World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
And let's see who the ASPI is since you didn't really go into that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Strategic_Policy_Institute
Maybe that's why it's downvoted.
Well to be fair, it turned out that we should probably have been more hawkish towards China sooner.
So it seems to me you are arguing against what you say you are arguing for.
Nothing in what you describe shows anything wrong with the report or the article.
There is little doubt that China is spending way more on research than most countries, and being a close #2 in the world on economy, that makes it very plausible that China is in fact #1 in research today, and if we do nothing, China is destined to surpass us.
Silencing that warning is doing work for China.
This is how people defend articles from Fox News.
When the source has been shown to be severely biased, it is enough to not trust the report on its face. You do not have to vet everything they do once you've already seen they can't be trusted.
Whats the need to involve Fox News into this? We are dealing with science and technology matters. At least I expect something more academic in nature.
Anyway, is this not good enough source for. you? SJR - International Science Ranking
That would certainly be a better source, yes. There is absolutely no reason to ever trust a source that you already know isn't trustworthy. On anything.
However, that source does not really give a full picture.
For example, who is citing who? Are the Chinese papers all just citing each other? If so, that would be a pretty poor measurement.
Man... that's based on Scopus index. Do you even know what you're talking about.
If you won't answer my questions, please at least refuse to do so without violating our civility rule as listed in the sidebar.
what exactly am I violating?
"Do you even know what you’re talking about" was clearly a personal attack. You could have told me why I was wrong, but you decided to go call me ignorant instead.
And I think it's clear that you'd rather go off on this tangent than answer my questions, so I think we are done here.
How can it be personal attacks. It is simple logic. I give you a simple example -> The research conducted in certain countries usually is based on industry needs of the country. In China, for example, the have demand in the technology of space exploration and High-speed rail. So you'll see a lot of research being churned out speedily by a number of local researchers due to the immediate demand in the country. You've touched about ball bearing tech, for example, and this is an example of recent research article for that which could be beneficial in the HSR areas. When those people in the same country citing each other, we can't simply claim they're doing it as a matter of convenience. It could be an indicator that the subject itself is the top priority in the country.
Another point to consider -> If the journal where the article have been written is in the Scopus index, there's even low probability for the work to be of low value, no matter who has been citing them.
Of course that the general idea, but there's still room to debate.
It's a personal attack because you just went with "you're ignorant" rather than explaining why what I said was incorrect.
Thank you for finally explaining.