>Anybody capable of being convinced -- which is to say, able to understand science and not ideologically blinded to it -- has needed no subsequent convincing.
I don't think this is an accurate characterization of things. Most people I know believe in climate change, but very few of them could cite any facts or graphs or science that convinced them really. They believe it because people on tv who they trust told them it was true.
I'm not saying this is bad, we should trust experts on topics without expecting every single member of the population to get bogged down in the gritty details. I myself do believe in climate change and vote for democrats. That said, it annoys me when people act like everyone who believes in climate change is a genius who knows science and isn't blinded by ideology while the deniers are cavemen or religious zealots too dumb to get it. Like it or not, it has become a political issue and people on both sides are largely just following their own side, not looking deeply into the findings and methods of scientific studies to decide for themselves if they agree with the researchers.
>I find myself gravitating much more towards the negative reviews
Whenever I buy anything on Amazon I look at the negative reviews and most of them are people saying they straight up got the wrong product or whatever they got came broken/scratched up right out of the box. I see these complaints often enough that I assume people aren't just lying outright, but I personally have never had any of this happen to me despite all of the junk I've bought on Amazon. It's made the negative reviews almost as worthless as the positive reviews that are possibly just paid off.
Like another person said, the 2-3 star people are often what I find most helpful. I find they tend to be people who are honest but just way pickier than the average buyer, so the stuff they complain about usually doesn't matter to me, but its still informative.
>Maybe things will change down the road but I’m in my mid 40’s sooo.
My dad was like this, his free-time basically revolved around us kids when we were younger and we had a great time. Then we got a little older and I could tell he'd be a little disappointed when we'd be busy with friends/other stuff on the weekends, but we'd still be together most week nights. Then when we went off to college/adult life, he really had nothing to do. My mom had friends to hang out with, but for him, she was all he had really and I think at that point it was too weird/hard for him to branch out and make new friends.
I'm not saying you shouldn't put family first, but it's not a bad idea to maintain some relationships or else that empty nest is going to hit you HARD eventually.
This doesn't really fix your "charge-while-listening" dilemma, but I'm surprised more people don't bring up just buying earphones that use USBC as input. No dongle to lose. Sure, they're a little more expensive, but for someone like me who rarely uses headphones and really only cares about having earphones that stay in my ear/aren't uncomfortable, it's made transitioning to a newwer iphone easy.
That's true, I guess I'm conflating "overtourism" specifically with a wider push discouraging people from travel to decrease carbon emissions. You make a fair point, there is plenty of the world left to experience beyond the big hubs like Paris and Rome.
Nope. I hate my current job and am trying to pick up some new skills in my spare time so I can switch, but its very hard to come home from my 9-5 and feel motivated to study a new subject. Progress is extremely slow and often feels hopeless. Any time I'm not studying I feel paralyzed by the stress of knowing that I should be doing that instead, and yet I'm so far from being done that I get no reprieve if I actually do sit down and study.
I don't think this is a unique situation, I'm sure a lot of people on this site are in a similar boat. If you're reading this, I hope you find comfort in knowing it's not just you.
This, it feels very weird to me seeing people advocate for basically only allowing the super rich to travel. To a lot of people, travelling abroad isn't just about getting drunk at foreign clubs and leaving trash everywhere, but about experiencing other cultures and having your world-view widened beyond what you see every day. I think most people would argue these things are good, not just for the individual but for society?
I'd really prefer stuff like this be in more of a slideshow format so I can easily go between time points and compare without having to scrub around the video and press pause/play, memorize what i'm looking at, then scrub around for another time point, etc., but I guess a video is sexier.
You could make the opposite argument as well, that if the market was "freer" or less regulated or whatever then anyone could build and supply would better match demand. It's a situation where you can skew the message whichever way you want to benefit an agenda since most of our systems are neither pure free-market capitalism nor pure socialism. Obviously zealots from either side are going to say our shortcomings are because we've given too many concessions to the other.
I'm glad they're approaching it in a way beyond just "make everything more expensive". It's interesting how when it comes to climate change, a lot of the same people who are otherwise committed to egalitarian ideals immediately jump to "just charge more" as a solution for everything. I'm not saying those kind of policies can't be a piece of the solution, but I really don't see it being effective to tell all but the rich to bike to work and take on vegan diets and give up out of town vacations and stop using a/c, etc. Sure that would probably be effective, but expecting that level of asceticism out of people is just going to push them into the arms of the political parties who tell them "climate change is fake, so take that vacation and don't worry".
I think an example would be for companies like Google who hire a lot of contractors from hiring agencies who do work at Google, but these people don't technically work FOR Google and therefore don't get the good Google salary or good Google benefits. I guess that is counter to Uber who hires their own people and basically contracts them out to themselves? I don't know if that means the easy loophole for Uber and Lyft is just to now hire all drivers from a separate company and then call them contractors.
>MAD doesn't really work anymore because of the advent of hypersonic cruise missiles and the likes of russia's Burevestnik/Skyfall.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Even if DC gets nuked before it can react, I'm pretty sure there are dead man switch-type systems in place and stuff like submarines equipped with nukes away from home so that even if they whole country was glassed there would be some retaliation. These scenarios probably don't reflect the whole arsenal, so the retaliation wouldn't hit every square inch of the enemy's land, but I would still think that threat is enough to make you not want to start anything.
A lot of this information could definitely be framed in a different way to make it sound almost Utopian, I agree, but I think it is hard to argue against the idea that we're relying on technology more and need cybersecurity to scale up. Otherwise its going to be like everyone with access to a computer has a bazooka. Speaking of which, I wonder if there will come a day when the solution to this problem is just heavily restricting access to hardware, background checks before you can buy a laptop/smart phone, etc.
The text says 24-60 hours, but then in the table where they talk about the other studies being considered, a lot of them did 48 hour minimum and as much as 96 hours for some. When I saw the headline I was excited because a 16-18 hour fast really isn't very hard for most people, but 48 hours sounds a little rough. I guess if it's just a one-off event while you're doing chemo it's not that bad, but I'm not about to fast 48 hours once a week for the rest of my life.
I really think it's better to just have an up vote arrow and no down vote option, for questions at least. The only reason on a site like that to really vote something down should be if something is off topic or against the rules, in which case you have a report button. If a question just straight up doesn't interest you or you don't want to answer it, then ignoring it rather than voting it down seems like the reasonable response. I also know that since visibility is based on how your score matches up to others, some people will just go and vote down every other recent question so theirs stands out more (unless stack overflow has protection against such things, I know it happens on similar sites)
I can maybe see an argument for answers to questions being down vote-able, since people may sometimes give answers that are wrong/misleading but maybe not to such a degree that they deserve to be expunged by moderators.
>how related is the incidence of fires in Ruussia with those in Brazil? I don't know, lets combine them anyway!
If the "hype" the author is crusading against is the idea that the Amazon fire is killing the planet's lungs and will result in an apocalypse or whatever, then isn't it fair to look at incidence of forest fires all over the world?
The author is definitely being a contrarian and the headline is clickbait, but a lot of people in this thread are railing against the author saying nobody should care about the Amazon fire and that it's not a big deal, when really he's just arguing that the media is sensationalizing aspects of the ordeal to sell papers/subscriptions/views. You can care about/report on the story without going nuts on headlines saying the world is ending.
People also have different ideas of what "hard" is. I've never tried setting up a mail server so I'm talking out of my ass a bit, but after reading the article it sounds like you'd need to do a bit of googling/trial and error changes to get things set up, probably one of those projects that would take up most of a saturday or at least a saturday afternoon and might run into some hiccups every few months that requires more googling/tweaking.
Even if I'm way off base about the mail server set up being this way, some people still consider this type of "saturday afternoon" project hard compared to something that just works out of the box without any fiddling and can be set up in 20 minutes. I'm not trying to be elitist by suggesting these people are dumb or lazy, just that the semantics of what "hard" is varies for people, especially with little projects that require fiddling/tweaking/looking for outside help.
Surely you're not arguing that these ultra-marathons aren't niche compared to, say, the New York City marathon or marathons in the Olympics? It seems like a bad-faith argument to assume the person you first responded to is belittling the races just because women can and do win them, rather than because they get MUCH less publicity/interest. No reasonable person is going to suggest a 50K marathon isn't physically way harder than a standard marathon.
I think talking about it openly was the right thing to do. People are going to rag on them for this decision (though I assume most will understand) and you have more control over the message if you get out there first rather than waiting to comment til there's a backlash. Maybe it's just lipservice, but I actually liked a lot of what they said in the post about it being obvious 8chan had to go, but that they want to have more objective policies in place rather than deciding who is bad enough to drop on a whim. They made it pretty clear they don't intend to be the internet content police force and that they don't even think this will stop 8chan from existing, so it's not like they were bragging about doing any good really. All-in-all seemed pretty reasonable in my opinion.
>I think people feel the need to add a scientific explanation to things where in my view the pure observation that it seems to work would be enough already.
I really could not disagree more, given how much conflicting health information I see talked about seemingly daily.
I don't think anyone doubts Epstein's guilt at this point. The conspiracy angle is more about who else among the "world elite" joined him in his crimes and tried to cover them up.
I don’t think what you’re saying is wrong, but all of these people live in the real world where accidents/sudden illness/etc do happen every day, so it would be nice to have some evidence beyond “this guy benefitted from this other guy dying.” I’m not a lawyer or anything, but even the legal system isn’t really supposed to look at motivation as evidence in a case, though I’m sure it sways juries.
I'm not sure the article supports the title's claim that women scientist biographies are more likely to be removed. The only evidence provided is that one woman wrote 700 articles about women scientists and 6 were removed. I'd say that's an amazing ratio honestly, most people who've ever tried to edit wikipedia know how harsh the site is about reversing/undoing even well meaning edits so I don't exactly buy the fact that 0.9% of this person's articles on women being deleted constitutes unduly harsh or sexist treatment.
Moreover, the article even says that women are less likely to get fellowships/awards (no source provided but I believe it) that would allow them to meet wikipedia's notability requirements for an article, so if anything it sounds like wikipedia is applying it's rules without discrimination but rather it's the scientific community/academia's discrimination that would make it more difficult for an article to get made according to wikipedia's guidlines.
This completely. I've never used TikTok, but my understanding is that it is more akin to SnapChat for lipsyncing. I'm sure there are a lot of people who use YouTube for that type of content and have been pulled to TikTok for it, but it does not seem like an alternative to me as someone who almost exclusively goes to YouTube for content that is at least 10 minutes or longer and more like a replacement for television.
I have done no research into this at all, so maybe I'm just an asshole repeating hearsay, but I've heard YouTube is not even remotely profitable for Google. Owning the huge site definitely benefits them in a lot of ways beyond just ad revenue/profit, so I'm assuming from Google's point of view, until some other site can actually challege YouTube's dominance, it's totally worth it to have this stream of publicity gaffes to lose a tiny amount of viewer revenue than to throw even more money down the hole trying to fix the site's issue. It's like a wooden row boat that keeps springing leaks, as long as YouTube has free fingers to plug them, that's what they're gonna do rather than actually fix them.
For whatever a banking license doesn't cover, requiring more regulation/oversight doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but straight up keeping tech companies out is silly. Smells like big financial institutions are probably lobbying to keep the new kids out of their sphere.
Not quite "AI generated", but Dunc's Algomusic[0] is free. I don't think you have THAT much control over how it sounds beyond picking different seed inputs. I find it especially great for weird/unsettling background music. Not sure if there is a built in way to export tracks but there is probably some way to use another app to record it.