Several major world powers right now are at the endgame of a decades-long campaign to return to a new Gilded Age and prevent it from ending any time soon. Destroying the public's belief in objective truth and fact is part of the plan. A side effect is that fraud in general becomes normalized. "We are cooked" as the kids say.

Fraud is just marketing in the 2020s now.

I'm not a fan of this either but I fail to see how its much different than the happy path tech demos of old.

The happy path was functional.

Mmm, as someone forced to write a lot of last minute demos for a startup right out of school that ended up raising ~100MM, there's a fair bit of wiggle room in "Functional".

Not that I would excuse Cursor if they're fudging this either - My opinion is that a large part of the growing skepticism and general disillusionment that permeates among engineers in the industry (ex - the jokes about exiting tech to be a farmer or carpenter, or things like https://imgur.com/6wbgy2L) comes from seeing first hand that being misleading, abusive, or outright lying are often rewarded quite well, and it's not a particularly new phenomenon.

But this isn’t wiggle room, it flat out doesn’t compile or run.

It's certainly ironic if an article about slop leads with a tired old glob of pseudoscience slop and the author doesn't realize.

I can't tell if your comment is being ironic or not.

Ironically enough, the comment is pretty straightforward to interpret.

Moreover you can manipulate your results by disingenuous prior choices, and the smaller sample you have the stronger this effect is. I am not sold on the FDA's ability to objectively and carefully review Bayesian research designs, especially given the current administration's wanton disregard for the public good.

I would think there is less opportunity to manipulate your results with bayesian methods than with frequentist ones. Because the frequentist methods don't just require an alternate hypothesis, they depend on the exact set of outcomes possible given your experimental design. You can modify your experimental design afterwards and invisibly make your p-value be whatever you want

The application of Bayesian probabilistic reasoning in general (as described in this video) is not the same thing as "Bayesian statistics" specifically, which usually to modeling and posterior inference using both a likelihood model and a prior model. It's a very different approach to statistical inference both in theory and in practice. This creator himself is either ignorant of this distinction or is trying to mislead his viewers in order to dunk on the FDA. It's obvious from the video comments that many people have indeed been misled as to what Bayesian statistics is and what the implications of its might be in the context of clinical trials.

Indeed, even more broadly online "Bayesian" seems to have taken on the form of "I know Bayes' Rule and think about base rates" as opposed to "Do you prefer jags or stan for MCMC?"

You can make your job in general a passion/hobby/craft but that doesn't mean you have to work more than your fair share for your employer to be a competent craftsperson.

> that doesn't mean you have to work more than your fair share for your employer

I would never argue for that. My meaning was more about having a passion/hobby in the field that you are working in.

Facebook groups tend to have this, at least in the USA. Reddit too in bigger cities/towns.

Small team does local journalism, motivated locals donate to keep it running. It's that simple. Some people are happy to donate $20 a month to their favorite Twitch streamer or open source project, and other people are happy to do the same for their local newspaper.

The failed model is trying to run it like a journalism factory: producing articles at some marginal cost and selling them at a fixed price that exceeds marginal cost.

Just look at NPR and member stations. The federal government ended their funding, but they kept right on going because of donations.

NPR member stations in many communities have _not_ made up lost federal funding through donations, in fact many are at risk of closing: https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/rural-alaska/2025/07/22/kotz...

Donations are definitely a piece of the puzzle but local journalism will never reach the level it was in the early 2000s without a new revenue stream.

> the product is produces is not worth what it costs to produce it

Utility provided is not equal to willingness/ability to pay.

We should stop thinking of journalism as a product to be sold and more of it as a public good. That's kind of the point of the article.

I think that only holds if company ownership is not close with company leadership. Is a "subscriber owned" newspaper model possible? Like how co-op stores are at least nominally owned by their customers.

I could also imagine a system in which a local newspaper was actually run as a public utility by an independent corporation, but explicitly chartered and subsidized by a town/city/county.