toby-

It's part of DoggoLingo[0], a meme-filled Internet lexicon (or... something). It's all in good fun, and I don't understand why anybody could be upset by it. Sure, he could've called this "SmallTCP" and been bland, but decided to inject some (silly) humour. Plenty of other projects are similarly named.[1]

It reminds me of the words "cromulent"[2] and "embiggen"[3]; coined by The Simpsons but used in everything from BBC articles to scientific research.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoggoLingo

[1]: https://github.com/aras-p/smol-v

[2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cromulent

[3]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/embiggen

This is false.

You might be interested to read The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1/2008bams2370%252E1....

Excerpt: "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."

I interpreted "20ft" as humorous hyperbole here (a serious prediction wouldn't omit a date, naturally).

The recent studies I've explored predict around 50-130cm by 2100. However, I have seen discussions of ~20ft by 2200 and 26ft by 2300 (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/sea-leve...), alongside more alarming figures (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-environ-10...).

You want a citation that sea levels are rising? Or that this will have negative impacts on society?

Here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758961/

> Is it really an unreasonable ask of a reporter who is focused on privacy to also be willing to research the practices of the website that hosts them?

While not mentioned in the article's text, the New York Times does feature as a data point: https://i.imgur.com/uaOqPod.png

And the article ends with the NYT's own message: "Like other media companies, The Times collects data on its visitors when they read stories like this one. For more detail please see our privacy policy and our publisher's description of The Times's practices and continued steps to increase transparency and protections."

Do you suppose the author of this opinion piece wrote the New York Times' privacy policy?

Edit: some fair counterpoints to me, below. But publishing an opinion piece does not necessarily imply endorsement, and nor does it diminish the author's point(s) one iota.

He wasn't necessarily implying the Daily Mail is propaganda or a content farm. They are, however, a tabloid of ill repute.

No, this is no longer what these terms mean in common parlance.

(There is no arbiter of language; words are imbued with meaning through usage. People use "first world" and "third world" quite differently now than during the Cold War.)

It's Vice; if it wasn't written by a 13-year-old, rest assured it was written by somebody with the maturity of one. ;)

Welsh expansionism; the Welshmen need Lebensraum.

Joking aside, I also read the title as referring to Plaid Cymru and was very confused.

Yes...? I'm amazed if you drew from that single sentence that the UK is creating fake accounts on social media and using bot networks. There's 'filling in the gaps', but that leap you've managed to make is egregious.

The third sentence further explains the false spontaneity: "In operations that contingency planners term 'controlled spontaneity', politicians’ statements, vigils and inter-faith events are also negotiated and planned in readiness for any terrorist attack."

Basically: the UK government coordinates social media campaigns to promote social cohesion in the wake of terror attacks, and additionally coordinates with community leaders and politicians. That's all you can draw from the article, unless you have additional information or sources to the contrary.

Where in this article does it allege "fake accounts" or "bot networks" are employed?

This article is from a dubious source, and is rather light on sources. Nowhere is it alleged the UK government is abusively creative accounts on social media.

A very good point generally, but not particularly relevant here. All this article is alleging is that the UK government coordinates social media campaigns with politicians and community leaders to promote social cohesion in the wake of terrorist atrocities. They're, somehow, attempting to portray this in a negative light.

I can't help but note the complete lack of sources in the article, and we have to question[1] the source itself.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Eye#Links_to_Hamas...

According to Wikipedia[1] it's an online news outlet that covers the ME. It's been accused of a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias, and Saudi Arabia (amongst others) allege that it's controlled by Qatar with links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Eye#Links_to_Hamas...

>when a supposedly free and democratic state does

Create social media campaigns to promote social cohesion? I'm, er, actually okay with this?

The article says "politicians’ statements, vigils and inter-faith events are also negotiated and planned in readiness for any terrorist attack". Nothing about that strikes me as particularly harmful; a government promoting social cohesion during times of turmoil is standard fare. What's upsetting about that?

Oh, interesting! I wasn't aware of this research. I would be surprised if this were connected, but a fascinating idea nevertheless; I wonder if anybody has discussed a potential connection?

I think you're misunderstanding what a biophoton is?

Biophotons are just regular old photons produced by a living being (biological system). I'm not sure how they could be relevant, here.

The GDPR is precisely trying to give you that choice. It was the website in question that has chosen to block you, not the EU.

Skipping bail. For refusing to surrender to the court after he was released on bail, following his arrest for questioning over sexual assault allegations.

Skipping bail; failing to surrender to the court after he was previously released on bail. The sexual assault case against him in Sweden has since been dropped, but the warrant for skipping bail is still active.

I'm firmly against his potential extradition to any other country, but let's be honest -- he's not exactly in trouble with British authorities due to his "political opinions", is he?

I'm confused. The press release says Qaiser "bought masses of advertising traffic from pornographic websites" -- so what's wrong with the BBC's reporting, here?

Don't try to make a new account as others have suggested. You're essentially guaranteed to be permanently delisted by Amazon if you do this and they react. Instead, send a polite but compelling email to jeff@amazon.com explaining the situation in full.

I once had an issue that Amazon's customer service wouldn't address. I emailed jeff@amazon.com and had a response within a week, with a full resolution to the matter.

Worth a shot?

Whilst I didn't get that exact impression from the book, Barkley is known for being "realistic" about ADHD: he doesn't hide the fact that, depending on severity, ADHD can levy a heavy toll on a person, significantly impacting their quality of life. ADHD sucks, but we can make it suck significantly less through good habits, good routines, healthy eating, exercise and, where appropriate, medication and other forms of psychological support.

It's a cliché, but comparing yourself to others is a bad idea in this domain. I have yet to meet an ADHDer who makes these sorts of "upward comparisons" and derives anything useful from them; they typically just exacerbate feelings of inadequacy and hopelessness.

Personally, I know I might never be as effective or productive as a person without ADHD is capable of being, but I can be the best version of myself — it's fruitless and unhealthy to ask more of yourself than this, right?