Wow, Reuters is orwellian. I was just reading something about Huang owning something like 3,6% of the company, when mid-sentence the page refreshed and the paragraph disappeared.
I think this is, respectfully, ignorance on your part. The Reuters URL is not a static article, it's a "live" feed of brief blurbs about the subject at hand that are being added in real time. The live feed updated to add new content while you were reading it, and you likely just missed finding your place when you tried. In point of fact, the 3.6% paragraph you mention was still there when I looked a moment ago:
>Huang, who co-founded Nvidia and is its fourth-largest investor with a stake of about 3.61%, will not remain on the board.
I don't know if it's necessarily Orwellian. News organizations always publish about breaking news quick with either a stub or an intro paragraph to a pre-written article, and then rewrite it. I would prefer a published article history, of course, but I don't think it's malicious.
The algorithms reward both speed and unchanging URLs.
The party speaker literally adapted to the change in eternal enemy mid sentence without breaking the grammar. How much more fast-acting and live can you get? Are you suggesting that they had a free press in 1984 that didn't have to update their own description of what was happening?
duplicate of this maybe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50467087
Comments moved thither. Thanks!
Wow, Reuters is orwellian. I was just reading something about Huang owning something like 3,6% of the company, when mid-sentence the page refreshed and the paragraph disappeared.
>Wow, Reuters is orwellian.
I think this is, respectfully, ignorance on your part. The Reuters URL is not a static article, it's a "live" feed of brief blurbs about the subject at hand that are being added in real time. The live feed updated to add new content while you were reading it, and you likely just missed finding your place when you tried. In point of fact, the 3.6% paragraph you mention was still there when I looked a moment ago:
>Huang, who co-founded Nvidia and is its fourth-largest investor with a stake of about 3.61%, will not remain on the board.
Careful not to shoot from the hip!
I don't know if it's necessarily Orwellian. News organizations always publish about breaking news quick with either a stub or an intro paragraph to a pre-written article, and then rewrite it. I would prefer a published article history, of course, but I don't think it's malicious.
The algorithms reward both speed and unchanging URLs.
Society has fallen
What?
Playing it pretty fast and loose with the word Orwellian
The description of events changing in real time to suit the narrative is a theme in Orwell's work.
But I think it is misplaced here as the line still exists:
> Huang, who co-founded Nvidia and is its fourth-largest investor with a stake of about 3.61%, will not remain on the board.
1984 was about changing narratives in history, not fast-acting live news. Describing basic journalism as orwellian is misunderstanding his theme.
During Hate Week in chapter two the speaker is handed a paper and changes the object of condemnation mid sentence.
The party speaker literally adapted to the change in eternal enemy mid sentence without breaking the grammar. How much more fast-acting and live can you get? Are you suggesting that they had a free press in 1984 that didn't have to update their own description of what was happening?
Your original comment only had the quoted line, before you edited it to include extra context.
> The description of events changing in real time to suit the narrative is a theme in Orwell's work.
This Orwellian nightmare knows no bounds, when will it end?