I'd sooner breathe sulpheric acid than...something something oblate spheroids?
5,626 karma · joined October 6, 2015
As with many things, the action is not designed to eliminate abject non participation but to deal with 'unthinking errors' like wrong site surgeries or taking off without clearance. This article may strike you as gawking but the principle is sound.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling#:~:text=I....
another argument against open offices I guess.
At some point as part of a computer system cutover, United Airlines suddenly started shorting people miles on airport to airport differences. Not a lot, but a few here and there. A group of folks on flyertalk slowly realized that the change was perfectly explained by the difference between treating the globe as a perfect sphere and treating it as an oblate spheroid.
The previous model had been technically correct and precise. Whoever built the new model had simplified the code for some reason. After much kvetching United fixed it.
I mean…people know that. The lie is the point. The distraction is by intention the point of making the false claim.
Totally agree with you on the rest.
What is interesting is the admins now finding that those same legislators won't leave you alone even if they strip all your funding. They will mess with you for cheap points and sport.
It isn't 'organic' there has been an outside forcing function.
This was the least expensive and most responsible way to conduct this study. What alternative would you provide? Just not doing it?
Would you like me to show this to my friends who work at the CDC and record their reactions for you? Oh how they wish...
The CDC doesn't want to control you, they just want you to wash your damn hands. They aren't invoking 'science' (with or without the scare quotes) - they are doing science because understanding whether, how, and why people follow the requests of public health officials is useful to know to both model and make decisions about the next pandemic. It is also just basically their mandate.
this ' ' ' science ' ' ' is more about realizing that ' ' ' controlling people ' ' ' is a lost cause, and just trying to figure out how to prevent the spread of infectitious diseases given the new reality of self important typhoid marys.
The fact that you think the people who eradicated smallpox are scarier than the CIA or facebook is just patently absurd.
https://peer.asee.org/engineering-students-misuse-of-busines...
E.g., paying off credit cards probably means paying them off monthly, but what if it means paying off all the debt I've already accumulated. Do I have to make a will before that?
Guiding credible knowledge construction is hard
The unspoken issue in this thread is that financial education, in fact a lot of education nowadays unfortunately, is unlearning things that are taught wrong at home. If the parents have a bad (not null...bad) understanding of financial literacy or role model bad things, you are fighting an uphill battle.
Scott Adams list is typically shallow...it provides just enough information to look credible while leaving enough flexibility that anyone who fails at this is blamed instead.
What is really interesting is that when asked directly, they can clearly articulate the difference. However, when making decisions typical of early stage entrepreneurship - the terms collapse in on one another and they rely on a series of interesting heuristics that are badly biased towards how entrepreneurs are represented in media.
The reality is that education is slow - especially education about a topic that comes with a lot of 'colloquial baggage'. Students here these terms and have a mental model/memory structure of them. Teaching what seems like 'simple' things is way more than transferring information. It's not bits sent through the air - its like doing an over the air firmware update using AM radio when the received may not have had its battery properly charged - and also installing new programs at the same time.
If I design a 10” Diam part to be assembled to another with a .001” gap, then a .010 gap is huge. If it’s a 10’ part that has the same tolerance, a 0.01” gap is still huge.
Tolerances aren’t arbitrary, they are analyzed and the issue is you generally don’t k ow what happens accurately if those tolerance limits are violated.
As for the mechanism, you need to worry not just about a single cycle load to failure, you need to also worry about shortened fatigue life (I,e, failure after many cycles - but many less cycles than predicted). Overall, load transfer is highly complicated in thin skin structures and that the gap is small doesn’t mean that a change in that gap crosses a small change in load
It’s important to note that there is a significant portion of the people employing this term in bad faith who are doing now intentionally and to cause confusion. The problem with a new term is that it will, almost inherently, be co-opted by these same groups.
The attempts to mislabel are intentional and coordinated. I think you are coming from a good hearted place, and it’s nice to be able to have this convo, but a new label won’t fix it because the label isn’t the problem the use is.
There are varying definitions of 'censorship' floated in this thread. A lot of people in this thread who are defenders of Musk are willing to apply the label censorship to 'canceling people'...or at least when certain people get push back. If we take their definition at the word, if we take it as honest, then it is reasonable to apply to his own actions.
vis a vis, by the definition of censorship floated in support of Musks purchase, he censored Vernon.
Do I buy that definition? no...but...I don't think 'cancelling' is censorship, I think its just another form of free speech thats given a hostile label to bound free speech in a hierarchical way.
Otherwise, and its worth noting this actually highlights the subtext of the overall conversation, there are two definitions of censorship being applied by some people - a broader one to speech they like, and a narrower one to speech they don't.
If you want to talk about free speech, talk about free speech. If you want to talk about the first amendment, talk about the first amendment. If you want to talk about something else - label and define it precisely.
It is critical to this debate that things be properly defined and labeled. As is patently visible in this discussion, people are trying to defend indefensible or unrealistic positions by shifting their meaning and playing with ambiguity.
Words have meaning, that meaning can be flexible to include common usage, but there is nothing inappropriate about calling out objectively problematic uses of words - especially those that are disruptive or distracting (c.f., Canadian truckers making 1st amendment claims in Canadian courts).
I for one, if you made me pick an example, would point to his treatment of Vernon Unsworth.
The fact that real things happen doesn’t make using the same term to describe not real things happening acceptable.
I can’t call out of work because there was a blizzard if there wasn’t a blizzard recently where I actually live
The problem, as usual, being that you are trying to describe something with a term where the common usage is just plain bad faith.
Unfairly attacked?
Harassed?
There’s lots of words…the common usage of cancelling is none of them nor what you described. The common usage is what no one in this thread seems to want to admit. And it’s why the same people who cry about cancel culture want to use it’s supposed existence as a reason to actually restrict others free speech.
canceling is a label applied to play the victim when people are being held accountable for things they don't want to be or by people they don't consider equal.
I'm considering running for president on a one issue platform: A constitutional amendment to criminalize false claims that a non-governmental actor has violated your free speech.
Look at the trump presidency for just...rife examples of this but the phenomenon occurred before and after. Until the remaining news media stops having news stories that are primarily based on 'X tweeted Y' organically, there is a serious negative incentive to have Twitter's corporate leadership end it for them.
I'm all for a good damning with faint praise, and this definitely put a smile on my face.
I'm still convinced this is just the Twitter board calling Musk's bluff.
Lets say this does fall through, the SEC, Tesla, and SpaceX fall out could be REALLY bad.