It’s funny they say the article “may have” run afoul of their journalistic standards. May have is carrying a lot of weight there.
replySaying may have during an investigation was unremarkable.
replyThe article "may have" drawn too much attention to how little they care.
replyEquivalently: Our standards "may have" been low enough that this was just fine, actually.
replyJust like in the original thread that was wiped (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47012384), Ars Subscriptors continue to display lack of reading comprehension and jump to defending Condé Nast.
replyAll threads have since been locked:
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/journalistic-standards...
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/is-there-going-to-be-a...
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/um-what-happened-to-th...
Ars Technika has fallen substantially from the heady era of Siracusa macOS reviews.
replyEric Berger space coverage still remains Ars’ strong suit.
replyYeah, the Condé Nast buyout really crippled what was an amazing independent tech news site.
replyThe sad thing is, I don't know of anywhere else that comes close to what Ars was before.
Does anywhere else even come close to the Ars of today? (For the sake of this question, assume a best-case response to this LLM-hallucinated article.)
replyI'm genuinely asking - I subscribe to Ars - if their response isn't best-case, where could I even even switch my subscription and RSS feed to?