LOL! Your claim that AGW is "the biggest science debate" is risible. As far as truth being determined by consensus. There is no absolute "truth", number one, and it's not consensus, its *expert* consensus, number two. The (contextual) truth is more likely to be approximated by the expert consensus (if there is one) than any other means. If you've got a better way to go about it, by all means you should publish it.
The difference here is between "high percentage of people who may or may not know what they're talking about" and "high percentage of experts in the field who certainly know what they're talking about." The expert consensus is far more useful than the popular consensus, which is the problem that we have in the AGW.
Social media is a way to increase connectedness, especially among friends, and share experiences. But it's an augmentation of, not a substitution for, actual social experiences. If you're looking online and all you're seeing are gatherings of friends you're not at, families you never started, and vacation spots you couldn't go to, then sure, it will certainly increase your own feelings of want. If you have a rich social life, or one that you're comfortable with, then "social media" is unlikely to have that much of an isolating effect. But if a greater social experience is something you really want, even if you tell yourself that you don't, then it shouldn't be a surprise that you'd feel lonely.
There are multiple allegations here, and multiple mistakes. As far as I can tell, the list of mistakes is as follows:
1) Brian Cullinan, one of the representatives from PwC, was distracted backstage by Emma Stone getting her picture taken. Minutes before the snafu, he tweeted a picture of her that he took, a tweet that has been deleted. He says the tweet was not a distraction. 2) Brian had Emma's backup envelope in his hand, a red envelope with gold lettering in the middle that read "Best Actress in a Leading Role." You can freeze the broadcast and see the "Best Actress" on the envelope when Faye Dunaway holds it. Neither Brian Cullinan nor Warren Beatty noticed the front of the envelope said "Best Actress" in gold print on the envelope. Maybe Beatty did notice it and that partially led to his confusion with the envelope. 3) Beatty also didn't notice or misinterpreted the "Best Actress" on the card, or that it was just Emma Stone listed on the card. 4) Faye Dunaway misinterpreted Beatty's confusion, playing smacking his arm and saying "Oh you, you're the worst!" She seemed to think he was hamming it up, so when he showed her the card, she wanted a quick announcement and shouted out what she saw. She saw "La La Land," that was a best picture nominee, so it was reasonable to her. 5) Brian Cullinan and the other PwC accountant were slow to act -- stage managers said they "froze" when they realized the wrong name had been called. They might have been able to stop the nonsense before the acceptance speeches.
So, many opportunities in the chain to realize a mistake had been made, many failures to act before it was too late.
OOOHHHHH, they stimulate the same brain centers. Obviously that means they're the same! How foolish of me.
Very good, admitting ignorance is the first step towards enlightenment. Here's a bit of additional reading: Sugar consumption increases dopamine levels Note that this is the current theory, but the evidence is not hard. There's still disagreement about the level of addiction involved, and it's worth noting that consuming sugar instead of, say, heroin, does not seem to lessen the heroin cravings, even if they release similar levels of dopamine.
The idea of "bring online" is itself a relic of the pre-smartphone age.
Yes and no. I'm interested in having an actual synchronous conversation with someone, not "hey" "at the store" etcetc. And they're interested in that too, but the technology now makes little distinction. And when they're actually "Around" at home, that's something we do. But finding out those time periods is harder than it used to be. I really don't want to bother people at dinner, and I sure as hell don't want my phone buzzing while I'm in a movie or at work for that matter, so I turned Telegram off on the phone (actually I uninstalled it when it went through my contacts without asking and sent an alert to each and every one of them with the telegram account that I'd thought was private. Talk about invasive).
And these aren't random people or strangers, they're friends, and we will chat a lot. It's just that on the "always connected" network, everyone always appears to be around and but isn't, and you never know.
Yes, but the fact that he did was what counted, and it wasn't a half-hearted attempt either. As for optimism, I concur, at this point, there is none. We will have to wait 4 years.
Right now, industries successfully throw delays in the way of reforms, knowing that a new administration will drop all those plans, and make the administration after THAT start once again from scratch, at which point industries will throw up lawsuits and delays, maybe make some promises they intend to break... and little actually gets done.
When did Google, Facebook, and Twitter become ISPs?
This is the current excuse the right is parroting in talking points.
"Google can censor and sell customer data, therefore isn't not fair if Comcast can't!"
It's just another giant non-sequitur man being used to muddy the waters and disguise the real issues. Content providers are completely different than ISPs, especially when said ISPs get all sorts of special treatment under common carrier law.
Also, I wasn't aware that Google gets a monopoly for residential service. Maybe having a state-granted monopoly means you should HAVE to play by different rules. And there usually has to be, because mom and pop ISP can't dig trenches down main street.
Raw sugar by itself? Not so much. See how many tablespoons you can eat of plain sugar by itself. It becomes gross reqlly quickly.
If you want gross, try eating a few tablespoons of sugar (you can spit it out, too, just make sure to saturate those taste buds). Then immediately try eating sugar snacks and you'll taste what they're really like when not masked by sugar. And you might notice the texture problems too. Ugh.
I used to drink a lot of soda in college. Every day a 32 or 44-oz cup of Dr. Pepper from the local 7-11. I've cut most of that out, and over time that need for sugary drinks has faded, and now I can't stand them when I drink them (except the occasional once a month bottle of coke). So it's something you can train yourself on mid-life as well.
You're obviously more interested in semantic games than clearly communicating. It's not clever; it's childish.
I think he actually, genuinely wants to know why "processed" is somehow bad, or I do at least. If processing meat makes it unhealthy then it's worth knowing just what it is about the processing. Is it added salt? Is it pickling? (and if so, do pickled vegetables have similar trouble?) Is precooked ham considered processed? Is it less healthy than cooking raw pork? Are there certain chemicals added?
Most plant sources of fats and proteins are also full of carbohydrates, putting them in the same position.
It's not necessarily being full of carbs, it's what form those carbs are in, and whether they come with sugar-countering dietary fiber. IE, an apple is good. Apple juice, separated from the fiber, is not that good.
Except it's not. Salt and sugar are substances that in some quantities, the body needs to survive. They are also not addictive substances one can easily overdose on.
Sugars stimulate the same brain centers that cocaine and heroin do, triggering a similar craving/reward cycle that drugs have. A big difference is that they are only partially chemically addictive, not quite like the harder drugs are. The fun part is this may have been directed by evolution, a reward for seeking and consuming high calorie foods.
It is impossible to get any processed food that is not laden with salt and sugar. It contributes to high blood pressure and diabetes. Do the food companies care? Or will shipping "product" take precedence over their customers' health?
People want flavor, and something they think will taste good will win out over something that is especially bland but is healthier. You get flavor from fat, sugar, and salt. The sugar industry has been extremely successful at convincing people that fat in foods is what caused weight gain, and that by buying "low fat" (but high sugar and salt) foods they would lose weight. Of course, the opposite happened, because excess sugar is stored as fat in the body, so increasing the sugar intake increased the body fat.
So eat more fat, and most importantly, less sugar. Cut down on the bread, the pasta, and the sugar drinks, and don't eat packaged foods where they tossed in a lot of sugar and salt to mimic actual food flavor.
Exactly this. One of the articles in the NYT allegedly interviewed 30 anonymous former workers and reviewed a lot of email and internal documents. I don't remember them even describing how they got that info, let alone showing us any of it.
I know exactly how you can get this: people who are treated like crap in a hostile workplace are far more likely to leak secrets and talk to reporters off the record than people who really enjoy their work and the people they work with.
You don't have to manufacture anything. But if all of a sudden every newspaper is writing stories
Newspapers write stories because news happens that reporters think is worth knowing about. In this case, the harassment allegations and lawsuit are real events that came within the last week, so now reporters know that there's something worth digging for here. Every reporter likes smelling weakness, or blood in the water, and everyone wants to be the one to get the scoop and break the story. Now that's different than some high level "let's get together and figure out how to take down Uber with a slew of astroturf all of a sudden."
Telegram also shows all your contacts as being online 24-hours/day, which really sucks because you have no idea if that person is "around" or available for chatting. Eventually there were people I used to chat with often but rarely chat with now because the chances of seeing a response to a hello is low, as opposed to catching someone when they're online. I feel like folks switch to Telegram and then they don't chat on the network anymore, at least not as much as they used to. I sure don't, and it's because I don't know who is around.
Discord has by far the worst UI I've ever seen in a software product.
I would like to introduce you to Steam chat (the chat portion of Steam). I have yet to see anything worse, even Discord is a breath of fresh air compared to it. For fuck's sake, you can't even change the incredibly tiny fonts, there's no ability to log, no offline messages... yucky on every level.
This is going to kill AIM. Yes, it takes expense to support third party items, but being open gets more people using the service.
I wish I could agree. However, what I've seen in the last couple of years has been nearly the entire userbase of instant messengers moving from 'open' networks like AIM, Jabber, IRC, or so forth, and instead to semi-closed (skype) or entirely-closed (Discord, Facebook) protocols instead. Very disappointing and depressing for those of us who use (and like) applications like Pidgin FAR more than any proprietary protocol application I've ever tried.
Eh. Ghostbuster's problem is that it was nowhere near as funny or as SCARY as the original. It was another bland Paul Feige movie with the same bland jokes he puts into the rest of his movies.
I go to the theater strictly to see blockbuster movies on a giant screen and with immersive sound. It's an expensive treat but some movies just Must be seen on the big screen.
You just don't have a good enough A/V system at your house.
Unless you're really sinking tens of thousands of dollars into your home setup, that system isn't going to be anywhere as good as a -good- theater. Watching Hacksaw Ridge in the theater with incredible, perfectly calibrated sound made me feel like I had PTSD.
20 million, incidentally, is dirt cheap for a modern movie (to put it into perspective, the pilot episode of the 2000 TV series Dark Angel cost that much)
Actually, less than $5 million is dirt cheap -- very very few movies are now financed at $20 million. This article is a few years old, so maybe financing has changed, but the money now is in blockbusters, and you can get financing if your movie is extremely cheap -- as in under two million dollars.
That's because that was a somewhat small budget for a film these days. Though it was coming surprisingly close to the "mid-range budget" movie that doesn't really exist anymore. The huge blockbuster and the very small independent film have pretty much taken over.
Please, this has nothing to do with whatever lies you tell yourself about the Constitution and is entirely related to your free-loading behavior. You don't want to pay for things
He doesn't want to be forced to pay for things that he doesn't need. Like parking and concessions. How is that a liberal position? Do conservatives love getting fleeced, or do they prefer to be more self-deterministic?
Slashdot Mirror
LOL! Your claim that AGW is "the biggest science debate" is risible. As far as truth being determined by consensus. There is no absolute "truth", number one, and it's not consensus, its *expert* consensus, number two. The (contextual) truth is more likely to be approximated by the expert consensus (if there is one) than any other means. If you've got a better way to go about it, by all means you should publish it.
The difference here is between "high percentage of people who may or may not know what they're talking about" and "high percentage of experts in the field who certainly know what they're talking about." The expert consensus is far more useful than the popular consensus, which is the problem that we have in the AGW.
Social media is a way to increase connectedness, especially among friends, and share experiences.
But it's an augmentation of, not a substitution for, actual social experiences.
If you're looking online and all you're seeing are gatherings of friends you're not at, families you never started, and vacation spots you couldn't go to, then sure, it will certainly increase your own feelings of want. If you have a rich social life, or one that you're comfortable with, then "social media" is unlikely to have that much of an isolating effect. But if a greater social experience is something you really want, even if you tell yourself that you don't, then it shouldn't be a surprise that you'd feel lonely.
There are multiple allegations here, and multiple mistakes. As far as I can tell, the list of mistakes is as follows:
1) Brian Cullinan, one of the representatives from PwC, was distracted backstage by Emma Stone getting her picture taken. Minutes before the snafu, he tweeted a picture of her that he took, a tweet that has been deleted. He says the tweet was not a distraction.
2) Brian had Emma's backup envelope in his hand, a red envelope with gold lettering in the middle that read "Best Actress in a Leading Role." You can freeze the broadcast and see the "Best Actress" on the envelope when Faye Dunaway holds it. Neither Brian Cullinan nor Warren Beatty noticed the front of the envelope said "Best Actress" in gold print on the envelope. Maybe Beatty did notice it and that partially led to his confusion with the envelope.
3) Beatty also didn't notice or misinterpreted the "Best Actress" on the card, or that it was just Emma Stone listed on the card.
4) Faye Dunaway misinterpreted Beatty's confusion, playing smacking his arm and saying "Oh you, you're the worst!" She seemed to think he was hamming it up, so when he showed her the card, she wanted a quick announcement and shouted out what she saw. She saw "La La Land," that was a best picture nominee, so it was reasonable to her.
5) Brian Cullinan and the other PwC accountant were slow to act -- stage managers said they "froze" when they realized the wrong name had been called. They might have been able to stop the nonsense before the acceptance speeches.
So, many opportunities in the chain to realize a mistake had been made, many failures to act before it was too late.
OOOHHHHH, they stimulate the same brain centers. Obviously that means they're the same! How foolish of me.
Very good, admitting ignorance is the first step towards enlightenment.
Here's a bit of additional reading: Sugar consumption increases dopamine levels
Note that this is the current theory, but the evidence is not hard. There's still disagreement about the level of addiction involved, and it's worth noting that consuming sugar instead of, say, heroin, does not seem to lessen the heroin cravings, even if they release similar levels of dopamine.
The idea of "bring online" is itself a relic of the pre-smartphone age.
Yes and no. I'm interested in having an actual synchronous conversation with someone, not "hey" "at the store" etcetc. And they're interested in that too, but the technology now makes little distinction. And when they're actually "Around" at home, that's something we do. But finding out those time periods is harder than it used to be. I really don't want to bother people at dinner, and I sure as hell don't want my phone buzzing while I'm in a movie or at work for that matter, so I turned Telegram off on the phone (actually I uninstalled it when it went through my contacts without asking and sent an alert to each and every one of them with the telegram account that I'd thought was private. Talk about invasive).
And these aren't random people or strangers, they're friends, and we will chat a lot. It's just that on the "always connected" network, everyone always appears to be around and but isn't, and you never know.
That would be the manufacturers of the devices that get hacked(botnets,spam,ddos)
That's great. But it's not going to happen.
So the ISP and the person under attack have to have ways to deal with it as well.
Yes, but the fact that he did was what counted, and it wasn't a half-hearted attempt either. As for optimism, I concur, at this point, there is none. We will have to wait 4 years.
Right now, industries successfully throw delays in the way of reforms, knowing that a new administration will drop all those plans, and make the administration after THAT start once again from scratch, at which point industries will throw up lawsuits and delays, maybe make some promises they intend to break... and little actually gets done.
When did Google, Facebook, and Twitter become ISPs?
This is the current excuse the right is parroting in talking points.
"Google can censor and sell customer data, therefore isn't not fair if Comcast can't!"
It's just another giant non-sequitur man being used to muddy the waters and disguise the real issues. Content providers are completely different than ISPs, especially when said ISPs get all sorts of special treatment under common carrier law.
Also, I wasn't aware that Google gets a monopoly for residential service. Maybe having a state-granted monopoly means you should HAVE to play by different rules. And there usually has to be, because mom and pop ISP can't dig trenches down main street.
Raw sugar by itself? Not so much. See how many tablespoons you can eat of plain sugar by itself. It becomes gross reqlly quickly.
If you want gross, try eating a few tablespoons of sugar (you can spit it out, too, just make sure to saturate those taste buds).
Then immediately try eating sugar snacks and you'll taste what they're really like when not masked by sugar. And you might notice the texture problems too. Ugh.
I used to drink a lot of soda in college. Every day a 32 or 44-oz cup of Dr. Pepper from the local 7-11.
I've cut most of that out, and over time that need for sugary drinks has faded, and now I can't stand them when I drink them (except the occasional once a month bottle of coke). So it's something you can train yourself on mid-life as well.
You're obviously more interested in semantic games than clearly communicating. It's not clever; it's childish.
I think he actually, genuinely wants to know why "processed" is somehow bad, or I do at least. If processing meat makes it unhealthy then it's worth knowing just what it is about the processing. Is it added salt? Is it pickling? (and if so, do pickled vegetables have similar trouble?) Is precooked ham considered processed? Is it less healthy than cooking raw pork? Are there certain chemicals added?
Most plant sources of fats and proteins are also full of carbohydrates, putting them in the same position.
It's not necessarily being full of carbs, it's what form those carbs are in, and whether they come with sugar-countering dietary fiber.
IE, an apple is good. Apple juice, separated from the fiber, is not that good.
Except it's not. Salt and sugar are substances that in some quantities, the body needs to survive. They are also not addictive substances one can easily overdose on.
Sugars stimulate the same brain centers that cocaine and heroin do, triggering a similar craving/reward cycle that drugs have. A big difference is that they are only partially chemically addictive, not quite like the harder drugs are. The fun part is this may have been directed by evolution, a reward for seeking and consuming high calorie foods.
It is impossible to get any processed food that is not laden with salt and sugar. It contributes to high blood pressure and diabetes. Do the food companies care? Or will shipping "product" take precedence over their customers' health?
People want flavor, and something they think will taste good will win out over something that is especially bland but is healthier.
You get flavor from fat, sugar, and salt. The sugar industry has been extremely successful at convincing people that fat in foods is what caused weight gain, and that by buying "low fat" (but high sugar and salt) foods they would lose weight. Of course, the opposite happened, because excess sugar is stored as fat in the body, so increasing the sugar intake increased the body fat.
So eat more fat, and most importantly, less sugar. Cut down on the bread, the pasta, and the sugar drinks, and don't eat packaged foods where they tossed in a lot of sugar and salt to mimic actual food flavor.
"Make sure you bring writing samples", but they never asked to see them.
What?
I'm guessing he would be working writing press releases? Documentation? Certainly he wasn't there to be hired as a driver.
Exactly this. One of the articles in the NYT allegedly interviewed 30 anonymous former workers and reviewed a lot of email and internal documents. I don't remember them even describing how they got that info, let alone showing us any of it.
I know exactly how you can get this: people who are treated like crap in a hostile workplace are far more likely to leak secrets and talk to reporters off the record than people who really enjoy their work and the people they work with.
You don't have to manufacture anything. But if all of a sudden every newspaper is writing stories
Newspapers write stories because news happens that reporters think is worth knowing about. In this case, the harassment allegations and lawsuit are real events that came within the last week, so now reporters know that there's something worth digging for here. Every reporter likes smelling weakness, or blood in the water, and everyone wants to be the one to get the scoop and break the story. Now that's different than some high level "let's get together and figure out how to take down Uber with a slew of astroturf all of a sudden."
Telegram requires a phone number.
Telegram also shows all your contacts as being online 24-hours/day, which really sucks because you have no idea if that person is "around" or available for chatting. Eventually there were people I used to chat with often but rarely chat with now because the chances of seeing a response to a hello is low, as opposed to catching someone when they're online. I feel like folks switch to Telegram and then they don't chat on the network anymore, at least not as much as they used to. I sure don't, and it's because I don't know who is around.
Discord has by far the worst UI I've ever seen in a software product.
I would like to introduce you to Steam chat (the chat portion of Steam). I have yet to see anything worse, even Discord is a breath of fresh air compared to it. For fuck's sake, you can't even change the incredibly tiny fonts, there's no ability to log, no offline messages... yucky on every level.
This is going to kill AIM. Yes, it takes expense to support third party items, but being open gets more people using the service.
I wish I could agree. However, what I've seen in the last couple of years has been nearly the entire userbase of instant messengers moving from 'open' networks like AIM, Jabber, IRC, or so forth, and instead to semi-closed (skype) or entirely-closed (Discord, Facebook) protocols instead. Very disappointing and depressing for those of us who use (and like) applications like Pidgin FAR more than any proprietary protocol application I've ever tried.
Eh. Ghostbuster's problem is that it was nowhere near as funny or as SCARY as the original. It was another bland Paul Feige movie with the same bland jokes he puts into the rest of his movies.
Since introvert is the new fashionable thing, the only acceptable audience is none.
It's not introversion. But your theater audience can certainly foster a feeling of misanthropy.
You just don't have a good enough A/V system at your house.
Unless you're really sinking tens of thousands of dollars into your home setup, that system isn't going to be anywhere as good as a -good- theater.
Watching Hacksaw Ridge in the theater with incredible, perfectly calibrated sound made me feel like I had PTSD.
20 million, incidentally, is dirt cheap for a modern movie (to put it into perspective, the pilot episode of the 2000 TV series Dark Angel cost that much)
Actually, less than $5 million is dirt cheap -- very very few movies are now financed at $20 million. This article is a few years old, so maybe financing has changed, but the money now is in blockbusters, and you can get financing if your movie is extremely cheap -- as in under two million dollars.
Why David Lynch and John Waters can't get movies made anymore.
Meryl Streep was a quarter of that budget
That's because that was a somewhat small budget for a film these days. Though it was coming surprisingly close to the "mid-range budget" movie that doesn't really exist anymore. The huge blockbuster and the very small independent film have pretty much taken over.
Please, this has nothing to do with whatever lies you tell yourself about the Constitution and is entirely related to your free-loading behavior. You don't want to pay for things
He doesn't want to be forced to pay for things that he doesn't need. Like parking and concessions. How is that a liberal position? Do conservatives love getting fleeced, or do they prefer to be more self-deterministic?