for - medical deception - communicating relative risk instead of absolute risk is misleading and gives the appearance of a greater effect

• for: carbon footprint calculators - misleading

copied from Universe Today, except the title is invented.

Actually, if you include List-Unsubscribe-Post, then you MUST include List-Unsubscribe (both).

According to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8058#section-3.1,

A mail sender that wishes to enable one-click unsubscriptions places one List-Unsubscribe header field and one List-Unsubscribe-Post header field in the message. The List-Unsubscribe header field MUST contain one HTTPS URI. It MAY contain other non-HTTP/S URIs such as MAILTO:. The List-Unsubscribe-Post header MUST contain the single key/value pair "List-Unsubscribe=One-Click".

Can't annotate on https://feedback.mailgun.com/forums/156243-feature-requests/suggestions/39905227-provide-meaningful-delivery-status-description-rat so posting here instead.

Anonymous commented · May 26, 2021 4:36 AM

Without your comment I'd never find the real issue, because I was only look at permanent failures. That error message is really misleading, hope they can fix this.

Kelly commented · December 30, 2020 2:35 AM

Yes we desperately need this too. Half of our recipients were soft bounced due to "Too old" but we could still send to them previously on other ESPs.

If you read lower in the article you'll see that the headline is a blatant lie.

The Gov failed to prosecute a violent person, so AP spins it as if this guy "evaded" (which is an action).

One can't evade a law that is never applied against them.

However, while URLs allow you to locate a resource, a URI simply identifies a resource.

Very untrue/misleading! It doesn't simply (only) identify it. It includes URLs, so a URI may be a locator, a name, or both!

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986 states it better and perfectly:

A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name, or both. The term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs that, in addition to identifying a resource, provide a means of locating the resource by describing its primary access mechanism (e.g., its network "location").

This means that a URI is not necessarily intended as an address to get a resource. It is meant just as an identifier.

The "is not necessarily" part is correct. The "is meant" part is incorrect; shoudl be "may only be meant as".

Mulot, M., Segalas, C., Leyrat, C., & Besançon, L. (2021). Vaccination rates and COVID-19 cases: A commentary of “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States.” OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/72abp

Jason Abaluck. (2021, November 1). It is sad. @DrJBhattarcharya is the worst example I have personally seen of someone who was previously a scholar but who now engages in repeated misrepresentation of scientific results to serve a partisan agenda. [Tweet]. @Jabaluck. https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1455312783789240320

could lead users to believe ... - could lead users to believe that everything is supported.

Chawla, D. S. (2021). Hundreds of ‘predatory’ journals indexed on leading scholarly database. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00239-0

Tom Whipple on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 29 October 2021, from https://twitter.com/whippletom/status/1442226972491333641

Mulot, M., Segalas, C., Leyrat, C., & Besançon, L. (2021). Re: Subramanian and Kumar. Vaccination rates and COVID-19 cases. European Journal of Epidemiology, 36(12), 1243–1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00817-6

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘RT @CT_Bergstrom: I also dislike the choice of axis scales. I don’t mind line graphs with axes that don’t go to zero (https://t.co/EpPNR9Lx…’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 22 March 2022, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1477181158425251840

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Refers to pay between workers "in the same roles" but links to an article that uses a gross unadjusted figure. Nothing in the link supports the claim being made, which was hardly surprising considering this claim has been debunked thousands of times over the last few decades.

Nick Mark MD. (2022, January 21). This FLCCC COVID protocol gets nuttier with each version. Now hydroxychloroquine is “preferred for omicron”? What?!🤯 Stuff that actually works (monoclonals & fluvoxamine) are 2nd line And steroids, which increased mortality in people NOT on O2 in RECOVERY, are recommended?😱 https://t.co/XXfn1eMTJt [Tweet]. @nickmmark. https://twitter.com/nickmmark/status/1484382662517137410

The online information environment | Royal Society. (n.d.). Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/online-information-environment/

Should bad science be censored on social media? (2022, January 19). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60036861

Trisha Greenhalgh. (2021, December 27). This is nothing short of scandalous. Unless and until those leading the public health response acknowledge the AIRBORNE nature of the virus and give transmission mitigation advice commensurate with how airborne viruses spread, we will be yo-yoing from wave to wave ad infinitum. [Tweet]. @trishgreenhalgh. https://twitter.com/trishgreenhalgh/status/1475502337594646528

Antivaccine activists use a government database on side effects to scare the public. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 2021, from https://www.science.org/content/article/antivaccine-activists-use-government-database-side-effects-scare-public

Wagner, D. N., Marcon, A. R., & Caulfield, T. (2020). “Immune Boosting” in the time of COVID: Selling immunity on Instagram. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, 16(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13223-020-00474-6

Facebook froze as anti-vaccine comments swarmed users. (n.d.). MSN. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/science/facebook-froze-as-anti-vaccine-comments-swarmed-users/ar-AAPY06U

How online misinformation spreads. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2021, from https://knowablemagazine.org/article/society/2021/how-online-misinformation-spreads

Schraer, R., & Morrison, N. (2021, October 12). Covid: Misleading vaccine claims target children and parents. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58783711

Davey, M. (2021, September 24). Fraudulent ivermectin studies open up new battleground between science and misinformation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/25/fraudulent-ivermectin-studies-open-up-new-battleground-between-science-and-misinformation

Robins-Early, N. (2021, September 24). Desperation, misinformation: How the ivermectin craze spread across the world. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/24/ivermectin-covid-peru-misinformation

Prof. Gavin Yamey MD MPH. (2021, September 28). Bogus, damaging “consent form” being peddled over in the UK. Ugh. The anti-vaccine movement is trying every grotesque tactic under the sun. [Tweet]. @GYamey. https://twitter.com/GYamey/status/1442821619068686338

Yong, E. (2021, October 2). What Even Counts as Science Writing Anymore? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/how-pandemic-changed-science-writing/620271/

Full Fact on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 20 September 2021, from https://twitter.com/FullFact/status/1439197512741658627

Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

How to trash confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine: Brexit edition—Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2021, from https://thebulletin.org/2021/08/how-to-trash-confidence-in-a-covid-19-vaccine-brexit-edition/#.YQwD9u6LazM.twitter

What the World Health Organization really said about mixing COVID-19 vaccines | CBC News. (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2021, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-mixing-and-matching-who-1.6101047?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

David Dowdy on Twitter: “One term I worry that we (as a public health community) have mis-messaged during the pandemic: ‘herd immunity threshold’ A non-technical thread on why this is not ‘% of the population that needs to be vaccinated for us to return to life as normal while eradicating COVID-19’... Https://t.co/5As4N9YV9N” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2021, from https://twitter.com/davidwdowdy/status/1389791544425828357?s=20

Sarah Kliff on Twitter: “Coronavirus vaccines are free—But 9 percent of Americans say they’re not getting one because they are worried about cost. I see this a lot in my reporting: Patients who don’t seek care because they’re become so accustomed to surprise bills that follow. Https://t.co/gu6oDnlvhB” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2021, from https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1395032095819542528?s=20

Outdated WHO website guidance spurs vaccine misinformation. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2021, from https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/misleading-information-about-vaccinating-children-is-linked-to-old-who-advice/

Michael Makris on Twitter: “The cumulative incidence of VITT after AZ first vaccination in the UK is continuing to increase with the latest data being 1 in 81,000. However this is rather misleading because VITT is age related with a higher incidence in the young. Https://t.co/CSjshAoRsN” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2021, from https://twitter.com/ProfMakris/status/1395457748721184777?s=20

Influencers say Russia-linked PR agency asked them to disparage Pfizer vaccine | Marketing & PR | The Guardian. (n.d.). Retrieved June 12, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/25/influencers-say-russia-linked-pr-agency-asked-them-to-disparage-pfizer-vaccine?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J., Kurz, T., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2021). A Comparison of Prebunking and Debunking Interventions for Implied versus Explicit Misinformation [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/48zqn

Wadman, M. (2021). Antivaccine activists use a government database on side effects to scare the public. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj6981

Op-Ed: How Not to Message the Public on COVID Vaccines | MedPage Today. (n.d.). Retrieved May 26, 2021, from https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/92704

Oliver, D. (2021). David Oliver: A vision for transparent post-covid government. BMJ, n1123. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1123

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Description just said:

Party mode brings Versus mode and Marathon mode where up to 10 players can play together and compete locally.

Didn't mention whether it was at same time or in sequence. Hmm. Which is it? Video shows at least 2 can play at same time, so...

Adam Finn. ‘There Are Some News Outlets & Politicians Incorrectly Reporting and Criticising Respectively MHRA for Advising against Use of OxAZ in under 30s. Neither MHRA nor EMA Have Done This. JCVI Have Expressed a Preference for Alternative Vaccines for Healthy under 30s in the UK Context’. Tweet. @adamhfinn (blog), 8 April 2021. https://twitter.com/adamhfinn/status/1380031766703058944.

David R Tomlinson 💙. (2021, March 5). Truth. 💙 @FreshAirNHS @theRCN @TheBMA @mancunianmedic @DrLindaDykes @Chakladar_A @KGadhok https://t.co/Ke2C84KuaT https://t.co/C469qvrSoK [Tweet]. @DRTomlinsonEP. https://twitter.com/DRTomlinsonEP/status/1367962251211202566

Darren Dahly. (2020, October 28). Every so often I am reminded that there is an entire universe of people just casually giving out gazillions of wrong answers on researchgate like it’s no big deal, and it’s wild. [Tweet]. @statsepi. https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1321432106824859651

Darren Dahly. (2019, September 4). It seems appropriate to do a thread on our recent session about the use of Twitter by statisticians. Https://t.co/eFwLDuXnOU [Tweet]. @statsepi. https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1169313702715281408

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

It's a good analogy, but I think it's misleading/confusing/unclear/incorrect, because parts of ActiveInteraction are ActiveModel, so I guess ActiveInteraction deals with your nouns too?

I guess they called it that because it would be come across better than calling it a "slow" button!

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Elmas, T., Overdorf, R., Akgül, Ö. F., & Aberer, K. (2020). Misleading Repurposing on Twitter. ArXiv:2010.10600 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10600

Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'debated', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Kiely, E., McDonald, J., Gore, D., Robertson, L., & Rieder, R. (2020, July 20). FactChecking Trump’s “Fox News Sunday” Interview. FactCheck.Org. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/factchecking-trumps-fox-news-sunday-interview/

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' to 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Only in the literal sense. There's still an electronic paper trail, silly.

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

They don't remotely monitor your policy, just the generic clauses within it.

They seem to claim (or hope that their description will make you think) that ‘NID’ is only used for storing preferences, but if you read further down, you see that it's also used for targeting.

These should be separate cookies since they have separate purposes, and since under GPDR we have to get separate consent for each purpose of cookie.

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

This is a flawed proposition and both misleading and deceptive in relation to the subject matter, considering its prominence in a court media report of proceedings which largely centre on the propriety or otherwise of an approvals process.

Using a market analogy mischaracterises the process involved in seeking and gaining approval for a proposal based on an innovative occupational health and safety concept.

In this case, the Minister was the appropriate authority under the relevant NSW laws.

And while Mr Maitland could indeed be described as a "entrepreneur", the phrase "willing buyer" taken literally in the context of the process to which he was constrained, could contaminate the reader's perception of the process as transactional or necessitating exchange of funds a conventional buyer and seller relationship.

Based on evidence already tendered in open court, it's already known Mr Maitland sought both legal advice on the applicable process as well as guidance by officials and other representatives with whom he necessarily engaged.

But the concept of finding a "willing buyer", taken literally at it's most extreme, could suggest Mr Maitland was presented with multiple approvals processes and to ultimately reach his goal, engaged in a market force-style comparative assessment of the conditions attached to each of these processes to ultimately decide on which approvals process to pursue.

Plainly, this was not the case. Mr Maitland had sought advice on the process and proceeded accordingly.

The only exception that could exist in relation to the availability of alternative processes could be a situation silimilar to the handling of unsolicited proposals by former Premier Barry O'Farrell over casino licenses which were not constrained by any of the regular transparency-related requirements including community engagement, notification or competitive tender.

Again, this situation does not and could not apply to the process applicable to Mr Maitland's proposal.

The misleading concepts introduced from the outset in this article also represent an aggravating feature of the injustice to which Mr Maitland has been subjected.

To be found criminally culpable in a matter involving actions undertaken in an honest belief they were required in a process for which Mr Maitland both sought advice process and then at no stage was told anything that would suggest his understanding of the process was incorrect, contradicts fundamental principles of natural justice.

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Biogeophysical feedbacks have different tipping points. Some are in the range of the 2ºC limit, while others would occur at higher temperature anomalies. For example, a critical transition in the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation (AMOC) is not expected beyond 3ºC

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis