Have you looked at what’s considered a valid “source” on Wikipedia?

The fact that there’s an odd good article does not make the site a reliable source of anything.

India, the country best known for being notoriously corrupt to the point where it’s very noticeably hindering progress?

Ads are a core component of how search makes money. They’re also a core component of how YouTube makes money.

Ranked higher than a country where many believe there to only be one valid party and that if the other party gains power that the entire democratic system will collapse and bring Armageddon?

That’s who you’re comparing against?

It’s also just often completely inaccurate. The standards it uses to cite works make them pretty much useless: any good information on Wikipedia is on there by accident.

Usually people would consider within a few degrees (1? 2? Certainly less than 5) to be an acceptable margin, but the pole itself is a well-defined point along the axis of rotation.

This is what happens when your incentive structure doesn’t reward actual proper journalism.

Might as well have quoted my own asshole

American media is legitimately just extremely unreliable. British, Chinese, Russian, French, German, Middle Eastern, and Southeast Asian sources all got the detail that the recent Indian moon mission landed near the South Pole, but most American media picked up that they had somehow landed on the South Pole and put that in their titles.

They were 21 degrees of latitude off, for reference.

Satellites have some degree of mobility and space junk follows trajectories that can be computed basically infinitely into the future.

Space junk is highly deterministic, though. No atmosphere to fuck with.

It absolutely is, even if your particular instance hasn’t been. Lemmy.world probably takes the brunt of it.

Does that claim remove the existence of conflict of interest?

State funding describes a conflict of interest, whether perceived or actual.

Musk wasn’t wrong in applying the state media tag to NPR/BBC/CBC. At the end of the day, they are funded by the state.

Thanks, China.

Would that change anything? Russia is a tiny economy even in the European context. You’re saying Europe couldn’t maintain It’s territorial sovereignty without the US in NATO?

Ah yes, because all of NATO Europe (GDP: $23 trillion) and Canada (GDP: $2 trillion) could never match the economic might of Russia (GDP: $1.8 trillion) and needs US support in any protracted conflict.

Who do you think you’re convincing?

Not really, no. The US still has NATO obligations, Ukraine will still be corrupt, and Russia will still have oligarchs leeching all of their economic output.

We’ve had US intelligence telling us for years that the Russians can rig an election with a piece of paper and some string. What exactly did you think was going to happen?

Turns out Americans don’t even need the string to rig an election.