Cool stuff we take for granted

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Krash

My point is that the press didn’t always get things right long before people had access to news and information on a real-time basis.

Famous example:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course, the “press” didn’t always get things right; but to the OP’s point that I quoted, at least journalists were held somewhat accountable.

Today, we consume (or are bombared ) with so much information from so many sources. Are they fact checked, do we even care any more?

I suppose the debate is as old as the news itself, but I have to think with the technology of today, we are more susceptible to misinformation. Not because of technology itself, but because of the information being pushed through it.

Maybe that’s just the cynic in me

Disseminating what’s truth from what’s fiction becomes increasingly difficult if you don’t use a critical lense. IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BraveBold]

We are more susceptible because many (most) people now conduct life in social echo chambers. Amplified and narrowly construed (since online allows you to reach mass markets even when slicing thin).

People also do a generally poor job of analyzing data themselves…combine with inherent susceptibility to peer influence and even those who think they are objective through “digging on their own” aren’t doing many favors.

It is pretty awful, really.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Of course, the “press” didn’t always get things right; but to the OP’s point that I quoted, at least journalists were held somewhat accountable.

Today, we consume (or are bombared ) with so much information from so many sources. Are they fact checked, do we even care any more?

I suppose the debate is as old as the news itself, but I have to think with the technology of today, we are more susceptible to misinformation. Not because of technology itself, but because of the information being pushed through it.

Maybe that’s just the cynic in me

Disseminating what’s truth from what’s fiction becomes increasingly difficult if you don’t use a critical lense. IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would argue the press is held more accountable today than ever before. Back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and even the 80s and 90s, there was very little recourse. It was difficult—if not impossible—to question the major media outlets. Now there is real-time feedback on the Internet that gets millions of views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Easy E]

I'm going to go full CT on you guys......The News has always been (predominately) about who owns the checkbook.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I'm going to go full CT on you guys......The News has always been (predominately) about who owns the checkbook.

So true. But, much like image was always a part of music, there are swings in matters of degree…

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Krash

I would argue the press is held more accountable today than ever before. Back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and even the 80s and 90s, there was very little recourse. It was difficult—if not impossible—to question the major media outlets. Now there is real-time feedback on the Internet that gets millions of views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And so it goes … millions of viewers with virtual real time feedback on “the facts”.

I’m not sure that’s accountability, but again maybe that’s just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Speedbird-1]

Most 'news', is just plain village gossip, jacked up by self regarding modern media and their undisclosed agendas.

I heard today, on my local radio station in England, that a surfer was attacked by a shark off the coast of Australia.
Can't help wondering......so what?


....and as for TV newsreaders, getting very highly paid for; 'reading out loud' and their colleagues in khaki battle dress and earnest facial expressions....don't get me started!
....did I mention the de rigueur Keffiyeh.

[Rock]

Cool stuff: The 'Stelvin' metal screw cap for wine bottles. Circa: '70s on.



The Stelvin was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s by a French company Le Bouchage Mécanique at the behest of Peter Wall, the then Production Director of the Australian Yalumba winery. In 1964 Peter Wall approached Le Bouchage Mécanique. The Stelvin cap was trialled in 1970 and 1971 with the Swiss wine Chasselas, which was particularly affected by cork taint, and was first used commercially in 1972 by the Swiss winery Hammel.[6] From about 1973 Yalumba and a group of other wineries – Hardys, McWilliams, Penfolds, Seppelt, Brown Bros and Tahbilk – were involved in developing and proving up the concept and began using it commercially in 1976

[1st amg]

Originally Posted by brandrea

You should start a new topic …

“Where do you access reliable, fact checked l news”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have been using X Twitter lately for real not fake news. Certainly opens your eyes about how main stream media pick and chose what to tell you.

[BraveBold]

My view:

Twitter / TikTok and other super-distilled, crowd-sourced sources of “information” are highly problematic. Often the ones on those sites with the largest platforms / biggest audiences are popular for reasons wholly unrelated to traits you want in a news source.

Not even in an editorial way… throw in how the algos work and it is much more of an echo chamber setup than all but the worst of the “old school” media.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by brandrea

And so it goes … millions of viewers with virtual real time feedback on “the facts”.

I’m not sure that’s accountability, but again maybe that’s just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Accountability in the same sense as a mob with pitchforks provides accountability. Real-time feedback there too.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Accountability in the same sense as a mob with pitchforks provides accountability. Real-time feedback there too.

Pretty much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by 1st amg

I have been using X Twitter lately for real not fake news. Certainly opens your eyes about how main stream media pick and chose what to tell you.

I didn’t realize X fact checked their content. I’m not on that platform but it’s good to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I didn’t realize X fact checked their content. I’m not on that platform but it’s good to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They do not. They crowdsource it using something called “community notes”…

That said, fact checking needs fact checking. I have seen MSM sites with fact checks taking things out of context and/or using dubious interpretations to scope a fact.

MSM is highly problematic as well, fact checked or not. But you can find more neutral sources. Reuters is my preference as imperfect as it remains.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

They do not. They crowdsource it using something called “community notes”…

That said, fact checking needs fact checking. I have seen MSM sites with fact checks taking things out of context and/or using dubious interpretations to scope a fact.

MSM is highly problematic as well, fact checked or not. But you can find more neutral sources. Reuters is my preference as imperfect as it remains.

Ahhh, thank you for clarifying that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

They do not. They crowdsource it using something called “community notes”…

That said, fact checking needs fact checking. I have seen MSM sites with fact checks taking things out of context and/or using dubious interpretations to scope a fact.

MSM is highly problematic as well, fact checked or not. But you can find more neutral sources. Reuters is my preference as imperfect as it remains.

Add that the fact checkers are usually not qualified to understand the technical details of the facts they are checking. They are looking for something that meets their expectations instead of something verifiably correct or wrong. People tend to believe fact checkers that say what they want to hear, giving a false impression to the validity of the information.

When I see "fact checked" I assume a bias has been applied to the information.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Blansky

A lot of stuff we take for granted today is little more than a mild convenience but in reality we were able to accomplish them just fine 50 years ago.

Some things today are cool toys, some are huge advances and other things are a rapid slide backwards.

I always remind people that indoor plumbing and sewage disposal was a massive game changer on quality of life, hygiene etc etc and very few things we've come up since can match how it changed our lives for the better.

Try living without it for a few days.

All things good to think about, but don't forget there have been tons of medical advancements since then. Just think of non-evasive surgical methods alone. The stuff that is considered out-patient today compared to what they where previously by itself is amazing. That would include my partial knee surgery and I imagine that may not have even been possible then. Not knee surgery of course but a partial replacement. How about someone getting a hip replacement. I can vaguely remember all the older people getting hip replacement surgeries in the seventies and how draconian those seem when compared to what they are today. That and I vaguely remember cataract surgery being a much bigger deal than what it is today. Yeah, I'm sure things will get even better in years to come but I thank my lucky stars as I get older and have required a bit more of this care myself the medical advancements we have made so far has really made a difference to me. I just keep thinking back to some of those that came prior to me and the various things they did back then and how much better it must be now.

[Easy E]

I think electricity, or the directed use there of, probably ranks near the top of the list. Further, think about this, not only does it make almost every aspect of our current life useable and possible, if you misuse it or take some components of that deal too much for granted it will kill you.

[Speedbird-1]

Originally Posted by Rock

Cool stuff: The 'Stelvin' metal screw cap for wine bottles. Circa: '70s on.



The Stelvin was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s by a French company Le Bouchage Mécanique at the behest of Peter Wall, the then Production Director of the Australian Yalumba winery. In 1964 Peter Wall approached Le Bouchage Mécanique. The Stelvin cap was trialled in 1970 and 1971 with the Swiss wine Chasselas, which was particularly affected by cork taint, and was first used commercially in 1972 by the Swiss winery Hammel.[6] From about 1973 Yalumba and a group of other wineries – Hardys, McWilliams, Penfolds, Seppelt, Brown Bros and Tahbilk – were involved in developing and proving up the concept and began using it commercially in 1976

Very interesting Rocky.
The corkscrew, is pretty cool too.


Martin Fone2 May 2020 (Country Life)

I went to open a bottle of wine the other day and, to my astonishment, I found that it was sealed with a cork.

This prompted a frantic search for a corkscrew, followed by a life-and-death struggle to extract the stopper without corking the wine. I realised then that the life of a sommelier was not for me.

After consuming the bottle’s contents — the perfect time, I find, for existential cogitation — I began to wonder just who it was that had invented the corkscrew.

Until Sir Kenelm Digby cracked the problem of the mass production of uniformly sized bottles made from strong glass in the 1630s, wine was commonly stored in jugs with stoppers made of oil cloth or pieces of wood. After his breakthrough, wine bottles were a cheap and viable option for storing and transporting wine. But the problem of sealing them up had yet to be solved.

Initially, their stoppers were also made of glass, making them tricky to remove and in clumsy or shaking hands, the calamitous outcome would often be the breakage of the bottle or the ruination of its contents.

Around the middle of the century, stoppers started to be made of cork — an ideal substitute, being cheaper to manufacture than glass and making a tighter seal. But an added benefit was soon discovered: a well-fitted cork, by allowing little more than a milligram of oxygen into the bottle per annum, removed the sulphites added in the bottling process, slowed down the oxidation process and allowed the wine to age and develop secondary aromas.

Having sealed the bottle with a cork, the next problem was how to remove it. Rudimentary corkscrews of necessity soon appeared using a piece of equipment a soldier would have in his kitbag: a gun worm. Their muskets were inefficient, would often misfire and the musket ball would get stuck in the barrel of the gun. To remove the offending ball, the soldier would use the gun worm — which was screw-shaped — to drill into the lead and drag the bullet out.

The same principle could be applied to a wine bottle. The earliest reference to the device, in a museum catalogue from 1681, describes ‘a steel worme used for the drawing of Corks out of Bottles’, usually with a ring on the top to allow the user some purchase. It was later called a bottlescrew before the term corkscrew was settled upon.

"A quick tug and even the tightest-fitting cork would be released accompanied by that satisfying popping sound."

It is a curious thing, but those who make a significant contribution to wine technology seem to be raffish characters. It seems to go with the territory. Samuel Henshall, elected a fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford in 1793, was a philologist, publishing several books including a translation of The Domesday Book. He was also a clergyman, serving as curate of Christ Church, Spitalfields and, from 1802 to his death in 1807, as rector of Bow Church, where he is buried.

Finance was not his strong point. Often in debt, he was dragged to the debtors’ court three time, once by a brewer to whom he owed the princely sum of £420. But for helixophiles — the name given to aficionados of the corkscrew — he can do no wrong.

The reason? Henshall revolutionised the design of the corkscrew.

His brainwave was to add a small metal disc to the top of the screw which limited how far into the cork the screw could travel. Once this point had been reached, by twisting the handle the cork would turn, thus breaking the seal that had formed between it and the neck of the bottle. This achieved, a quick tug and even the tightest-fitting cork would be released accompanied by that satisfying popping sound. There was even a brush on the end of the corkscrew to remove the motes of dust that had settled on a vintage wine that had been laid down in the cellar.

Convinced that he was on to a winner, Henshall called on the services of a manufacturer and entrepreneur, Matthew Boulton, who had collaborated with James Watt in developing the stationary steam engines that did so much to fuel the Industrial Revolution. In a letter detailing his invention to Boulton, Henshall sang its praises, describing it as ‘a new mode of applying the screw, and a mode which every person who sees it will be surprised that he himself did not find out. It will have the power to extract the hardest, tightest or most decayed cork’.

Boulton agreed to support the venture, but — unsurprisingly, given the state of Henshall’s parlous finances — had difficulty in getting the inventor to stump up his share of the patent expenses. Boulton’s legal advisor wrote to him somewhat wryly: ‘I doubt I shall not so easily extract £50 from the Parson as he would a cork from a bottle.’ The patent, awarded in 1795, did not transform Henshall’s fortunes and when he died, in debt of course, it is said that his stock of corkscrews was buried with him.

Without wishing to turn the screw further on Henshall’s reputation, it is claimed that he had stolen the idea, possibly from a Dublin-based cutler by the name of Thomas Read who had invented a similar device, the coaxer, in the 1770s. Be that as it may, Henshall held the first patent and can claim to have given the world of the corkscrew the impetus it needed.

In 1802, Birmingham-based Edward Thomason came up with a corkscrew with one screw inside the other. Upon turning the handle, the inner screw went down into the cork, stopping when the outer screw engaged and pulling the cork upwards. Those who know about these things claim it to be the finest corkscrew ever designed.

Another Englishman, Marshall Weir, developed the concertina corkscrew in 1884, consisting of a set of collapsible levers which folded over the screw. The cork was extracted by pulling them open with a ring. The now familiar design involving a couple of arms, which lift when the screw is turned into the cork and are pushed down again to remove it, was patented by Dominick Rosati in 1930.

Such is the growth in screwcaps that in 2016 only 70% of wine bottles were sealed with natural cork. However, in these days of heightened environmental and sustainability concerns, there are signs that cork might by springing back. Studies into various forms of stopper suggest that on most tests of environmental impact, cork is the most environmentally friendly. For oenophiles, there are also concerns that other types of stopper do not provide as tight a seal, enhancing the speed at which the wine oxidises and reducing its drinking life. Perish the thought.

I suppose it is a question of ‘you pays your money, you takes your choice’. Someone who did pay their money was an anonymous bidder at an auction in Essex in November 2014. What they got for their £40,000 was a corkscrew some of whose parts were made from metal salvaged from London Bridge when it was demolished in 1831.

I do not think we have seen the last of the corkscrew just yet.

[Rock]

Thanks for that, Steve. Very interesting. I have been a wine enthusiast since the age of 17yrs in 1969. I have cellared and consumed thousands of bottles in the interim, most of which were sealed with corks. Careful cellaring meant that spoilage was never a problem for me in spite of living in a hot climate, however I have experienced leaky and deteriorated corks with all the problems that go with that. I have used most types of cork-removers over the years including developing the skill to push a cork back into the bottle when removal was impossible. I much prefer the Stelvin seal and seriously doubt that it is less efficient than a cork. I admit that there was a certain amount of 'ceremony' involved with corks - some of my dinner party guests told me they looked forward to the 'uncorking' of fine old wines as much as the tasting.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by brandrea

And so it goes … millions of viewers with virtual real time feedback on “the facts”.

I’m not sure that’s accountability, but again maybe that’s just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another problem is now that the genie is out of the bottle with a fact free society, do people really want to hear facts or do they just want to hear what fits their personal biases and agendas.

Companies have got to court to challenge that they don't have to report facts, but instead all they have to do is report what their viewers want to hear.

I seriously doubt that now any of this is fixable.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Another problem is now that the genie is out of the bottle with a fact free society, do people really want to hear facts or do they just want to hear what fits their personal biases and agendas.

Companies have got to court to challenge that they don't have to report facts, but instead all they have to do is report what their viewers want to hear.

I seriously doubt that now any of this is fixable.

That’s an interesting point and one that I see everyday with my own social media.

We are feed what we consume and the algorithms just keep pushing more and more of the same and related stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by brandrea

That’s an interesting point and one that I see everyday with my own social media.

We are feed what we consume and the algorithms just keep pushing more and more of the same and related stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Echo chambers of the worst kind.

[Speedbird-1]

There's an old saying, that; "we only read the newspapers that we agree with".

I suppose that view could apply to, 'modern media' too.

[enjoythemusic]

But what if the newspaper is funded by Evil Do'ers?

My buddies in music and hifi never got millions in free handouts, kinda unfair don't you think? Would love to have that million$ in giveaway support taken for granted. :)