13,735 karma · joined September 19, 2017
FWIW, your assumptions about the protestors seem to match the preconceived notions (conveniently serving anti-progressive politics) of the neoreactionaries - before the protestors even begin, they are terrorists, etc.
Judge them by what they do, not all that nonsense: they have been peaceful everywhere.
Endlessly attacking people you disagree with doesn't add credibility or make any of it true.
I don't read disinformation sources. It's a waste of time, hoping that this time, it might be different.
If someone who has misinformed me 10,000 times sends me an email with information, I don't take the time to look into it.
The correlation between neoreactionary disinformation campaigns (e.g., chaos in cities was the theme of the 2020 GOP convention, though overshadowed by Covid) and people's beliefs are too great to think it's coincidence.
The neoreactionary influence campaigns dominate the country and much of the world, IME. While the mainstream incumbent powers are living in a fantasy world of their now-historical world, a world where the serious news media being central to public conversation. They don't realize that most of the real influence is happening over social media, through these disinformation campaigns.
I suspect the upcoming election will be a devestating loss - but not an awakening. Incumbents (think of Blackberry in technology) will crew their ship to the bottom of the ocean.
That's surprising to hear, because people with your approximate beliefs dominate the public conversation, have recalled the DA, and are spending large amounts of money to take over SF politics.
Why is it necessary to play the victim? Are you afraid of people disagreeing?
I doubt people would notice 3%, though arguably it could have been 'too high' to begin with.
> As a personal anecdote, my car was broken into last year and I did not bother filing a police report.
What does that represent? Not only are you just one person, people have been behaving like that for generations, not just the last 4 years.
> Something is verisimilar when it has the appearance of truth, or is likely to be true, regardless of whether it is in fact true.
Hmmm ... in English I've never seen the usage "likely to be true". There are many other words for that - probable, likely, etc.
Based on what?
> All you've done is reduced the OP to the same tired discourse
The OP did that. What else have they offered?
Do you have evidence of that, both that it's a commonplace point of view and that it affected admissions?
Can you provide a credible source for that?
> The pro-Palestine protestors on campus have been, as far as I can tell, almost entirely peaceful everywhere in the country.
Yes, agreed.
Where did those things happen, specifically? At Columbia, the university administration shut down campus; it was functioning fine otherwise (except for one building on the last day).
You get wonderful things and 'good trouble'.
What is that based on? (Also, why those particular schools?)
Here's one way to look at it:
To learn something, some people want to learn from the best in the world and to study with the best in the world. They want to change the world and want to maximize their potential; they want professors and fellow students who can challenge them as much as possible, who can take them as far as possible.
Some people are more oriented toward a less maximizing path, which is fine - maybe more about learning what is in the textbook from a decent professor. Possibly they indeed wouldn't benefit from Harvard. I suspect when people say things like 'Auburn's education is the same quality as Harvard's', they mean that the kind of education they got at Auburn wouldn't be better at Harvard. Maybe that's true, but Harvard offers something far greater, not available at Auburn. It's a chance to work with (and build relationships with) the very best minds in the world, some of the best in human history.
Think of that kid in your high school who just blew away every class, even the hardest ones; who found other things outside school or at nearby colleges to challenge them. That kid wants to be around other kids like them, who challenge them, and around professors who can make the most out of their potential and passions.
The protests are docile. There are almost no reports of violence. I've seen more than one 'encampment' at various schools; it's just people hanging around tents. Most of the chaos and violence were introduced by law enforcement. How could the protestors be any less disruptive and still be protesting? Picket lines are more disruptive.
Protests with chaos and violence include large crowds destroying and looting. The reactionaries are so anxious to assume the protestors are awful that they just seem to assume or say there is 'chaos and violence' and people repeat it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Could you share some history with us? How was it the same and how different than what happened recently.
Also, the suppression of the president of Harvard by outside forces seems new?
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-dec-26-la-sp-cr...
The piece was essentially a portrait of a hero, Willie Ebert Brown, in a terrain of racial relations that had hope in it. The sentence that announced the Black back-up for the manager was this: “A sturdy-looking Black guy came out of the kitchen.” This is choice low fruit for a sensitivity editor. “Objectifying description,” she wrote, “that may invoke associations with slavery.”
I should have desisted publishing the book, but I am a chicken-shit person and I really wanted a book with a beautiful photo of an indigo snake on its cover. My celebration of Willie was thrown out; my invocation of slavery (to which who objects, its absurdity aside?) was one of a hundred other crimes in the piece. Liberal racism had its way: remove racism by removing race.
There is not a person of color in my book except a very positive small tribute to Barack Obama as a tool by which we might argue the French can slow their roll about how racist we are and they aren’t. How that was not deemed racist is a wonder, because it somewhat is. It’s not a wonder: liberal racism is a photo-negative argument. I apologize for this rant. Chicken-shit and now tired too.
Snark is a signal of cheap argument: They have nothing more serious to say; they are signaling that there is a bandwagon and you can join in, rather than a serious argument that you can engage and reason with - just grab a drink and hop aboard! Don't spoil the party!
Chicken-shit indeed: It's very easy these days to preach to the choir, white people jumping on the anti-antiracism bandwagon, because they can deny and ignore racism's effects without personal consequence (including that it's not socially acceptable and even encouraged), and tiring of dealing with race (if white people tire of it, just imagine black people who can't avoid or ignore it).
Instead of cutting the story, how about a description of the kitchen-worker as more than "Black" (though we don't get to see the original; maybe that's already there). Instead of snark, how about an examination of what the editor meant, what aspects were racism to what degree? So sorry for tiring you.
I might say to them that verisimilitudinous is not the usual word (despite the OP). It's the more elegant verisimilar, and thus verisimilarly.
Is there an OS or another Linux distribution that matches Debian's performance in this respect, without the complexity of an entire Linux system? Could Debian be stripped down (and then how are updates applied)?
Wang, R., Yang, S., Wang, M. et al. A sustainable approach to universal metabolic cancer diagnosis. Nature Sustainability (2024)
Also:
Even if science data won't likely be collected after 2025, engineering data could continue to be returned for several more years. The two Voyager spacecraft could remain in the range of the Deep Space Network through about 2036, depending on how much power the spacecraft still have to transmit a signal back to Earth.
That FAQ covers a lot of interesting ground (though it talks about 2020 in the future tense).
After Voyager 1 took its last image (the "Solar System Family Portrait" in 1990), the cameras were turned off to save power and memory ...
I didn't realize that was the last image.
... it is very dark where the Voyagers are now. While you could still see some brighter stars and some of the planets with the cameras, you can actually see these stars and planets better with amateur telescopes on Earth.