ailideex

> The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is ... (some characteristics)

This builds to conclusion:

> The systemic bias of the English Wikipedia is permanent. As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not identical to the world's demographic composition, the version of the world presented in the English Wikipedia will always be the Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world.

I don't see how you get to that conclusion form the premise other than by thinking that reality is modified by personal characteristics.

If there is an Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world which includes things like gravity and science - then it is not valid for Africa (as the woman in the video is expressing) as Africa is not the Anglophone world ... not sure what about this is not clear.

And it absolutely is as bad as that youtube video I linked - you think that poor unfortunate woman came up with that drivel on her own? She is not nearly dumb enough - no single person can be that stupid.

You need years of academic circle jerking and hand picking of the dumbest arguments from the dumbest people to come up with something that stupid.

That an article like that exists is patently absurd in my view and kind of makes me a bit ill. Things like that is what led to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

I really firmly believe that if you think there is a European (?) science and an African science and they are distinct and equally valid then either me or you do not belong on Wikipedia and I would actually like Wikipedia to clarify their mission in this light.

> Climate change activists protest against high-speed UK train line

I'm not convinced these people care about what they say they care about.

Yet amazingly their interfaces and quality is incredibly horrible. Azure like most other things Microsoft makes feels like a half baked and over fitted platform with serious quality issues.

Interestingly, this is one of the biggest predictors for incoming:

https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/parents-determine-child-su...

> If the income factors all seem obvious, this next finding may be more surprising: Your parents' marriage and family stability might be the biggest determinant [of income] of all. Growing up in a single-parent household significantly hurts a child's chance of upward income mobility, the study finds.

So sure, I guess generosity is all the rage, but decent families is better in the long run.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence_of_existe...

> [1] The Information: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/google-brass-set-202...

I don't see anything mentioning that Google will shut down GCP unit in 2023 - I see something saying that GCP unit will risk losing funding - presumably this is not quite the same thing. Losing funding to me would mean they will have to fund themselves on their own revenue.

If you want dynamically updating diagrams you can maybe consider some of the diagram creation generation tools listed here: https://asciidoctor.org/docs/asciidoctor-diagram/#creating-a...

Slightly off context but I think that the solution to this is some kind of quota and or tier system to laws and policing. Basically to restrict the amount of policing that may be done for things like jaywalking and traffic violations while the violent crime rate is above a certain threshold.

I have been held at gun point twice in my life as part of armed robbery and hijacking and neither time did I even consider for a moment that the police would find the people who did it. But if I do 60 km/h in a 40 km/h zone they will follow me to the end of the earth to get me to pay them.

Incredibly.

Why not just https://ee.co.uk.billing.info/jan-02 ? I mean if someone does not notice it is a domain name and not path would they really notice where the info part is?

- I never thought it would cure my depression, but then again I have never seen my depression as something to be cured. It has helped me understand that my depression is a reasonable consequence of how I live my life and it also made me understand what choices I would have to make to change it.

- It never made me feel like my life is full of meaning - it actually showed me how the lack of meaning in my life is related to my depression. It also helped me understand the complexity of meaning and made it clear to me what would be needed to have a meaningful life.

- Psychedelics has not made me worse at my job, it has not caused me to spiral, it has not driven me to other drugs.

The experiences I have never once made me want to grow my hair, nor go to festivals, nor talk of energy and chi and chakras - and in general I avoid taking it with or close to other people. I don't now how you got to that at all really but I think it was bad influences in your life more than the psychedelics.

If anything my psychedelic journey has made me maybe more conservative than I used to be and I am less likely to believe in any kind of woo like chi and chakras than I was before I took it.

I would not really recommend anybody take LSD or psychedelics - but I think it have had a very positive influence on my life and if anything I regret not taking it more often.

I guess that I have not been clear enough - so maybe this will help. I have no objection to morals or ethics being discussed in school. I have a problem with the state trying to instil a specific set of morals into children.

> That is already a moral position

That the state should not dictate what morals children should hold is indeed a moral position. I never once suggested otherwise.

> The state will suggest a small set of resources, and try as much as you can, those resources will only discuss only a few moral positions on genetic engineering.

There is a big difference between studying specific works on ethics and trying to instil a specific set of morals into children. I think it is very valuable to have exposure to many different points of view on morality. I think it would be good to expose children to the concepts of moral absolutism, moral objectivism, morality of different peoples and different times.

> Ultimately, students will be taught these and they will adopt one of them.

If someone gets taught different points of view on morality - it is up to them to adopt or not adopt it.

> The generic mistake you are making in your argument is forgetting that the null policy is also a policy.

I'm perfectly aware that a policy of not dictate morals to children in schools would be a policy - not sure why you thought otherwise. I'm not arguing for the absence of government policy or the absence of morals.

Discussing morality in school is not the same as dictating morality in school. If the governments position is these are the morals that the school system must instill in children then I have a problem with it - if not - great - have at it.

> And obviously, courses on economics or political science can't even begin to be taught without assuming certain moral or philosophical positions.

I don't see how any course in economics or political science requires the pupils to adopt any specific morals.

This is where culture and tradition should play a role in my view - if we foster a liberal culture and encourage our children to adopt this culture we can keep what those that came before us paid the blood price for.

If we on the other hand encourage our children to take the power of government to compel their follow citizens to do what they want them to do and adopt the morals they want them to adopt then I think no amount of government censorship of speech will save us from tyranny and dystopia.

Well it makes sense, given we still have not figured out how to legislate people back to life and have recognized that making something illegal does not make it impossible.

> We literally have misnamed bills put forth by our leaders in the US to misinform the populace. And it's acceptable to do so.

So in order to prevent the government from lying to us we should put the government in charge of deciding what is fact and what is not fact and also according to others in this thread put them in charge of what is moral and not moral.

Hard pass but thanks for the suggestion.

If it was just some teacher's own opinion and there was no insistence that the children must adopt it then I would not characterise it as dictating morality in school.

And in my view dictating morality as part of the curriculum is totalitarian and perverse.

Google for: "what party was Andrew Jackson in"

For me this shows "Democratic-Republican Party" - this was the first party he was part of - he was elected president while a member of the Democratic party and remained such until his death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson

So your theory does not hold.

Here we have someone who was a Republican being portrayed as something else and someone who was a Democrat being portrayed as something else - and in both cases there is political benefit to Democratic party in the US.