Interesting Links for 24-06-2014

[andrewducker]

• Emails Show Feds Asking Florida Cops to Deceive Judges
  (tags: police usa law fraud )
• Homeless figures treble among private rental tenants
  (tags: uk housing )
• No, the media didn’t ignore your anti-austerity march - it just wasn’t that interesting
  (tags: protests media bbc UK )
• A map of Europe, by number of bankers earning more than €1million

Comments

No, the media didn’t ignore your anti-austerity march – it just wasn’t that interesting

[cartesiandaemon]

Is there anywhere that does list the ten biggest political marches every year, or similar? The denial that this march was especially notable sounds plausible, but it would be more convincing if there was a sense of scale, is it the biggest march this year (then even if it happens every year it's news)? Or the tenth biggest (then probably not)?

Although I'm also thinking, why does anyone ever bother to march without dressing up in costumes, anything photogenic or slightly unusual is so much more high profile. Fathers4justice, whether they were right or not, made headlines constantly with only a few people.

Re: No, the media didn’t ignore your anti-austerity march – it just wasn’t that interesting

[andrewducker]

The thing is, if 50,000 people is as large as your march gets, it's just not that interesting, when you're talking about something that affects the whole country. It's not enough to change an election, unless all of those people live in the same place.

Re: No, the media didn’t ignore your anti-austerity march – it just wasn’t that interesting

[davidcook]

... I always thought that protest sizes were meant to be a "tip of the iceberg" thing - if 50,000 actually get out and protest, there must be 500,000 or 5,000,000 who agree with the protestors but are not there for some reason. Pretty sure that 5,000,000, especially if distributed in the right areas, could indeed swing an election over there ...

Could also be similar to the principle where a letter received by a politician about an issue is assumed to represent some larger number of people who also feel the same way.

(and then there's the flow-on effects from actually reporting on the protest, and the way that it's reported.
Some percentage of undecided/don't-care people would see the report and change their opinion one way or the other - which can be swayed by presentation of the protest neutrally, positively, or (typical in the Australian media, at least) "a bunch of feral unwashed jobless/student rabble-rousers" i.e negatively)

Re: No, the media didn’t ignore your anti-austerity march – it just wasn’t that interesting

[andrewducker]

Yes, but they know, through polling and local election results, that more people are in agreement with them.

Edit: By which I mean - if there was a sudden march in London where 50,000 people were protesting the situation with farming in the UK, then they would get a _lot_ of attention, because there would be worry that there was a large number of people who cared about something that politicians weren't paying much attention to, and possibly this was something everyone should have an opinion on and get their policies in order on.

Whereas all the parties already have a policy on austerity, they know where the voters are on it, and they (think they) know how things are going to go. 50,000 people out protesting aren't adding to the sum of their knowledge, they're just confirming that one chunk of society is unhappy, and they've known that for six years now.

[quirkytizzy]

As much as I hate to agree with a Tory...I can see his point.

Though god knows, anything Russel Brand shows up to is newsworthy for me...in my pants, if nothing else.

[philmophlegm]

"50,000 of the same people who protest about everything at every opportunity are protesting again" is about as newsworthy as "50,000 Arsenal fans who go to watch Arsenal play at every home game are watching Arsenal play at home again".

It's not newsworthy because it's not surprising.

[supergee]

Stealing your userpic.

[philmophlegm]

Go ahead - I did.

(It would be massively ironic at this point to go with the "Property is theft" logic...)

[del_c]

In the last day, the media reported what may be a new Arsenal shirt. But they're not sure.

[artkouros]

Back when I was in college - right after the Russian incident related in the vacuum tube article - one of my profs told us about a project he was involved in at the White Sands government lab - to make vacuum tube integrated circuits using arrays of tiny plates and grids, like what the article talks about. The interest back then was that vacuum tubes, unlike semiconductors, are largely immune to the effects of radiation, like what you might get in an atomic bomb, but also what you will always get in outer space. I've been intrigued ever since.

[andrewducker]

Oh yes - it's fascinating stuff. I hope they can make it work - we're going to need new ways of producing processors if they're going to keep improving!

[gonzo21]

I found that whole 'It's scientifically impossible to maintain weight loss' thing to be actually incredibly irresponsible, and I'm glad it's being refuted with some very solid looking numbers.

My brother is life-threateningly overweight. And he can't be arsed changing his diet. So every article he sees on the internet that reinforces his idea that there's no point in even trying? That's actually contributing to his increasingly inevitable early-grave.

The pathology of it is quite interesting, because he has this very strong filter in what he sees with regards his dietary intake. For example, he earnestly believes that he needs at least 4500 calories a day. And if something contains 20% of his RDA of fat? THen he has to eat at least 5 of them, because he cannot have less than the 100% RDA of fat/sugar/etc.

So articles telling him there is no point in losing weight? Make me quite angry actually.

[andrewducker]

The thing with weight loss to me is that if you go into it saying "I just need to exert self control for X weeks and I will be ok and then I can go back to being me" then you're fucked. But pretty much everyone does that.

Instead it requires you to look at what "healthy" looks like for you, and decide that you want to be that person, and pay the price for being that person. And that's really hard for most people. But it is doable, if you really want it.

Edit: Obviously, for some people with medical conditions no matter what they do they're not going to lose weight. But most people can eat better than they do and be fitter than they are. I certainly could, on both counts.

[brixtonbrood]

I think we need to talk less about weight loss and more about weight maintenance. There's a definite mood (especially amongst women) that anyone who isn't overweight yet still counts their calories is some kind of vain eating disordered freak. But I reckon we'd get much better results as a society from a "Only eat enough to maintain a stable weight in the long term" message than "OMG you are suddenly obese and must lose 3 stone immediately".

[andrewducker]

Having a lifestyle that gives you a stable, healthy situation is definitely going to be healthier than "I am unhealthy until it makes me very unhappy, and then I switch to being ultra-strict with myself until I can't take it any more, and then I go back to being unhealthy."

There's a big difference between "Having a healthy diet" and "Being on a diet", and I think you're right that the former is better for you - I do wish it was more common across society.