[rips blunt] The dissonant design philosophies between the text and the image emphasize how technological progress guided by an uncaring market will gradually create greater psychological distance between people over time
The couple in the picture aren’t the ones having the conversation. Each person talking is out of frame on either side and awkwardly talking past the couple we see.
And you wonder about cherrypicking?
That was literally the entirety of your reply.
You cherrypick citogenesis of ten points to criticise.
If you really were ‘open minded enough’ you could find at least useful info in the other points.
Such as their links to Google trough sponsoring and partnerships.
Or:
*At time of writing, out of a total.of 5.72 million articles, Wikipedia has…
~195,000 articles that need references (i.e. they have none)
~337,000 articles that need more references
~69,000 articles that need reliable references*
You could bother to look at other threads or other websites online.
Whoever made this needs to learn how speech bubbles work
It’s in the style of a text/SMS chat where the bubbles pointing off to the side indicate which “side” of the conversation it applies to.
I’m aware I just don’t like it 😏
[rips blunt] The dissonant design philosophies between the text and the image emphasize how technological progress guided by an uncaring market will gradually create greater psychological distance between people over time
The couple in the picture aren’t the ones having the conversation. Each person talking is out of frame on either side and awkwardly talking past the couple we see.
Lmao I like this interpretation
I am going to answer here since you are reasonable unlike the others and I got banned by the mods.
Anything that Trump doesn’t like must be automatically good in their kneejerk binary reaction.
And they will defend it dogmatically with all means possible and without scepticism.
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/11/meet-wikipedias-ayn-rand-loving-founder-and-wikimedia-foundations-regime-change-operative-ceo/
https://www.dw.com/en/attempted-manipulation-on-wikipedia/video-16628135 https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html
And you wonder about cherrypicking?
That was literally the entirety of your reply.
You cherrypick citogenesis of ten points to criticise.
If you really were ‘open minded enough’ you could find at least useful info in the other points.
Such as their links to Google trough sponsoring and partnerships.
Or:
*At time of writing, out of a total.of 5.72 million articles, Wikipedia has…
~195,000 articles that need references (i.e. they have none)
~337,000 articles that need more references
~69,000 articles that need reliable references*
You could bother to look at other threads or other websites online.