How do I know this entire thing isn't AI generated?

Why can't we just have a third party vetting service for true content, where the content is labeled with a serial number and URL, and I can just look it up on the third party service's site to confirm it's validity (and if the content has no serial number watermarked on it, then I just ignore it as false)???

To check on the basic facts you could have a look at the "related articles" in the YT video description. There you'll find an item from Bellingcat, a fairly well respected source. They state:

This joint investigation by Bellingcat, Der Spiegel, The Insider and La Repubblica, was conducted over the course of 10 months.

If don't trust Bellingcat and you want to dig further you contact Der Spiegel, et al, to see if they know anything about this. And follow up any other sources they mention. Of course, where do you stop? The more sources you check the harder it is to claim that each source is part of a wider conspiracy, but it's hard work. Given the track record of Bellingcat I'm inclined to believe they know what they are doing, but that's just my personal level of paranoia. YMMV.

> third party vetting service

You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer.

...Yeah, for the 10's of articles I actually read in a day (at least with cobcern about their validity) that amount of homework would probably blow up my screen time by 5X, and result in my divorce.

"You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer."

Agreed. If there were a simple 3rd party vetting service that currenlty trusted purveyor's of news used religiously, that in and of itself would allow me to trust said third party validator for other, perhaps non-mainstrem channels, and not trust thos who didn't use the 3rd party validator.

I'm just saying - there's a high demand for trust. One could argue that the currency of the forseable future is indeed "trust".

Trust is highly subjective. A lot of people trust certain "flagship" sources like The Times (UK), NY Times, BBC, RussiaToday, Aljazeera, Reuters, etc, but they can have wildly different viewpoints on a particular point of news, yet they are all "trusted" by large numbers of people.

I understand that you want there to be a single source of news/opinion that everyone agrees is trustable, and that would be desirable, but in this era and any foreseeable future that's like wanting world peace: very desirable but ultimately unachievable for a myriad of reasons.

Christo Grozev is a former member of the Navalny team and now journalist for Der Spiegel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo_Grozev

Christo Grozev was also featured in the documentary Navalny, that was awarded with Oskar in documentary category.

This makes zero sense as 3rd presidential terms are barred by the 22nd Amendment. Why am I even writing this?

But I listen to a hundred albums a year and I'm only going to live another ~400 months.

Ha, so true. I'm a total scavenger. I always scan the ground closely when I'm walking. Oddly, for whatever reason, I'm either just looking for interesting things or specifically for diamonds. I've found 3 diamonds in my life just laying on the ground - only one of which was real:P It is a rush though. I could totally see myself metal detecting.

Metal detecting is awesome. You'll find all kinds of cool stuff in my experience. Everything from small screws and nails to larger screws and nails. Or even bolts.

It's like the options of things I find are limitless (as long as limitless is roughly 3 things).

You should make metal detecting soles for your shoes.

Me too. I'm always in the lookout for ... stuff. Last thing I spotted was a rattlesnake. Which I did not pick up.

I always scan patterns.

When you make a photocopy of a photocopy... of a photocopy, you get a VERY blurry photocopy.

That's an interesting thought. I wonder if you can quantify this belief? That Weibull (presumably) distribution would be an interesting and useful thing to know.

Quantify the belief that humans are biased toward sensationalism? No, I have no idea how to do that. Actually you could make an argument that it's a bit circular, that "sensationalism" is defined as the kind of ideas that humans are biased towards and which are therefore more able to cause a "sensation".

But if you don't see how people yearn to believe in big dramatic things like conspiracies, aliens, bigfoot, or even simple narratives about single people changing the course of history, and how they only accept the complicated and/or boring reality with conscious effort, then, well, you seem to be living in a better universe than I am.

Unfortunately, you also sometimes throw out explanations like "they did X in substantially the same way as their descents were doing X up until the late 1800s" or "they used it for Y, just at it was used at other sites throughout the world."

At least in the case of things like migrations, we're starting to get overwhelming genetic evidence.

I agree that's an overcorrection. People doing things the same way they have for centuries should be high on the list of plausible, boring explanations.

Seriously, isn't society crumbling into a distopian future fast enough? Now we need to bet on innocent people dying?

Humans are the worst.

I was a wee bit interested, but lost interest when the charity for penalty contributions was pre-selected for me. Back to zombie town I go.

Valid concern! But you can choose to donate to any charity you want. What you see is just a recommendation that matches the week's challenge. Once you commit to it, you can click and type in any charity (or amount) you prefer.

Here's a bunch from ocean city Maryland: https://oceancitylive.com/

You can film them, just not obstruct with them executing their official duties.

Personally, I'd wait another 3 years to visit until this brainless ass clown is out of office (or maybe 10 years later after our society recovers a bit from completely melting down because we have a civil war when said ass clown refuses to peacefully leave office and the large number of ass clown citizens back him up because they are afraid to truly live freely)

I make this recommendation as a very reluctant republican (who proudly has never voted for president ass clown).

But what you are legally allowed to do and what you can do without the cops retaliating are two different things. If I were a tourist in the US just looking to enjoy a vacation with a minimum of risk, I'd avoid recording the police, or near the police.