improved somewhat. But his never novels
| could use tightening.
| mxcrossb wrote:
| It seems he passed due to the coronavirus, so hopefully the
| people of the future have that handled before he is unfrozen.
| cbozeman wrote:
| If we can reconstitute frozen people with no ill effects, I'm
| pretty sure we can figure out the coronavirus problem.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" at least if he knows he will be frozen he will die with a
| shred of hope. ''Other people have no hope,'' King said."_
|
| I've always found it interesting how for most people and in
| most religions the hope is to be resurrected, go to heaven,
| and/or live forever, while in Buddhism the point is to escape
| the cycle of death and rebirth.
|
| It's a completely different approach, which sees more life as
| something to be avoided rather than desired.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| I'm Buddhist and I'm currently happy with the "cycle of death
| and rebirth" for now. I have infinite time, after all. And
| this Human game is fun for now.
|
| Buddha shows the path forward; I'm walking slow.
| prvc wrote:
| As long as the structure of his brain (at an appropriate level
| of detail--- how much is enough though?) is preserved for the
| duration of his ice nap, why couldn't something like a
| continuation of him be reconstituted some time in the future?
| turing_complete wrote:
| Why wouldn't you do this if you have the money? :-)
| rriepe wrote:
| Pascal's wager for the irreligious
| newsbinator wrote:
| This sounds different than Pascal's wager because it's
| binary: you have nothing to lose, so preserve or don't
| preserve.
|
| Whereas in Pascal's wager you have to choose one religion,
| which by definition excludes other religions.
| rriepe wrote:
| Here you have to choose a single company to freeze your
| head. If you choose the right company you get an
| afterlife, so you might as well choose one, even if they
| all seem like total bullshit. It is exactly Pascal's
| wager.
| wzdd wrote:
| 1. Choose the wrong religion or no religion and you may
| suffer a fate worse than simple nonexistence. Not so with
| cryopreservation.
|
| 2. Many religions logically exclude other religions, i.e.
| if they are correct then other religions are not. This is
| not the case with cryopreservation, where there is a
| nonzero chance that more than one company may
| successfully resurrect you.
|
| 3. Various monotheistic religions don't accept "I think
| it's total bullshit but I'm going to act as if I believe
| it anyway" as belief (opinions vary on what exactly is
| required), whereas cryopreservation companies are happy
| to take your money regardless of what you privately
| think.
| rriepe wrote:
| 1. You're comparing death to death here but the correct
| comparison is room-temperature death to Hell. Dead-but-
| cryopreserved is the pre-afterlife state equivalent to
| death in traditional religions.
|
| 2. How do you revive the frozen heads from companies that
| couldn't pay their freezer bills three decades ago? You
| don't. Those heads picked the wrong company. Expecting a
| just god from some other religion to let you into the
| afterlife anyway is a common response to Pascal's wager.
|
| 3. Is the word you're looking for here "faith"? I don't
| think that word helps your argument. I will concede that
| there's probably no condition where the company unfreezes
| you and then kills you because you're not up to their
| standards. Well, unless they find those old bad reviews
| you left...
| microtherion wrote:
| AFAIK, there are numerous competing and mutually
| exclusive preservation technologies, none of them with
| any track record of success.
|
| Which is obviously entirely different from My Religion
| which is Known To Be True.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's different, because it provides an excuse to the rich
| to hoard their wealth more by preserving the coordinates of
| ice crystals.
|
| At least religion offers people an excuse towards charity
| because 'you can't bring anything to the afterlife.'
| tomrod wrote:
| https://bobiverse.fandom.com/wiki/We_Are_Legion_(We_Are_Bob).
| ..
| cbozeman wrote:
| God I love that series.
| nolok wrote:
| Honestly I would be worried of it because of all the crazy
| distopia sci fi stuff one that always resonated to me as "I
| could see it happen" is those where bodies are donated /
| preserved by a private entity which ends up changing hands
| god knows how many time until you wake up in a nightmare
| later on.
|
| Playing SOMA might have ruined it for me...
| arghwhat wrote:
| What has historically happened is just that the company
| goes bankrupt, the bodies defrost in random warehouses and
| is finally disposed of in less-than-respectable fashion.
|
| There is pretty much zero chance that a cryopreserved
| individual would be revived. They're frozen when dying or
| dead, the process itself causes significant damage (with
| every mitigation just trading in a different severe form of
| damage), and even if future technology could undo _all
| that_ and somehow make this severely damaged body somewhat
| operational, why in the world would anyone bother?
|
| The person is forgotten, replaced, and has nothing in their
| name any more. There is no gain for those reviving them.
| fairity wrote:
| > What has historically happened is just that the company
| goes bankrupt, the bodies defrost in random warehouses
| and is finally disposed of in less-than-respectable
| fashion.
|
| Source? Based on my research, no cryonic institution has
| failed in this manner to date.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| I think op was refferring to the first uhhh, cryonics
| attempts. They were sad, I recommend giving this podcast
| a listen: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/354/mistakes-
| were-made
|
| I'm not sure if any actual official institutions failed
| in this way.
| henearkr wrote:
| One solution is to store frozen bodies in a lava tube on
| the Moon or Mars. Then the company can go bankrupt and
| that would have no effect.
| mongol wrote:
| Not so simple solution.
| arghwhat wrote:
| That's a solution to staying cold, not a solution to
| avoid getting severely damaged by the freezing process,
| already being weak/sick/dead at the time of freezing, and
| there being no realistic outcome other than being reduced
| to a sad meat popsicle.
| henearkr wrote:
| Yeah, I know. But at least it addresses one more issue
| than the current state of the art ^^
| j9461701 wrote:
| I know personally, if I had the opportunity, I would
| gladly spent time bringing someone frozen back to life. I
| don't gain anything, but I also don't gain anything when
| I donate to charity either. The simple chance to do
| something good in the world is all the motivation I need.
| arghwhat wrote:
| I assume the cost to even try would be in the hundreds of
| thousands to millions of dollars.
|
| Spend that on the living instead. We're already too many
| as is anyway, no need to also bring the dead back.
| azangru wrote:
| > why in the world would anyone bother
|
| Why do people want to resurrect the woolly mammoth? ;-)
| arghwhat wrote:
| Because it's extinct.
| smolder wrote:
| That's actually possible, because you're not resurrecting
| _a specific, dead_ wooly mammoth, you 're growing a new
| one. Natural reproductive processes are an effective way
| to create living things, unlike thawing corpses with what
| are almost certainly irrevocably damaged brains.
| saberdancer wrote:
| Would a dying person be able to set up a trust fund or a
| bank account/investment that would "live on" when they
| die. Issue I see here is that the law does not recognize
| "crypreservation" as continuation of life so all your
| assets are probably inherited.
|
| I'm sure cryo companies offer this type of safekeeping of
| money or investment.
| leetcrew wrote:
| it's hard to have faith that such an account could exist
| long enough to pay for your revival many years in the
| future. it would be very tempting for the living to raid
| large funds that are earmarked for reviving dead people.
| who would stop them?
| Joeri wrote:
| They may get lucky. In Heinlein's _The Door into Summer_
| the protagonist only survives the long sleep because he
| ends up put into storage with the wrong repository, but
| that happened to be the one that kept the lights on for
| 30 years.
| adam12 wrote:
| I hope this doesn't ruin SOMA for me.
| bentcorner wrote:
| Don't worry, it doesn't at all. Play it, it's a fantastic
| game.
| minitoar wrote:
| Because I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream.
| jamesdmiller wrote:
| Cryonics (I'm signed up with Alcor) can reduce the measure
| of you being tortured. Assume a multiverse where some
| versions of you are going to be tortured for a long time.
| If you sign up for cryonics, if you get brought back most
| likely you won't get tortured and so this might reduce the
| percent of you across the multiverse that is not being
| tortured.
| minitoar wrote:
| I'm open to this, but I'm not following how getting
| brought back equates to less torture. Can you elaborate?
| jamesdmiller wrote:
| Let's say that across the multiverse all versions of you
| are going to collectively live for 1 billion years.
| Unfortunately, some versions of you will be tortured and
| let's assume that collectively you will be tortured for
| 10,000 years meaning that the measure your torture is
| 10,000 / 1 billion. But if you sign up for cryonics you
| most likely only get brought back in a world that has
| cured death and isn't evil. If many versions of you do
| sign up for cryonics say you live collectively for 2
| billion years and are only tortured for 11,000 of these
| years so the measure of you being tortured is 11,000/ 2
| billion.
| minitoar wrote:
| Ah, it was the "probably a non-torturous society will
| bring you back, since they are more likely to be
| altruistic" assumption that I was missing. Of course, it
| only takes one entity to bring you back for an eternity
| of torture to ruin this logic, as is the case in
| IHNMAIMS.
| jamesdmiller wrote:
| Infinity makes decision making really weird since
| infinity + 1 is the same as infinity so if you are going
| to be tortured for infinity years it wouldn't be
| irrational to volunteer to be tortured for an extra year.
| [deleted]
| ur-whale wrote:
| You should read Transmetropolitan [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmetropolitan
| busyant wrote:
| > Why wouldn't you do this if you have the money? :-)
|
| I've had these fantasies, too and then I thought, "Why
| wouldn't you just leave a few cells and then have someone re-
| clone you?"
|
| The obvious answer is that your memories/experiences are
| wiped out and what I _really_ want is to continue on with my
| pre-existing memories/experiences. It would be more optimal
| if you could pickle your memories, clone yourself and then
| (at some appropriate time later in life) "re-implant" the
| memories into your clone. I think that's what people like
| Larry King are really hoping for.
|
| But then there's all sorts of problems with this (e.g., your
| loved ones will presumably be gone, so who's going to give a
| shit about your memories? etc. etc.).
|
| The prospect of death is frightening to most of us.
| prmph wrote:
| But even if your were to be cloned and your memories re-
| implanted, that would not necessarily be your consciousness
| hntrader wrote:
| Agreed, but by that definition my consciousness in 15
| years isn't me either, since most of the cells in my body
| will have been regenerated with different particles.
| hntrader wrote:
| > what I _really_ want is to continue on with my pre-
| existing memories/experiences
|
| This reminds me of an interesting philosophical question.
|
| To state the obvious, even if the clone had an exact copy
| of your memories/experiences, that clone isn't you, you've
| died. If I had a teleportation machine that could
| "teleport" you to work by destroying you painlessly and
| instantly at the source location, and reconstruct you
| particle for particle at destination, how many would use
| it? I wouldn't, however irrational that may be, because "I"
| would be dead.
|
| This bias is pretty interesting since by that definition we
| all die multiple times, as the particles that constitute
| our body are literally interchanging with the environment
| over time. But we don't feel uncomfortable about that fact.
| dxhdr wrote:
| > This reminds me of an interesting philosophical
| question.
|
| Also known as
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
|
| > This bias is pretty interesting since by that
| definition we all die multiple times, as the particles
| that constitute our body are literally interchanging with
| the environment over time. But we don't feel
| uncomfortable about that fact.
|
| I've wondered about that, is it strictly true? Aren't
| there heavy metals and other elements that are
| accumulated in the body over time? Or at least, they are
| eliminated so slowly that you'd never rid yourself of
| them completely before dying. I guess bones replace
| themselves every 10 years so any incorporated metals
| would have a chance to be eliminated on that timescale.
| But what's to stop a few of those elements making their
| way back into another structure after being ejected into
| the blood stream? Maybe we've all got a few persistent
| cadmium or lead atoms hanging out in our bodies from
| birth to death. Ship of Theseus crisis averted!
| missingrib wrote:
| It's not really the Ship of Theseus. The question OP was
| referring to is about the self and the continuity of
| consciousness specifically. Derek Parfit first proposed
| it in his book Reasons and Persons.[1][2]
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_parad
| ox
|
| [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_and_Persons
| r0m4n0 wrote:
| Great read... I've had similar thoughts before.
|
| Question though: when that thought experiment is applied
| to the physical body of a person, aren't our cells dying
| and being replaced constantly? Does that mean our
| identity changes over time and with new experiences?
| (Mind blown)
| [deleted]
| staticman2 wrote:
| Because it won't work?
| zucker42 wrote:
| You can spend the money on something that actually helps
| other people instead.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Actually it helps other people: it's used for researching
| more efficient ways of cryopreservation, thereby making it
| more accessible.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| The same money could be spent on increasing the rate of
| research in this area by 100-1000x if we could solve how
| to do this on mice first...
| Aeronwen wrote:
| The effectiveness of cryogenics goes way down when you
| don't freeze yourself.
| [deleted]
| zucker42 wrote:
| I believe the chance that anyone who is cryopreserved
| today will ever be revived is exceedingly small, so I
| look at the whole venture as futile and in the same way I
| might look at an overly expensive funeral. Personally, I
| would spend my money to enjoy my life more while I'm
| alive, or else to help others in some tangible way.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Actually it is important tech for living people as well.
| The technology De Greg Fahy is working on can be used to
| freeze and unfreeze organs. It may save your (living)
| life if you get an organ just at the right time.
| timonoko wrote:
| After the Final Countdown people will be delighted to find
| a warehouse full of cryo-preserved well-seasoned meat.
| neilsense wrote:
| Yawn.
| furyofantares wrote:
| You don't even need much money all at once, you can use life
| insurance.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| If your don't want to be frozen and want to do something
| useful with your money. If you care about preserving
| yourself, spread your genes or memes is a more effective way
| kubanczyk wrote:
| Spreading your memes for money is known as advertising. Not
| particularly cheap or effective. Didn't hear about anything
| similar for genes. These two are much better done by
| investing your own time and your own effort.
|
| Of the remaining important things that money can buy, I
| think cryogenics is a very decent gamble.
| justinclift wrote:
| > Didn't hear about anything similar for genes.
|
| Probably the most successful at this that I'm aware of
| (morality aside) are the IVF doctors who use their own
| sperm to impregnate women.
|
| Some with _many_ biological children from this. Results
| from a quick online search:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertold_Wiesner
|
| * https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/14/europe/jan-karbaat-
| fertil...
|
| Oh, this looks relevant too and suggests some other
| approaches. Harem's and/or being a king seem like winners
| for those so inclined:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_mos
| t_c...
| melling wrote:
| In 500 years when we have the technology to revive him and
| he can live a few hundred additional years, wouldn't his
| investment now be better?
|
| The understanding of aging, disease, and death is
| progressing slowly but a few centuries of research will
| likely make significant discoveries.
| elmomle wrote:
| Because it's profoundly selfish--you _might_ buy yourself
| more life in some unspecified future, or the same money today
| could definitely save and/or improve many, many lives now.
| coldtea wrote:
| Because you believe in science, not sci-fi inspired scientism
| metaphysics, so you know it's 100% bogus...
|
| If, and when, a real method for immortality/life extension
| emerges, we can jump on it.
|
| Merely frozing a corpse with the idea of some bogus future
| ressurection technology (that will still retain memories etc)
| is wishful thinking.
|
| Not to mention those cryo-preserves will be shut down with
| narry a thought in the first case of crisis...
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I remember a short movie (from "The Outer Limits?") where
| frozen bodies where entangled spiritually and there was a
| psychopath in the group that was making a hell of their lives.
|
| I do not remember the exact story but the idea was interesting
| to the 22yo me at that time (some 25 years ago)
|
| EDIT: I think this is "The Refuge" (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki
| /pmwiki.php/Recap/TheOuterLimits1...)
| stopChanging wrote:
| sounds like Ubik
| [deleted]
| kilroy123 wrote:
| I saw him several times at Dodger stadium. I never met him as I
| didn't want to go bother the guy.
|
| For those that don't know, he was a massive baseball and Dodger
| fan and would sit right behind home plate. He could often be seen
| on TV.
|
| He would often go to games and just sit at the bar watching from
| inside. Crazy but I guess he felt more comfortable there at the
| stadium instead of at home.
|
| RIP Larry
| xbar wrote:
| My older brother introduced me to intellectual literature,
| Larry King, the Dodgers, and PBS cooking shows in the 1980s.
|
| I wish I had kept as up to date with all of them as I did with
| Larry King for the rest of his career.
|
| RIP
| tux1968 wrote:
| Always enjoyed his interviews and his style. I happened to just
| watched a very short clip of him talking about his fear of death
| with Norm Macdonald last night. Guess we all have to face that
| moment, and even though he had a long and successful life i'm
| sorry for him and his family now.
|
| I linked the clip[1] below, but it may be a bit disconcerting and
| too soon to view for some.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/8ZKq7CoZv4w
| rococode wrote:
| Here's another clip of him repeating that fear:
| https://twitter.com/OfficialCHall/status/1352971460206276609
|
| Definitely more than just an off-hand comment, and, I think,
| quite a common fear among successful people. Bill Gates, Peter
| Thiel, Larry Ellison, and a handful of other tech execs have
| all shared how uncomfortable they are with death ("I don't
| understand how someone can stop existing", greatest fear is not
| being able to think, "death is a terrible, terrible thing",
| etc.).
| alsetmusic wrote:
| Sad news that he died.
|
| I don't identify with a fear of "not existing." Not existing
| doesn't have a negative connotation to me. It's an absence of
| awareness, so who cares?
| dkersten wrote:
| Right. I wasn't scared of the time before I existed, so why
| would I be scared of the time after.
| tolbish wrote:
| Because you've become rather fond of existing and would
| like to keep it that way?
| fattire wrote:
| Counterpoint: I am extremely scared of the fact that I
| don't exist on Antarctica and in the center of the
| Andromeda galaxy. And 10 meters below where I am. I'm just
| as dead on my roof right now. I'm dead in most of the
| universe RIGHT NOW and this is terrifying.
| fattire wrote:
| Update: I've just discovered I am not alone. Turns out
| Hannibal Hamlin, Abraham Lincoln's V.P., is just as
| dead/not in existence on my roof. This is very
| disconcerting and I hope there are no more ghosts like
| this in my vicinity.
| jamesrcole wrote:
| it's not being scared of that time after you've died, it's
| being scared of no longer being able to exist.
| taneq wrote:
| The survival instinct is the most basic drive in any living
| thing. If the idea of ceasing to exist truly doesn't make you
| uncomfortable then it might be worth talking to a
| professional...
| [deleted]
| abellerose wrote:
| Ah yes, the mentality that anyone that doesn't fear what I
| fear must be mentally ill in some way.
| isoskeles wrote:
| Some people say they don't fear death because they think it
| makes them sound brave.
|
| So I don't usually believe what people say about themselves
| on this topic. Unless they're quite old or lived through
| cancer or some similar situation where they had to confront
| their mortality, I won't assume they know how they truly
| feel about their death. It's just an idea when expressed
| with words, and simply thinking about it may not evoke real
| emotions.
| saberdancer wrote:
| There is a difference between survival instinct (would I
| swim up, jump to avoid getting hit by a car or duck if
| something is thrown at me) with fear of death.
|
| I don't fear death, I fear the process of dying, I wouldn't
| want it to be painful or slow, but not existing, that I do
| not fear.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| Agreed, and we'll said
| staticman2 wrote:
| Many religions are all about not fearing death as a goal.
| If your immediate reaction to hearing someone doesn't fear
| death is talk to a professional you have an interesting
| take on what professionals are for.
| dota_fanatic wrote:
| Those belief systems also tend to have things in store
| for the individual after death, though. Why should one
| fear death itself if it's actually the means to travel to
| a place where 72 virgins are waiting for them? Not
| disagreeing with your second sentence.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| The "ego in heaven" stuff is in the washed down religion
| for mass appeal, the actual mystical practices, whether
| islam christian or hindu/buddhist are overcoming
| attachment to your identity on earth, to identify your
| 'self' with the infinite unfolding of the universe so you
| know that 'you' never die, you just stop looking out this
| window.
| dalbasal wrote:
| At some point, you get to fundamentals. "Why live?" is not,
| IMO answerable logically or by reference to other things.
|
| That said, wanting not to die is fairly compatible with all
| our other beliefs and judgements. Murder is bad, for example.
| That's pretty compatible with not wanting to die.
| warent wrote:
| Many people see birth and death as a clearly defined ultimate
| boundary: the final infinite wall; a big blank room forever;
| the bookends of existence.
|
| but our origin can be traced backwards forever: present day;
| yesterday; childhood; exiting the womb; formation in the
| womb; initial conception; individual cells split between two
| people; grandparents; formation of the elements of the solar
| system; beginning of the universe; etc.
|
| Presently and onward we are also experiencing death: cells
| are dying and creating anew; elements breakdown and reform;
| etc.
|
| In this way we can see life and death are convenience
| abstractions for speech, but neither are real. This is an
| endless process of transfiguration and change.
|
| So what shakes me is the possibility that nonexistence and
| existence are an illusion, and this is just eternity
| acct776 wrote:
| You are One with the swirling oceanic vortex that Is.
| hackerNoose wrote:
| You don't fear it because it's an abstract thing to you. If
| you'll have an moment of facing impeding doom your primal
| instincts will rear it's head no doubt.
| rohit89 wrote:
| Unless you're sick and in pain, in which case you'll be
| wishing for it.
|
| I also don't fear not existing. But I do fear the
| possibility of an afterlife.
| [deleted]
| djitz wrote:
| People who want to maintain awareness.
| DJBunnies wrote:
| That's their point though. They wont have any.
| jamesrcole wrote:
| The person said "who cares?". This is an issue about
| people who are _still alive_ and their attitude towards
| death. What you 're saying doesn't apply.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| They like their life and want a future.
| DJBunnies wrote:
| That does not conflict with the premise though.
| scsilver wrote:
| Are people who are drawn to the spotlight more likely to
| care about what people think of them when they are not
| around/dead.
| DJBunnies wrote:
| Based on this Larry King example, I would agree. It seems
| related to ego and image.
| fattire wrote:
| Yeah, what an ego-maniacal self-centered jerk this guy is
| not wanting to die.
| gdubs wrote:
| I will forever associate Larry King with the movie "Spin". [1]
| It's a rather brilliant indie documentary about the 1992 (Bill
| Clinton / HW Bush) election based on a fascinating technological
| element: back then, Satellite TV feeds would often just keep
| running during commercial breaks, or warmups.
|
| So the director recorded a TON of footage from these moments
| where the politicians and news anchors acted themselves,
| seemingly unaware that anyone was watching.
|
| The segments with Larry King are, um, memorable. Very candid
| moments.
|
| 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(1995_film)
| antaviana wrote:
| Today I watched "Contact". Coincidentally, both Larry King and
| Clinton appear in cameos (I think that Clinton's cameo was
| unauthorized, though.)
| dfee wrote:
| Looks like a great watch. Unfortunately, I can't find Spin
| available anywhere - paid or less public.
|
| Kinda disappointing to see content like this virtually
| extinguished.
|
| Actually, it may be up on YouTube in full:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uock08dy19s
| nickysielicki wrote:
| They still do that. See https://www.lyngsat.com/america.html
|
| If you guys think "fuck it, we'll do it live" was bad, you
| should have seen Barbara Walters. I wish I recorded some of it.
| All these people in media have egos like you wouldn't believe.
| ridaj wrote:
| Thanks for the recommendation
|
| This one's pretty good: https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4
| [deleted]
| PIKAL wrote:
| How is it possible for any intellectually honest person to
| downvote a piece of raw, unedited and candid video footage?
| How?
| cal5k wrote:
| While the conspiracy theorists seem to love that one, I think
| he meant "serve" as in "serve on your cabinet".
| ridaj wrote:
| Obviously... What else do the conspirationists think it
| mean?
| krapp wrote:
| Likely that Ted Turner was offering to have CNN serve as
| a propaganda machine for the Clinton Administration or
| the Democratic Party at large, due to their common
| political sympathies.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Thanks. I haven't seen it, but this looks like it might be
| the full documentary:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlJkgQZb0VU
|
| Here's the part where the documentary explains how he got all
| the behind-the-scenes footage:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlJkgQZb0VU&t=3m58s. TLDR -
| raw video from remote studios were first beamed via satellite
| to the Network's HQ for editing and "packaging". But back in
| those days, people with satellite boxes could intercept and
| view the raw pre-packaged feeds.
| cbhl wrote:
| You should also be able to find it on the Internet Archive.
|
| https://archive.org/details/SPINSpringer1995
| Stratoscope wrote:
| In fact it looks like the film was uploaded to IA by
| Brian Springer (the filmmaker) himself, along with many
| of the source tapes:
|
| https://archive.org/details/@brnspring
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| There's a slightly longer version (1hr15 to credits)
| here. I'm not sure what the differences are.
| https://mediaburn.org/video/spin/
| chovybizzass wrote:
| Long Live King Larry. back when CNN actually had news.
| wesleywt wrote:
| Its still news. You just want to an opinion, which is not news.
| smoyer wrote:
| Oh how I long for the days when any of the "news channels"
| actually had news. Is there anybody who simply states facts
| anymore?
| treeman79 wrote:
| Jamie Dupree is what I consider a gold standard reporter of
| trying to get personal bias out of reporting.
| geff82 wrote:
| Euronews simply has facts.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" Is there anybody who simply states facts anymore?"_
|
| Which facts?
|
| Picking and choosing which facts to report is in itself a way
| of controlling the narrative.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Plenty, but you have to find them first.
|
| But even if news LOOKS like they stick to the facts, you
| should still look at them critically and get your news from
| multiple sources; they can still influence your opinion
| simply by omission or by emphasis (random example: put a
| muslim terrorist attack front and center, put a nazi
| terrorist attack in a byline or not publish it at all).
|
| The news items themselves can be presented neutrally, but
| what news to present and how still matters.
| wiredfool wrote:
| How do you put a terrorist attack in a byline?
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Simple, do what they are doing with the Nashville bombing
| and the Las Vegas shooting before that. Don't bother
| investigating any relatives, family members, or
| neighbors. Do a few fluff interviews with the FBI or the
| police and put it somewhere at the bottom of the page.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| No because:
|
| 1) Glenn Greenwald said that US journalists must toe the
| leftist narrative or they will be shunned by fellow
| journalists
|
| 2) Youtube has just demonetized one of the few remaining
| independent media outlets, NTD/Epoch Times.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| "facts", when presented individually, can create almost any
| impression the fact presenter wants to create. and that's
| what we've been seeing so much of - people looking at "facts"
| outside of larger contexts, and (intentionally or not)
| drawing wrong conclusions.
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| You are correct there. It is easy to take two facts and
| extrapolate almost anything you want. I think the issue is
| that in a lot of modern news the facts are lost in the
| opinions and rhetoric and extrapolation to the party line.
| It is better to have lists of facts than lists of opinions;
| and even better to have a coherent collection of facts that
| all corroborate one another. It is good to have a variety
| of primary sources and hard data over a long time period.
| Too often the news just quotes a death figure without
| giving you context of how many people usually die in a
| year, or other information; presumably that data exists. It
| would be much better to have death rates for each year over
| the last hundred years, then be able to compare.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| I had months of people telling me the 'fact' that "Fauci
| said not to wear a mask! That's a fact! Go read it here!"
|
| When presented with "well, he also later said 'wear a
| mask' - which is also a fact"... I would get "fake news"
| or "he flip flops and therefore can't be trusted". When
| pointed out they were still 'trusting' the "don't wear a
| mask" fact... things usually ended there, with some
| profanity thrown my way.
|
| When more information was presented, it was almost always
| countered with "that's just your opinion". Or... "I don't
| trust CNN", etc. At some point a switch flips with many
| people and "facts" only count when they match your
| internal belief system.
| iso1210 wrote:
| Which facts?
|
| A list of facts is often biassed.
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| I think the main issue is when there are _no_ facts, no
| primary sources, no hard data.
| guerrilla wrote:
| That's a second problem. You still need to solve the first
| one to even have that one.
| pmorici wrote:
| PBS News Hour? There isn't enough of National or Global
| importance to fill a 24/7 broadcast so any channel that needs
| to fill that amount of time is doomed to have poor quality.
| jghn wrote:
| They'll repeat, but it's not clear why that is poor
| quality. It's not a _bad_ thing that there's not true,
| honest to goodness, novel news at all hours of the day.
| jghn wrote:
| Al Jazeera English (can't speak to the other streams) has
| 30-60 minute blocks of actual news throughout the day.
| Another benefit is that they have a more global perspective
| so those news blocks are a lot more likely to be covering the
| unrest in Darfur than a human interest story about a woman in
| Idaho who just ate her 10000th Big Mac
| p1esk wrote:
| Not gonna lie, I'm more likely to click on Big Mac woman
| video than on unrest in Darfur.
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| I wish more people would post primary sources & hard data. A
| lot of people will disagree with the content, but "The Last
| American Vagabond"[1] does a good job of presenting primary
| sources (usually medical journals/studies, gov't press
| releases, interviews, CDC, WHO etc.); includes links to all
| of them in all show notes so you can look through all of it.
| The main point here is that including primary sources is
| important, and I don't see most people doing that. I wish
| more news sources would include the primary sources and more
| hard data to support their position.
|
| [1] http://thelastamericanvagabond.com/
| codysan wrote:
| It's just as misleading to string together dozens of
| "sources" in an article to prop up a narrative. It appears
| to me that the website you've linked is just playing on
| peoples paranoia, a la YouTube "news" channels. If the
| actual content has to chase the dramatic headline the
| entire time, you can be sure that it's a whole lot of BS.
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| News channels were always like this. We just have the internet
| to cross check now.
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| I think some news was always like this; but I think
| investigative journalism like Glenn Greenwald used to be
| given more time in the primetime news. Really shocking things
| were uncovered and actually spread (like Norman Gorin's 60
| Minutes Report on 1976 swine flu). There is news that is
| fantastic now, but it is getting pushed further and further
| out.
| codysan wrote:
| News channels do not broadcast 24 hours of news. The majority
| of programming are personalities, opinions and "recaps." The
| actual news comes on in hour-long chunks once early in the
| morning, mid-day and at primetime.
| matwood wrote:
| > The actual news comes on in hour-long chunks once early
| in the morning, mid-day and at primetime.
|
| Yep, even Fox has some 'real' news a few times a day. Or at
| least they did until Sheppard Smith quit.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I'm not going to say my news is perfect, but it's from a
| non-commercial / nonpartisan organization, they get money
| from the government / taxes (which is less than ideal, but
| their independence is codified I believe), etc. It sticks
| to the news, professional-like.
|
| Switch to the commercial channels (we thankfully don't have
| major 24 hour news channels) and the news on there has much
| more er, Personalities, quirkiness, some silly background
| news, and a weatherman that travels the country to visit
| events and petting zoos and shit.
| codysan wrote:
| State-funded media has it's own problems but at least
| there's some accountability which is effectively
| nonexistent for large media companies. As long as the
| free market rewards sensationalism, there will be profit
| driven "journalism." Ultimately, the general populace
| needs to be educated on the veracity of news in the
| digital age; how to spot a misleading headline, and how
| to corroborate actual expository works.
| specialist wrote:
| As you well know:
|
| The trick is paying attention long enough to determine if
| sources stay consistent, issue proper corrections &
| retractions, are intellectually honest, etc.
|
| Or if the purveyors are just hacking ratings, for more ad
| revenue.
|
| In the 80s, I eschewed a career in broadcast media. I
| _loved_ the gear, doing creative stuff, working in the
| studio. But absolutely hated the business. "If it
| bleeds, it leads."
|
| We've been complaining about outrage engines since the
| beginning. Social media just made things much much worse.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> News channels were always like this. We just have the
| internet to cross check now.
|
| CNN was not in the beginning. They were a scrappy news
| channel that came to prominence with real reporting (most
| notably in the Iraq war). They got corrupted once it was
| clear they could not be ignored.
|
| News sources have probably always had bias, but it was never
| such blatant characature back in the day.
| ecopoesis wrote:
| CNN launched in 1980. The Gulf war was in 1990. Larry King
| Live premiered on CNN in 1985.
|
| CNN has long been a mix of news and opinion, like all news
| media ever. That's why media exists: to push facts and
| interpretations of those facts.
|
| Media is not a charity: William Randolph Hearst and Ted
| Turner want something for their money: they want to control
| the narrative.
|
| It has always been blatant: you just haven't been paying
| attention. Hearst started a war! He was such a reviled
| figure that one of the greatest movies ever made was made
| to dunk on him.
| rayiner wrote:
| I distinctly remember when CNN jumped the shark. It was
| during the 2000 election coverage when they started
| introducing all these computer generated graphics.
| asveikau wrote:
| I remember their coverage of Monica Lewinsky and related
| issues being pretty annoying, along with the rest of the
| networks.
|
| I remember when Clinton tried to attack claimed al Qaeda
| infrastructure after the embassy bombings and made a
| speech about bin Laden (the first time I heard the name)
| they asked if it was to distract from Monica. Compared it
| to the film _Wag the Dog_.
| wisam wrote:
| I'm not even American, but CNN coverage of the 1990-91 Gulf
| War really put them on the radar. The whole Middle East
| watched CNN Live coverage.
| mbg721 wrote:
| Anecdotally, (and I am American) it was also somewhere
| between the Gulf War and the OJ Simpson trial that cable
| changed from some exotic thing that rich people paid for
| to something a lot of your friends had.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I remember there was this CNN guy in Bagdad that reported
| the air attacks live from there. That definitely put them
| on the map.
| dhimes wrote:
| Wolf Blitzer, IIRC, did that.
| lukateake wrote:
| Wolf Blitzer was the CNN reporter at the Pentagon that
| day. He appears in the first video linked above.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Al Franken and his One Man Mobile Uplink!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHKiVkeup2o
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCwYfNo3BGU
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxyMnhqhEII
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Just remembered: Peter Arnett. He was the only one who
| had a phone line out from Iraq during the first attacks.
| evgen wrote:
| Bernard Shaw and a couple of other reporters from what I
| remember. I distinctly recall tuning in a few minutes
| after things started and listening to them hide in the
| hotel room as Iraqi security started to clear the hotel
| that all of the reporters were staying in at the time.
| bena wrote:
| Dude had a cameo in the first Ghostbusters. Larry King
| was already a known entity. There's a reason CNN picked
| him up.
|
| Never mind, I got mixed up, you're talking about just
| CNN.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| He also went with Snoop to Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles
| and did not appear to enjoy the food.
| epc wrote:
| Just in the past week someone posted what appears to be
| control room video from CNN in 1991 (and others):
| https://youtu.be/5CxWCWhs-uc - start of the US air war,
| https://youtu.be/RpClxMvpEmM - second hour.
| koolba wrote:
| For the curious, that was in 2010.
| epc wrote:
| Facts don't attract viewers, facts don't pay.
| mxcrossb wrote:
| Hence why over half of the comments in this thread about the
| passing of Larry King are about the political bent of CNN
| mbg721 wrote:
| Was that about the same time period MTV had music videos?
| ecopoesis wrote:
| Don't parrot popular false narratives. CNN still has news
| today, though generally only on breaking news type situations.
| It turns out the Internet is better for headlines then a
| thirty-minute talking head loop.
|
| And when on CNN Larry King wasn't part of their news operation.
| He was a talk show radio host. Larry King Live was Oprah for
| old men. Larry King is big part of why CNN moved away from 100%
| news.
| beervirus wrote:
| CNN does still have news. But a lot of what it has is more
| like unlabeled editorials, treated like news.
| mbg721 wrote:
| Even Fox News has news, for 30 seconds at the top of the
| hour or whatever it is.
| _Microft wrote:
| Stop spreading FUD, CNN actually does have news. Certain parts
| of the populace might _not like_ their reporting but that's it.
| tspowell wrote:
| CNN uses clickbait titles and misleading interpretations to
| pander to their viewers for page views. They are far from
| respectable.
| briefcomment wrote:
| I'm sure there's news, but it's always buried under a mound
| of opinion. And there's news worthy facts that get
| conveniently left out.
| MobileVet wrote:
| Every organization has bias, period. Some have more, some
| have less. The sooner one recognizes and accepts it, the
| sooner one is able to have constructive conversations and
| consume media with the appropriate level of skepticism.
|
| News is a business like any other. They require money,
| which is equal to clicks in the online world. Hate the
| game, not the player (unless they are purposefully
| distorting reality).
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Mostly CNN is sensationalistic and wants to develop an
| attachment to it's brand. CNN has to fill 24 hrs of TV and
| has less budget to do it then a network has for the half
| hour evening broadcast.
|
| That means as little flying to flyover states as possible,
| never leave WDC or Atlanta, certainly dont send Anderson
| Cooper to Egypt where he could get beat up by government
| thugs.
|
| Thus its a lot easier to make the news about yourself;
| reminds me of the ESPN morning SportsCenter from years ago
| -- when they ran out of sports lowlights the anchors would
| get caught abusing people on tape.
| maxerickson wrote:
| https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anderson-cooper-
| attac...
|
| Are you saying they changed in the last 10 years? CNN has
| revenues in excess of $1 billion, so they are likely
| spending millions of dollars a day.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Yes, they've gotten worse.
|
| AC used to go to interesting places and do interesting
| things. After he got beat up they'd have him sit behind a
| desk and report on WDC politicians acting like children
| except he had to take them seriously instead of calling
| out their behavior.
|
| Before Trump came on the scene you would hear them talk
| about themselves on a slow news Sunday, and the big
| problem they face was low ratings. You might think they
| just chased away people with saturation cover of school
| shootings and plane crashes, but they tried many
| different things and convinced themselves they were doing
| the optimal thing.
|
| Probably the owners thought about shutting it down, but
| the presence of Fox News made that seem really
| irresponsible.
|
| Trump came and it was great for ratings, like 9/11 every
| day. That's over now.
| dakics wrote:
| There are Arwa Damon and Clarissa Ward. Then another
| female anchor, who people-smuggled herself through Africa
| with a hidden camera. They are all serious badasses, I
| don't even watch movies that tense.
|
| There will always be another storm season for Chris Cuomo
| and AC. :-)
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| Watch recordings of the news coverage of 9/11. The news
| casters were sober and stunned of course, but they were
| emotionally calm and allowed for moments of silence. They
| tried to only reference what they considered facts, or were
| extremely explicit in stating that something was a rumor.
|
| Look at them now. The emotionality of everything is amped up
| to 11. They reference Twitter constantly. Everything is an
| existential crisis, and when Trump was in office, everything
| was his fault. During the 2015 democratic primaries and 2016
| election, CNN got the nickname "Clinton News Network" because
| of how one-sided the coverage was.
|
| There's a reason that trust in news is decaying. Though this
| is kind of a tangent from the main topic.
| isbadawi wrote:
| Just to clarify, Donald Trump called them "Clinton News
| Network". I think it's a little misleading to say they just
| "got the nickname".
| selimthegrim wrote:
| He took that from Rush Limbaugh
| treeman79 wrote:
| They always leaned left. But there was an expectation of
| being neutral, or at least appearing so. Basically being
| professional.
|
| That restraint has been lost. Watching young reporters is
| painful in his much they are tying to get jabs in. Like a
| dog being rewarded for killing neighbors chickens.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| It's equivalent of Fox news, they really went insane from all
| the attention trump gave them. It sure feels like a pure
| propaganda channel now.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I am pretty left wing but what I have seen from CNN lately
| was basically a left wing version of FoxNews. Lots of opinion
| mixed with a little amount of news and clearly geared against
| Trump. Definitely not the CNN from around 2000.
| ianai wrote:
| The danger in having so many extremist elements on the
| right side is, in part, breeding extremism on the left. The
| situation would be helped if the right side extremism
| became less extreme - either through lack of interest or
| conscious choice on their part.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" CNN lately was basically a left wing version of FoxNews.
| Lots of opinion mixed with a little amount of news and
| clearly geared against Trump."_
|
| You don't have to be on the left to be critical of Trump.
| Plenty of right wingers (including Bush Jr) are critical of
| him. He's made a lot of enemies all over the political
| spectrum.
|
| To me CNN is basically a right-wing channel, just not as
| right-wing as FOX.
|
| For real left-wing media, watch _Democracy Now!_ or read
| _The Nation_.
| forinti wrote:
| I used to watch CNN, but it just doesn't seem serious
| anymore. It's all about getting people into heated debates
| (inspired by Fox maybe?) or presenters having emotions or
| interviewers trying to corner people with their
| righteousness. Amanpour has very different approaches
| depending on who she interviews; her preferences are just too
| obvious.
|
| The news channel I like best nowadays is Aljazeera. I like
| some shows on RT, but it is not really a news channel either.
| sparkling wrote:
| If we are talking about the TV station, 20% of any given news
| clip are actual information, the remaining 80% are spins and
| opinion from the editor or host.
|
| Also, we are really stretching the meaning of the word "news"
| nowadays. Remember this piece?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixEahmx0Btw
|
| While i have great respect for Larry King, i have lost nearly
| all respect for CNN. By the way, the same applies to Fox.
| greatwhitenorth wrote:
| CNN is a warner media company and they're a for profit
| business. They will say anything to make money. If you're an
| expert in a topic, read how it's reported in CNN/media. You
| will see how much they lie and exaggerate.
| betimsl wrote:
| Ngushellime familjes.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| In my mind any good he's done was long erased by his
| informercials for scam supplements -- no wonder old folks hate
| the Government, most of what they see advertised on TV is fraud
| in plain site and nobody does anything about it.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Nothing is erased by other things, luckily. We just have to
| live with complexity. That's not to say nothing overshadows
| other things, but if one deed canceled another there would be
| nearly no deeds.
|
| If you zero out everyone who ever worked for a filthy oil
| company, pharma, held bad beliefs, buys or sells harmful
| products, etc... there isn't much that's decent in the world.
|
| High standards is a good thing, and we should strive to live
| our ideals but there is a gulf between our ideals and our
| present reality. "To hell with reality" is not a viable
| perspective.
|
| If you are reborn born a pharaoh's prince tomorrow, is the only
| moral path fratricide?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Excellent comment;
|
| from The Gulag Archipelago,
|
| "If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil
| people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it
| were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and
| destroy them.
|
| But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of
| every human being."
|
| I laugh when I see so called progressives acting the same as
| puritanical early Americans in their infantile understanding
| of humanity.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Great quote.
|
| Leonard Cohen's Anthem is about something similar:
|
| _Ah, the wars they will be fought again / The holy dove,
| she will be caught again / Bought and sold, and bought
| again / The dove is never free
|
| Ring the bells that still can ring / Forget your perfect
| offering. / There is a crack, a crack in everything /
| That's how the light gets_
|
| George Martin quotes a William Faulkner all the time about
| fictional subject matter. _"The only thing worth writing
| about is the human heart in conflict with itself."_
|
| It's why his fantasy stories have that gritty realism. The
| knights of Gondor riding against the evil horde of Sauron
| meme becomes parody. Good and evil is more subtle, cuts
| through the heart of every human being... regularly. The
| fantasy element is just about scale. It might be a choice
| between being kinda jerky and nice. Most people can be
| both. Novels get into a character's head. Stories where
| good and evil is a conflict within that head feel more
| real, because that's what it's like inside our heads.
| samstave wrote:
| There is actual objective good though, and objective evil.
|
| Did you see the video of the chinese man beating Uygur
| children that were "given" to him because their parents
| were harvested off to whatever the fuck the chinese
| government are going to do to those parents.
|
| As a father of three daughters, I would personally kill
| that motherfucker for what he did to those three little
| girls.
|
| My actions would be an objectively GOOD thing for humanity
| by killing that piece of shit. His actions were objectively
| EVIL and if anyone can watch that video and think there is
| * _anything*_ ok with it, then they are also objectively
| EVIL.
| packersville wrote:
| Thank you for this response. I logged in for the first time
| in a long time just to thank you!
| dalbasal wrote:
| thanks
| nindalf wrote:
| It's funny you should blame the government for this. In the 90s
| people actually died from shady supplements. In response the
| FDA tried to expand its authority to regulating these
| supplements. The industry started a scaremongering ad campaign
| telling people that they wouldn't be able to get Vitamin C
| supplements unless they wrote their congressman. Many did. Reps
| received more letters from their constituents on this one Bill
| than the entire Vietnam War [1]. In response to pressure from
| constituents, government reversed course.
|
| The unelected experts in Government tried to do the right
| thing. It's the people who were so easily misled that forced
| the end of regulation for dietary supplements.
|
| Paraphrasing what Terry Pratchett said, the problem here isn't
| that we have the wrong sort of government, it's that we have
| the wrong sort of people.
|
| [1] - https://youtu.be/WA0wKeokWUU
| samstave wrote:
| This isn't my first rodeo - can I scam you into a reverse
| mortgage?
| specialist wrote:
| Former US Rep Henry Waxman has written about his efforts to
| regulate supplements. It won't surprise you that certain
| stake holders, like US Sen Orrin Hatch (Utah), ran
| interference. (Mormons love their vitamins.)
|
| Older me has come to see these slap fights as generational, a
| la Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's a really
| big deal. Until it isn't. Marriage equality, cannabis
| legalization, banning cigarette ads, yada yada.
|
| One of my political friends worked EIGHTEEN YEARS to pass the
| most modest portion of some family medical leave legislation.
| These reforms take tenacity, undying optimism, and no small
| amount of nuttiness. (Normal people choose to do more normal
| things.)
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The same people don't trust the media and I am sure that they
| lose many percentage points because of scammy ads, not
| because they think it through, but because the scam ad
| feelings blend over into the media ezperience.
| hashkb wrote:
| As for the "wrong sort of people" - iirc, most dangerous
| ingredients and chemicals from the 90s were diet pills,
| calorie free sweeteners, appetite suppressants, etc. We'd
| rather die than have a little dad bod.
| dalbasal wrote:
| True, but it's a somewhat false dichotomy. More like
| "rather die than drink unsweetened drinks." A body to die
| for has a little glory to it. Dying for gluttony is closer
| to the mark.
| hashkb wrote:
| I should be just as respected for having a 6 pack as for
| drinking one every night. I think Terry might agree.
| skizm wrote:
| More like we'd rather die or be fat than just eat healthy
| in the first place lol.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Funny is one word for it.
| microtherion wrote:
| And to answer with Bertolt Brecht "would it not be be simpler
| if the government simply dissolved the people and elected
| another?"
| Spooky23 wrote:
| King came from overnight talk radio, and scammy supplements
| have always a big part of that business.
|
| Today it's escalated... bs supplements are like a form of money
| laundering. How do you think every angry talk show host says
| the same exact thing at the same time?
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Escalated indeed.
|
| "A major funder of the anti-vaccine movement has made
| millions selling natural health products"
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2019/10/15/fdc.
| ..
| Frost1x wrote:
| Government definitely shares the blame here but let's not
| forget business practices that humor the idea of directly lying
| to customers.
|
| Statistically, that older population are the very population
| that votes for representatives pushing looser
| regulations/enforcement on businesses that enable these sort of
| behaviors. Representatives clearly looking out for business
| interests over the average voter's interest (the consumers)
| don't help matters.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Right, that's why the right wing is so dominant in America:
| there is a positive feedback loop such that the carnage they
| cause gives them more power.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| R: Government doesn't work.
|
| _R gets elected and proceeds to sabotage government_
|
| R: See government doesn't work!
|
| Example: Trump put Rick Perry in charge of the Department
| of Energy including our nuclear labs. Rick Perry had
| previously said the Department of Energy should be
| dismantled and should no longer exist.
| [deleted]
| sidlls wrote:
| This doesn't deserve downvotes: it's the truth. I'd add:
| the feedback loop works in part because there really is not
| a left wing in America. There is a right wing (democrats)
| and a dangerously unstable, evil extremist wing
| (republicans).
| [deleted]
| astheydo12 wrote:
| UK main stream tabloid media is painting this as covid, perhaps
| not exactly (use of commas and within), but knowingly inferring
| it was from covid, buried in the article is lung cancer, t2, and
| several other degenerative diseases. Getting sick of covid fear
| being spun. Slightly OT.
|
| tl;dr he died. not of covid.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| He was mensch. Z"L
| [deleted]
| PIKAL wrote:
| Decades ago, the news networks used to beam AV via satellite
| directly from the remote station in the field back to
| headquarters to be broadcast. They didn't encrypt those signals,
| so anyone could pick them up if they knew how. This was raw
| footage, so there would often be candid segments showing people
| setting stuff up or getting ready for an interview.
|
| Someone recorded a lot of these and later published a multi-hour
| compilation of them on YouTube. I forget the name of that
| compilation, but I can tell you that the following is by far the
| most interesting segment from it.
|
| https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4
|
| When I try to tell people about this segment, they don't believe
| me. They write me off as being insane. Decide for yourself. Don't
| believe what the news media tells you.
|
| Edit: DanG, why is my comment being collapsed when it has ~20
| upvotes?
| bikitan wrote:
| "Deciding for yourself" doesn't mean jumping to conspiratorial
| conclusions based on an ambiguous, off-the-cuff remark from
| 1992, though. And just looking at the comments on that video
| you can see what sort of agenda these people are bringing to
| their judgments.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Most journalism has an editorial line, which is usually
| aligned with the people that pay the bills. It is the case
| for newspapers, radio, TV... even websites.
|
| Very rarely you have journalism with neutral editorial lines.
| xxpor wrote:
| There's no such thing as neutrality. Usually when people
| talk about neutrality, they really mean status quo, or
| worse giving equal weight to "both sides" (implying the
| major US political parties are the only possible views on a
| subject), without even trying to assertain the truth of the
| matter.
|
| Journalism isn't simply putting facts down on paper, but
| it's also interpreting how it affects the reader. Even if
| you pretend to simply write the who what when and where of
| a story, you still have to choose what to cover. That in
| and of itself has no right answer, you inevitably make an
| idological choice.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| You can argue "there's no such thing as neutrality"...
| but consider the following:
|
| News Station A:
|
| 1. Heavily edited clip of political candidate saying
| something.
|
| 2. News anchor provides a 10 min opinion of what
| happened.
|
| 3. An analyst is invited to give their opinion about what
| happened for 30 min..
|
| News Station B:
|
| 1. Video of what happened.
|
| 2. News anchor describes when it happened and where. No
| accompanying opinion is provided.
|
| What is more neutral? News Station B, for sure. The first
| format is the only one available in the US, in my country
| that format is considered yellow journalism and is
| unacceptable.
| PIKAL wrote:
| Raw video footage doesn't have an agenda. You have clearly
| decided for yourself what the footage means to you. Good for
| you.
| colordrops wrote:
| No leaked videos are even necessary. It should be obvious to
| any critical thinker that CNN is the Democrat version of FOX
| news with a small amount of viewing.
| na85 wrote:
| It seems quite obvious to me that Larry is trying to get Ted
| Turner a job in the Clinton Administration.
|
| What are you seeing there that's so shocking?
| tanotcare wrote:
| "serve" him in a cabinet position. Hope that clears things up!
| PIKAL wrote:
| And you would say the same thing if the same footage came out
| but it was Bill O Reilly, Rupert Murdoch and George Bush
| instead of Clinton, King and Turner?
| ChrisClark wrote:
| Um, yes, of course. Isn't it obvious what the context is?
| PIKAL wrote:
| In what context should billionaire media moguls be
| serving, colluding or collaborating with politicians of
| any kind, let alone a presidential candidate?
| CptFribble wrote:
| There is a long history of presidentially-appointed
| people saying they "serve at the pleasure of the
| President." It simply means that they hold the job only
| so long as the president wants them there.
|
| This has extended "serving" to broader, more casual usage
| when speaking about people who work for the president as
| you can see here. It's not "serving" like working as a
| servant/a billionaire doing whatever the president says
| in a controlling/exploitative way, it just means that
| Larry King thinks that Ted Turner wouldn't turn down a
| cabinet appointment.
|
| You can also infer from the way King says that "what's he
| got left in life to gain," and Clinton's surprised
| "you're kidding," that they both consider this kind of
| service to be a major downgrade from the billionaire life
| - King saying here that Ted Turner has nothing left to
| gain indicates a separation in his mind between personal
| gain and working for the Clinton administration.
| Clinton's surprised response tells us he feels the same
| way, surprise that a billionaire would want to work for
| the president.
| PIKAL wrote:
| A very substantive comment.
| isbadawi wrote:
| Has the comment you're replying to made you change your
| interpretation of the clip?
| qqj wrote:
| yikes, what a sleazebag. Larry hit the anti-Semitic trifecta
| (Jews, Israel and media moguls in bed with politicians) in
| under a minute of just random chit chat. The mind reels at the
| shady backroom deals this man was responsible for.
| xeromal wrote:
| I'm being 100% honest here. I'm having a hard time following
| what he said or the meaning behind it at least. Care to
| elaborate?
| nickdonnelly wrote:
| Long and short of it: Ted Turner is the guy who created
| CNN, a very influential news source in the US. Many people
| consider CNN to be a "left-wing" news source, and in the
| clip King talks to Bill Clinton, a democratic politician,
| about Ted Turner "serving" Clinton after he was elected
| president.
|
| The use of the word "serving" is the issue, as it sounds
| like a quid pro quo.
| fattire wrote:
| It could just as easily mean "serve" as in your
| administration-- in a cabinet position for example.
| syshum wrote:
| >> Many people consider CNN to be a "left-wing" news
| source
|
| Are their people that do see the clear bias of the
| network?
|
| This is like saying "Many people consider Fox news to be
| a "right wing" network"
|
| There is no doubt of the political leanings of either
| network. CNN is/was not called Clinton News Network for
| nothing.....
| qqj wrote:
| You have to see this through 90's lens: back then the
| media wasn't nearly as polarized, and the public had much
| greater trust in news networks, especially in CNN. "Fake
| news" was mostly relegated to the domain of conspiracy
| theories, and blatant promotions of political agendas as
| neutral news wouldn't fly back then (although, of course,
| the networks did have an agenda and did promote it, but
| they were... much more subtle and civil about the whole
| thing).
| syshum wrote:
| I was alive, and consuming news in the 90's
|
| In the 90's the bias was shown in the stories they choose
| to cover and what they choose to ignore not in the
| coverage itself
|
| this is still true today but now in addition to this bias
| there is almost zero "strait" reporting, everything has
| political commentary mixed in, some more subtle than
| others but it is still there. Even in places like APnews
| where it is more subtle
| umanwizard wrote:
| CNN is not really "left-wing" in a broad ideological
| sense. It's the unofficial mouthpiece of the Democratic
| Party and the "liberal" side of the US culture war. Note
| for example how poorly they treated Sanders who was
| further left than any of the other mainstream candidates.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| I'm tired of fact-based and reason-based news being
| painted as 'left-wing". CNN is just the news. I miss when
| we all watched the same news and it tried to be objective
| and half the country wasn't watching provably false news
| and wanting to split off into madness and domestic terror
| cells and make the human race go backwards.
| mattcwilson wrote:
| There is a difference between "this news source strikes
| me as not being too politically extreme in either
| direction compared to my own views" and "this news source
| is completely neutral and objective with respect to all
| political views."
|
| How can you be sure you're not seeing the former and
| calling it the latter?
| syshum wrote:
| If you believe CNN is "just the news" then you are
| suffering from reinforcing confirmation bias as well as
| echo chamber.
|
| You agree with the positions CNN takes there for it is
| "news" and outlets that have differing positions to those
| you agree with are "fake news" and "want to make the
| human race go backwards"
| syshum wrote:
| It is 100% NOT the liberal side of the cultural war.
| There really is no liberal side
|
| The right side is theological authoritarian, the Left
| side is illiberal Identitarianism which is ironic because
| identitarianism started out as a "far right" ideology but
| in a real world example of the horseshoe theory of
| politics has become far-left authoritarian
| qqj wrote:
| The way I interpret it, Mr. King is suggesting to Clinton
| he (Clinton) might be interested in establishing a
| reciprocal relationship with one of most prominent media
| moguls and politically influential billionaires, Ted
| Turner.
|
| Teddy helps Billy with the optics on CNN, maybe funding
| various campaigns, and in turn Billy helps Teddy with his
| own projects, like I dunno, passing a bill to kill off
| competitors and so on.
|
| The yin and yang that are Politics and Media.
| fattire wrote:
| You're reading QUITE a bit into that.
| [deleted]
| fattire wrote:
| Nothing especially bad. He talks about how incredible it is
| he reaches so many countries with his broadcast-- at the
| time a staggering thought-- and to illustrate tells a story
| of seeing a praying Rabbi at the Wailing/Western wall in
| Jerusalem who turns to ask king about domestic US politics
| (Ross Perot, who ran against Clinton and Bush).
|
| Then he basically says Ted Turner, founder of CNN, is a
| nice guy to work for and is a fan of Clinton (as if he is
| not allowed to be?) and could "serve you" whatever that
| means which I guess could be as ominous as your imagination
| allows but probably means in his administration.
|
| There is zero antisemitism expressed. Only Larry King and
| the Israeli rabbi interested in American politics are
| Jewish. Clinton, Perot, and Turner are not.
|
| The claimed outrage is absurd.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > There is zero antisemitism expressed.
|
| I believe qqj was saying it's ammo for anti semites that
| hits those 3 accusations, not that Larry King was
| expressing anti semitism.
| fattire wrote:
| I dunno, who do you think he was saying was the
| sleazebag? I don't see the "ammo" here-- neither Turner
| and Clinton are Jewish.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| "Serve in an administration" is a fairly common phrase, I
| believe is the only important additional context needed.
| bane wrote:
| You can see a number of these here
| https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Brian+Spri...
| toddey65 wrote:
| I don't see anything wrong with this. I mean it's like I'm
| talking to Elon Musk. And I have a friend who really wants to
| work at Tesla. Yeah I'd be a good friend and mention him to
| Elon Musk.
| libertine wrote:
| The man that didn't want to die because he didn't believe in
| after life, and wanted to be frozen so he could keep on going.
|
| I wonder if they could even fulfill his wish due to covid...
| qubex wrote:
| Tangentially related: the first time I got online with a 56k
| modem way back in mid '99, cnn.com was the first website I could
| think of pointing my browser (Netscape) to.
| xeromal wrote:
| I remember being online around '98 and I remember playing
| starcraft but that's about it. I can't even remember what I
| read on the internet. I think cheatcc.com? Haha
| dkersten wrote:
| I don't remember what the first site I visited was, but I
| remember the whole hype about "going online on the internet"
| and it being rather anticlimactic in the end.
| philtar wrote:
| '97 or '98 for me.
|
| Went online because I heard Nasa put up pictures of Mars so the
| first website I went to was nasa.gov
|
| I typed out the entire url like nasa.gov/pathfinder/images or
| whatever it was after seeing it on TV and writing it down. It
| took a while to load and then was super underwhelming. I think
| I searched for Sonic The Hedgehog next.
| baccheion wrote:
| The first site I visited was porn.com. 1998.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| First time was me and my dad going to the local library, really
| thinking on what the heck to do. I think we went for lego.com
| (I must've been around nine at the time?).
|
| Later when we got internet at home we looked up "spelletjes"
| (Dutch for games) aaand ended up on a porn site. Thankfully not
| one with images on the front page.
| taneq wrote:
| I think my first brush with the internet was in 96 or 97 and I
| ended up staring at a Yahoo search box with absolutely no idea
| what to even do with it.
|
| Netscape Navigator 4 or something. Good times.
| wisam wrote:
| 2001 was the first time I got online; first site visited was
| also cnn.com on a 56k modem.
| kippinitreal wrote:
| Great interview with Larry King focused on his interview style:
| https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/larry-king/id124844662...
|
| Some great stories in there including one about how in his early
| days he would play a game with his producer where he'd go in
| blind and try and figure out who his guest is. I guess this
| helped him develop his "average guy" style. While series is worth
| a listen if interview styles is of interest.
| djmips wrote:
| My favorite part of this interview about interviewing. King: "I
| hate interviewers who don't ask questions but make statements"
| Thorn: "Well that's just what I was going to say. One of things
| about your interview style that's special is you are a very
| modest interviewer. You're not afraid to ask a simple
| question.. uh what is this..." King: then interrupts his
| statement and riffs as if Thorn had asked the question "Why do
| you ask simple questions". :D
| GNU_James wrote:
| How is this related to IT?
| progre wrote:
| Not everything has to be if you read the site guidelines
| [deleted]
| RobGav wrote:
| I am Polish and I haven't watched too many of his programs, but
| great respect for the quality of journalism.
| siltpotato wrote:
| How is this relevant to a tech news website? I will attempt to
| guess some reasons and I ask others here if any of mine are
| correct, because I do not understand the hn rules for relevance
| for nondirectlytechrelated content.
|
| - Founded a media company: television is tech
|
| - Was his diversity of media usage cutting edge at the times he
| jumped on (though late for radio though)? Was he frequently an
| early adopter? I can't tell, but if so, then.
|
| - I am uncreative and am uncertain of other reasons...
|
| Please supply.
| fakedang wrote:
| Larry King was the OG interviewer. To the point, rational, always
| asking pointed questions, yet not shying from adding a dash of
| humor. Yet to find anyone on par with him.
| antattack wrote:
| It was interesting to me to learn recently that Larry King was in
| business of making infomercials. Including one where he was
| supposedly tricked: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-
| disinfomercial-how-la...
| rossmohax wrote:
| His program on RT was one of few worth watching
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-23 23:01 UTC)