Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states:
“Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”
That’s a cute way of avoiding reading the article, but the answer to that question is far more complex than a simple yes or no, as the article itself will tell you. I found it enlightening.
that question is far more complex than a simple yes or no
But the headline does not reflect this…
It is a good way to avoid wasting time on bullshit headlines. If the article is good, and they come up with a headline like that, sorry they have lost me.
Betteridges law doesn’t specify that a headline ending with a question mark should be answered with a no. Only that they can be.
My comment is a direct quote from the wikkipedia article:
This is a direct quote from Betteridge:
“This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “no.” The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.”
Yes, nothing I said contradicts that. It can be answered with a no. It could also be answered with something else. That’s why the word can is used instead of something like “should”.
If the article is good, and they come up with a headline like that, sorry they have lost me.
what if I told you that the vast vast majority of headlines aren’t written by the person who wrote the article, but by one of a any number of editors and/or layout designers?
Would that stop you from doubling down further, or are you in too deep now to admit you chose the wrong example for your snarky remark?what if I told you that the vast vast majority of headlines aren’t written by the person who wrote the article, but by one of a any number of editors and/or layout designers?
I would say that I have known that for decades…
Would that stop you from doubling down further, or are you in too deep now to admit you chose the wrong example for your snarky remark?
If my post was not here, would you have commented at all?
Lmfao, doubling down further it is!
Gotta make sure to protect that fragile fragile ego, eh? As you were, don’t let me get in the way of your pathetic display… 🤣🤣🤣
If only there were some sort of old adage about not judging books by their covers…
Are you unaware of the origin of that phrase?
It came into use because many dime store novels were sold with lurid covers that had nothing to do with the actula story within.
Kind of like what I am talking about…
So you’re saying the actual story within might be worth reading despite what is described on the outside? So kind of like what I’m talking about?
I’ve seen plenty of headlines where the answer was obviously yes. That law is stupid.
I will just add a couple of opinions to the discussion:
1- SEX have ALWAYS driven the rise and diffusion of new technologies in a way or another
2 - Old gender stereotypes are… OLD. Yes we will have female assistant/sexbot/app/whatever but there will be male one as well as any other kind too. Anything will be customizable in real time anyway.
The true risk will be the “Date a robot Issue”
That link has a typo. Says “dare” instead of “date”. I think you wanted this link: https://www.qwant.com/?l=en&q=futurama+i+dated+a+robot&t=videos&origin=suggest
Fixed 👍
What was the paradox? From what I remember the main issue was that they were copying actually Lucy Liu.
The issue was choosing a bot over a real partner.
(I’ve edited paradox with issue)
When money and corporate greed are discussed, the reversed Hanlon’s Razor applies.
Always.
I just want to know why they made a robot that looks like Miss Swan
