….
This could include the development of a “green” steelmaking industry, which would use hydrogen produced via renewable energy rather than coal to strip oxygen out of iron ore.

“For the first time in Australia we have created this club, called it what you like, with one focus – how do we get to net zero emissions and what are the best ideas around to assist us in becoming carbon neutral by 2050,” Mr McKeon said.

“This is an opportunity from an Australian perspective to get a big ball rolling in relation to the big ideas that are bigger than just one corporate.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/big-australian-polluters-plan-to-achieve-net-zero-emissions/12493424

roughbarked said:

….
This could include the development of a “green” steelmaking industry, which would use hydrogen produced via renewable energy rather than coal to strip oxygen out of iron ore.

“For the first time in Australia we have created this club, called it what you like, with one focus – how do we get to net zero emissions and what are the best ideas around to assist us in becoming carbon neutral by 2050,” Mr McKeon said.

“This is an opportunity from an Australian perspective to get a big ball rolling in relation to the big ideas that are bigger than just one corporate.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/big-australian-polluters-plan-to-achieve-net-zero-emissions/12493424

FFS.

Why do they give a very positive initiative a negative headline like that?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

….
This could include the development of a “green” steelmaking industry, which would use hydrogen produced via renewable energy rather than coal to strip oxygen out of iron ore.

“For the first time in Australia we have created this club, called it what you like, with one focus – how do we get to net zero emissions and what are the best ideas around to assist us in becoming carbon neutral by 2050,” Mr McKeon said.

“This is an opportunity from an Australian perspective to get a big ball rolling in relation to the big ideas that are bigger than just one corporate.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/big-australian-polluters-plan-to-achieve-net-zero-emissions/12493424

FFS.

Why do they give a very positive initiative a negative headline like that?

I thought you may be better equipped to elaborate on that?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

….
This could include the development of a “green” steelmaking industry, which would use hydrogen produced via renewable energy rather than coal to strip oxygen out of iron ore.

“For the first time in Australia we have created this club, called it what you like, with one focus – how do we get to net zero emissions and what are the best ideas around to assist us in becoming carbon neutral by 2050,” Mr McKeon said.

“This is an opportunity from an Australian perspective to get a big ball rolling in relation to the big ideas that are bigger than just one corporate.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/big-australian-polluters-plan-to-achieve-net-zero-emissions/12493424

FFS.

Why do they give a very positive initiative a negative headline like that?

I thought you may be better equipped to elaborate on that?

Well suppose pharmacists came up with a project to reduce the negative side effects of excess use of pain killers.

How would you react to a headline:

“Big drug dealers form club”?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

FFS.

Why do they give a very positive initiative a negative headline like that?

I thought you may be better equipped to elaborate on that?

Well suppose pharmacists came up with a project to reduce the negative side effects of excess use of pain killers.

How would you react to a headline:

“Big drug dealers form club”?

Well they are big drug dealers.

I don’t quite see it the way you do.

Attention grabbing headlines are well known.
more people are interested in resolviing pollution than the big polluters. Their only real concern is getting away with making money.

I doubt that big pharma is a lot better.

roughbarked said:

Their only real concern is getting away with making money.

I doubt that big pharma is a lot better.

That’s just self-righteous crap.

Everyone who works for “big polluters” is an individual human being.

Very many of them are actively looking for ways to reduce pollution.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Their only real concern is getting away with making money.

I doubt that big pharma is a lot better.

That’s just self-righteous crap.

Everyone who works for “big polluters” is an individual human being.

Very many of them are actively looking for ways to reduce pollution.

I know that but in another thread you said something about; “There are times when dividing people into binary groups makes sense, but dealing with individuals is not one of them”. ;)

The point being that to say something like “large emitters band together to reduce pollution levels” is that going to attract big numbers of readers?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Their only real concern is getting away with making money.

I doubt that big pharma is a lot better.

That’s just self-righteous crap.

Everyone who works for “big polluters” is an individual human being.

Very many of them are actively looking for ways to reduce pollution.

I know that but in another thread you said something about; “There are times when dividing people into binary groups makes sense, but dealing with individuals is not one of them”. ;)

The point being that to say something like “large emitters band together to reduce pollution levels” is that going to attract big numbers of readers?

That’s no concern of mine :)

I think we should be free to criticise headlines, even if they have been carefully optimised to maximise the number of readers.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s just self-righteous crap.

Everyone who works for “big polluters” is an individual human being.

Very many of them are actively looking for ways to reduce pollution.

I know that but in another thread you said something about; “There are times when dividing people into binary groups makes sense, but dealing with individuals is not one of them”. ;)

The point being that to say something like “large emitters band together to reduce pollution levels” is that going to attract big numbers of readers?

That’s no concern of mine :)

I think we should be free to criticise headlines, even if they have been carefully optimised to maximise the number of readers.

Totally agree. However, you don’t seem to have an alternative headline to offer?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I know that but in another thread you said something about; “There are times when dividing people into binary groups makes sense, but dealing with individuals is not one of them”. ;)

The point being that to say something like “large emitters band together to reduce pollution levels” is that going to attract big numbers of readers?

That’s no concern of mine :)

I think we should be free to criticise headlines, even if they have been carefully optimised to maximise the number of readers.

Totally agree. However, you don’t seem to have an alternative headline to offer?

Your suggestion looks fine to me:

“large emitters band together to reduce pollution levels”

There is even at least one person in the World who would be more likely to read that than the one they actually used.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s no concern of mine :)

I think we should be free to criticise headlines, even if they have been carefully optimised to maximise the number of readers.

Totally agree. However, you don’t seem to have an alternative headline to offer?

Your suggestion looks fine to me:

“large emitters band together to reduce pollution levels”

There is even at least one person in the World who would be more likely to read that than the one they actually used.

:)

Two of us, by the looks.

> we have created this club, called it what you like, with one focus – how do we get to net zero emissions and what are the best ideas around to assist us in becoming carbon neutral by 2050

Definition of a committee.

A committee is a group of people who individually can do nothing who get together to conclude that nothing can be done.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

….
This could include the development of a “green” steelmaking industry, which would use hydrogen produced via renewable energy rather than coal to strip oxygen out of iron ore.

“For the first time in Australia we have created this club, called it what you like, with one focus – how do we get to net zero emissions and what are the best ideas around to assist us in becoming carbon neutral by 2050,” Mr McKeon said.

“This is an opportunity from an Australian perspective to get a big ball rolling in relation to the big ideas that are bigger than just one corporate.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/big-australian-polluters-plan-to-achieve-net-zero-emissions/12493424

FFS.

Why do they give a very positive initiative a negative headline like that?

The article headline is

Big Australian polluters band together to plan how to achieve net zero emissions by 2050

To me it seems a fair description.

they do change these things and call it “updated” you know

It’s in the URL …

dv said:

It’s in the URL …

yes, like the title of

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/brits-caught-in-new-spain-quarantine-rules/12494086

is not

Spain coronavirus cases rise prompting new UK quarantine rules for tourists

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

It’s in the URL …

yes, like the title of

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/brits-caught-in-new-spain-quarantine-rules/12494086

is not

Spain coronavirus cases rise prompting new UK quarantine rules for tourists

So you get the point. The URL doesn’t change but contains the original headline, though the headline may change. In this case, the URL still matches the headline and so hasn’t changed.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

It’s in the URL …

yes, like the title of

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/brits-caught-in-new-spain-quarantine-rules/12494086

is not

Spain coronavirus cases rise prompting new UK quarantine rules for tourists

So you get the point. The URL doesn’t change but contains the original headline, though the headline may change. In this case, the URL still matches the headline and so hasn’t changed.

which part proves that the URL contains the original headline

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

yes, like the title of

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-27/brits-caught-in-new-spain-quarantine-rules/12494086

is not

Spain coronavirus cases rise prompting new UK quarantine rules for tourists

So you get the point. The URL doesn’t change but contains the original headline, though the headline may change. In this case, the URL still matches the headline and so hasn’t changed.

which part proves that the URL contains the original headline

It is also quite common for the link to a news story, from the main page, to have a title different to the one in the article. This is sometimes done for click bait and at other times it could be due to the work experience kid not understanding the article…

furious said:

It is also quite common for the link to a news story, from the main page, to have a title different to the one in the article. This is sometimes done for click bait and at other times it could be due to the work experience kid not understanding the article…

ah yes we forgot about that

in short, we suggest, there’s low reliability for the purported headings (videlicet / conferatur the ones we apply) to match the actual article, so we can all be slightly more careful than average (May The Driving Be Great) in our reading

furious said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

So you get the point. The URL doesn’t change but contains the original headline, though the headline may change. In this case, the URL still matches the headline and so hasn’t changed.

which part proves that the URL contains the original headline

It is also quite common for the link to a news story, from the main page, to have a title different to the one in the article. This is sometimes done for click bait and at other times it could be due to the work experience kid not understanding the article…

Yes.
Not this time though. The main page headline, the article headline, and the URL all agree. “Big Australian polluters join coalition planning for net zero emissions by 2050”

Let’s cut to the chase. Rev thought that the HF subject line above was the ABC news headline but it was not.

dv said:

furious said:

SCIENCE said:

which part proves that the URL contains the original headline

It is also quite common for the link to a news story, from the main page, to have a title different to the one in the article. This is sometimes done for click bait and at other times it could be due to the work experience kid not understanding the article…

Yes.
Not this time though. The main page headline, the article headline, and the URL all agree. “Big Australian polluters join coalition planning for net zero emissions by 2050”

Let’s cut to the chase. Rev thought that the HF subject line above was the ABC news headline but it was not.

They may all agree now and but the URL is the only one you can be definite sure of, either of the other two could have been changed at any time and there is no record of it. But yes, on current evidence your supposition could be correct…

maybe by “they” The Rev Dodgson was referring to roughbarked

Oh look! We’ve lost the big picture again. Never mind these little points are far more important.

PermeateFree said:

Oh look! We’ve lost the big picture again. Never mind these little points are far more important.

oh look pictures are made up of little points