There is something to this; however, there are historical examples of rather quick progress. FDR for one (public work projects and infrastructure, financial reforms, regulations, social security, etc.), when old and young, the president, government employees, the whole general public (with some exceptions), held to popular principles of egalitarian fairness against the few unconscionably rich. A time of tasty pills.
deleted by creator
Huh, that’s so, it was there last January. It used to follow this paragraph (still there today anyway), which contains a similar criticism with citation:
It is widely used and has sometimes been criticised for its methodology.[4] Scientific studies[5] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[6] with NewsGuard[7] and with BuzzFeed journalists.
So if those are considered fact-based, there’s no need to delve further.
However, Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as “generally unreliable”, recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.
The judge leaned back in a squeaky chair, self-righteously satisfied that the letter of the law had been followed.
The spirit of the law lay trampled on the ground, unable to get up or even breathe. Until the public, individuals carrying the breath of actual humanity, walked into the judge’s chambers, giving the spirit mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Offering a mirror to the judge, who didn’t know how reflection works.
While the article discusses antibiotic resistant gonorrhea in China, the US, and Canada, the problem is not about one country, or one country versus another; but rather…
… this is not just an alarming finding for China but also a “pressing public health concern” for the entire world.
Here’s a non-recommended, non-standard, bad practice work-around:
This looks somewhat like a blank line in a browser, but who knows what’ll happen in other apps. (Click the “view source” icon for this example.)
After a bit of research, I’m forced by facts (NS records can be cached for an undetermined time) to see what you’re saying. Thank you for teaching me.
The workings are, of course, a bit more complicated than what either of us have said (here’s a taste), but there is a situation as you describe, where separating the registrar from the name servers, and the name servers from the domain, could save the domain from going down.
If a registrar goes out of business, ICANN transfers the domain(s) to another registrar.
If a name server business fails, you change name servers through your registrar.
You can’t really fix registrar services in your name server, nor name server problems through your registrar. (Unless, of course, your registrar is also your name server.)
Sounds like a job for Lenny bot. (There are samples on video sites).
They don’t have a water district because it’s literally too expensive to build and not because some taxes Boogeyman.
This is nonsense. It’s precisely because of a belief in a “taxes Boogeyman.”
Necessities “too expensive to build” for individuals are what taxes are for: water, sewer, roads, fire departments, etc. Individuals buying into 5-house developments without water are finding out the consequences of their philosophy – and don’t like it. And rather than recognize the predictable outcome of their belief, they demand necessities from nearby people more responsible than themselves.
This looks to be more an endorsement of moderation principles and rules, not determining truth of comments.
For the difficulties in determining what’s true, see the kerfuffle about Media Bias Fact Check.