One could just as easily interpret that as the difference between the guy who had such focus on his degree that he did not have any other activities - and is likely to give the same devotion to a job.
People who have a genuine interest in their field of study often do something beyond classwork. Classwork can be unfulfilling. New things learned in class resulting in an eagerness to try them out on something.
Depends on your field and what the experience requirements are--the bottom line is that there's not really much you can (or should) do to pad your CV with relevant experience in some STEM fields.
I can do the lit end of research on my own, it's actually generally the part people hate and I adore it anyway. However, what is regularly asked for is lab experience, and to work with anything that's particularly fun... It's just plain not something you can (or should) build in your garage. You can't do it legally, you certainly can't do it sanely, and that's not even considering the costs. You pretty much have to settle for maybe somebody at your university who has somebody doing the work already with a hole in their research group that you can volunteer to fill.
If we're just talking about the boring stuff? You've still got the documentation issue.
(And before you suggest finding a MakerSpace: I'm in biotech. They get weird about biotech...)
I think you may be into something. "There are no jobs" because millennials are too entitled and precious snow flakes to get lousy jobs like you to gain experience.
Donno how to tell you this, but in some fields those lousy jobs to gain experience require you have experience. As far as I can tell, they're either trying to get immigrants whose visas will depend on them, or figure that they won't possibly be the ones to benefit from giving you a chance to get that experience because as soon as you've enough to get a job elsewhere...you will leave.
In the latter case, the employer ought to be giving serious thought--especially in fields where they get their pick of employees--as to why HR doesn't think anybody they might find will stick around once they've lasted that long? That anybody they hire will be motivated to leave for elsewhere?
All sides of the politics making points. How about just focus on the realities: We're talking a few dozen people, and longitudinal study is of continued value, so how much money can we possibly be talking about?
Not only that, but it's actually rather amazing that they're not covering the treatment as part of the agreement to study his eyes. I was pretty much told to expect to have to have on the table at least partial coverage if I wanted to do this sort of research on human subjects--as part of getting permission to do it at all. (Compensation of research subjects is a standard outright requirement. You don't have it in there somewhere, even if it's just a shiny gold star sticker, and the only real question ought to be "How quickly will the ethics review board say no?" Oh, and it does have to scale properly: if I'm wanting, for example, a vial of blood, I probably should be shelling out cold hard cash and/or giving you free some testing you'd normally pay for, which if I'm smart is something I'd be doing anyway... "Access to personal test results" might even make it easier to get you to keep talking to me if it's a longitudinal study.)
The advisory speeds are set intentionally low. Certainly all the cars I've owned can take the turns much faster in good weather and even rental cars that I've driven were fine at +10 if you know how to drive well. The point is self-driving cars can do so much better than the thousands of humans in that situation. They will know that different kind of cars can handle very differently and will use the advisory signs as just a guideline, basing speed on the characteristics of the road and the data from thousands of cars driven before it.
Which means that a well-tested, robust set of driving algorithms should also be quite capable of determining if the advisory speed is too low, or did you miss the point that some roads are actually harder to drive at the posted (advisory or not) speed?
Of course, this depends on getting to where we've got well-tested, robust self-driving vehicles which isn't necessarily something we can say about any of them yet (if nothing else, the well-tested part)--and I'd be iffy on the whole of the entire idea of removing the ability for a human to take control as a failsafe feature. Sudden catastrophic failures of vehicles' electronics is a thankfully incredibly rare problem, but...it's not unknown. Minimum should be the ability for a human to cause the vehicle to come to a complete stop in an emergency; preferably, this should be a safe complete stop, at a safe spot...and not, for example, partially under a bus.
Expecting even a trained human to take over with only a few seconds (or less) leeway is crazy and cannot work.
Except that's pretty much precisely what driving instructors do--in vehicles that are intended for such, they even have a break pedal on their side of the car, because in situations where there's 'only a few seconds (or less) leeway' the best response is rather reliably "HIT THE !@#$ BRAKES." Occasionally, this is combined with reaching over and grabbing the steering wheel, and trust me, they can do it. (I learned because power steering went out on a curve--he knew what to do, and I...learned on the fly. That first time, though, I needed the help getting the wheel over far enough & fast enough.)
I don't know about where dryeo is, but I've encountered a lot of places where the advisory speed limits were, as far as I can tell, set by somebody who hopefully isn't involved in engineering roads nor has attempted to take the particular road at the advised speed--or if they have, they don't pay much attention to how well the vehicle handles the curve(s). In my experience the 'sweet spot'--where a car is going to hold the road well, and not fight you about taking the curve--is usually significantly different. There's no particular pattern to this: the amount and direction vary, sometimes significantly.
I also have lived right off a road that is actually a significant challenge to drive at the posted speed limit, and in fact is so well-designed for its original speed limit that people naturally drive it at that speed. Many of the curves are actually harder to do at the current, lower speed.
This actually might be something to use self-driving cars to check, though: If well-tested driving algorithms that are emphasizing safety decide to flip off the 30mph advisory sign on that curve and go a different speed when you do its test runs on this particular road...
If your photo ID got stolen, too, go to the DMV and request a reissue. They'll give you a paper temp license on the spot, which you can bring with you to the bank, and they'll mail you a permanent replacement.
That will be very, very interesting given that in some states, for them to do the paper temp license they need you to present photo ID. At least in my current state, in the past year they've switched to the paper temp license being just a B&W photo ID so you don't need to carry the (expired) photo ID with you for those purposes.
Recovering access to a bank account probably is better done via two-factor authentication--and if you want to check that Random Account Holder is the one answering Holder's phone, it might be better to have some set bits of information that lets both sides verify identities.
It is not Holder's fault if the cat's name is, say, "Mr. Mxyzptlk."
Given what was done on 9/11, odds are the question ended up being which is preferable--risking having to shoot down a flight that wasn't supposed to do anything other than transit US airspace (because it got hijacked, ect, ect, you should know the story) or just having your standard be that if they can't even get to stay for a bit as a tourist, they can't fly over?
It'd work a lot better if the security was not effective as theater, instead of as actual security, however.
"Very few people can and will bullshit confidently in such a circumstance."
Except, you know, an expert at getting through borders undetected, or anyone who has experience with social engineering...
So congrats, you weeded out the amateur criminals, and have a false sense of security about the professional ones.
That depends on your actual goals, doesn't it? If you all you really want or expect to successfully do to keep out the amateur and idiot criminals because you've got enough of them already, thanks, it works just fine. There are reasons to settle for this, too, such as the possibility that the costs will soar with little to show for it, and the unfortunate fact that a professional criminal may well do better at following local laws than your average tourist...
And others do not... China, for example. Most EU countries if staying more than 90 days. Much of the Middle East. And some countries, like Thailand, have different rules; if you're entering as a US citizen for tourism, no visa for up to 30 days. For business? You need a visa. Peru was the same way. When I went to visit as a tourist, no problem. When I went to do business, I had to have a visa.
Actually, you're rather wrong--what you don't need to do is apply for a tourist visa in some countries. What they put in your passport when you're entering is a visa, and it's automatically issued to people from certain countries. The deal is typically reciprocal, though you're not necessarily certain of getting one--usually, from what I've heard, it's when you've gone and come back to try to 'renew' your tourist visa. (If there's a formal/proper process, it's so well-hidden as to be practically not existant.)
This is something that can depend highly on the cat--while thankfully pretty rare, there are cats who are a bit...bad about their claws, and all efforts to teach them not to use their claws inappropriately fail.
The following information is assuming you have tried to teach your cat not to scratch inappropriately--or you have conclusive evidence that the problem is your cat got the short straw on paw anatomy, so your cat's just pretty much anatomically doomed to be lousy at velveting her paws. The latter should be in the form of consulting your vet.
Clipping the claws and soft caps can do a lot,and in extreme cases--when they're so bad that it's a risk to their own health--declawing if you can find a very good veterinary surgeon so as to preserve as much of the paw as possible. (The 'trim to first knuckle' method is, incidentally, the lazy asshole method of declawing from what I've read, and the threshhold here needs to be epic fail on kitty's part--think 'claws self by accident regularly' as the levels here, and yes, it's been seen.)
It's called black humor, and exists because some of us are not that into existential despair.
If you think Pewdiepie is "black humor", you need to spend some time in a library.
I've probably spent more time in a library than you ever have, and I am quite very certain now that 'have heard of Pewdiepie before this' is sufficiently to know more about him than you do.
I'm going to watch and care about Pewdiepie exactly as much as before--namely, not one bit--so the main thing I care about is that the WSJ's doing things that are outright disturbing to see from what normally is a very good newspaper with journalistic integrity and this feels more like a story that ought to be coming from the Daily Mail, a supermarket tabloid, or a clickbait 'news' farm.
However, since you're also going to ignore the point that, once upon a time, investigative journalists would do things exactly like test what you can get through on a place that lets you ask people to do something for 5USD, in favor of insulting me, I see no point in talking to you further.
People wouldn't use Google at work if it was full of spam and porn.
No, they would. Google Image Search is particularly bad, though at least it doesn't seem to quite have the same reliability for at least one bare breast within the first page--but what it considers, for example, a duck or a hamster continues to get rather interesting.
(As for the 'forced to continue paying him' issue--if the contracts say so, yes, or whatever the penalty named in the contract or determined by a judge is for them to get out of said contract. Being a large corporation should not mean that your contracts are only valid and enforceable when you want them to be, and by its very nature if you allow a company to do so 'because J Doe is an ebil person!!1!' then you've got it established that it is a thing they get to do and they can do it just as easily for, say, a generally innocuous vlog by a transwoman who is just documenting her transition because she brings up some of the trans issues that trans activists get weirdly pissy about. Never mind that they're kiiinda important if you're considering SRS...)
In other words, don't let the content of what the WSJ cut together distract you from the fact that we're looking at quite possibly having the traditional mainstream media attempting to stuff the genie back into the bottle so they can regain control of what media people have the option of consuming.
This seems a pretty valid concern given how consolidated the mainstream media is, and basic fact that there's an effective monopoly due to the incestuousness of the social circles at the top creating an echo chamber. This is not a problem that ought to be left alone, because this basically means you've got an elite cadre running a propaganda machine--regardless of if this is what they see themselves as doing--who are attempting to preserve/extend its control, and the important part should always be the question of if people are being locked out completely or not.
That's the joke: people will do something terrible for $5.
That's a joke? Are you into bumfighting videos too? Do you find conflict diamonds hilarious?
It's called black humor, and exists because some of us are not that into existential despair. Stepping back and finding the humor in the situation is a valid and healthy coping mechanism, or at least a lot healthier than the alternate.
Showing that, in fact, 'people will do something terrible for $5' (and maybe there's a problem here) is also good investigative journalism, just like doing a piece on what's going on with bumfighting videos or conflict diamonds would be.
So, admittedly, would be a piece documenting how the issue of conflict diamonds has shaped the diamond market & the ethical issues there. (Basically, if you want an ethically-sourced diamond? Avoid any recently-minded natural diamonds.) I'm not expecting any mainstream news source to actually run any such piece, because that would probably make the chain jewelers running ads uncomfortable...
The Palestinians are actually the people the Romans moved into the area after they did their usual routine when destroying a people--where exactly the various peoples who resided in the area when the Jews originally arrived is a good question, though honestly if you're going to claim only those who managed to be the first to arrive in an area can claim it as a homeland? The majority of peoples, if not all, cannot make that claim about their traditional homelands.
On the other hand, I'm all for making every single European go back to Asia, should be entertaining for everybody!
anti-jew != anti-zionist.
There is actually orthodox jewish groups who are anti-zionist, but I guess that's like black-on-black violence, you conveniently forget about them.
Some of us remember that Zionism as movement basically started up because a growing number of Jews decided to give up on the whole "Trust Europeans to not persecute us" thing as a lost cause. When Israeli actually became officially a country, right after WWII, it was rather hard to argue with the logic here.
It's worth noting that Europe hasn't particularly improved in how it treats local ethnic minorities from how it was doing before WWII, which is why there are also such things as the Romani nationalism movement.
Also, a lot of the Orthodox Jewish opposition to Israeli is theological in basis, if memory serves, and roughly "this was supposed to happen only when G*d personally came down and did it." (A lot of other Jews note that G*d has a long history of being sensible enough to delegate things.)
I think you're in violent agreement with the GP. He's right, reporting on a celebrity isn't news. And "mainstream media" isn't news either - most of the outlets which say they're news are 95% op-ed. I suppose that's a result of pandering for eyeballs. They're not really lying, they're just going way beyond unbiased objective fact, with an intent to mislead in order to support their POV.
Where, oh where, are today's Edgar R Murrows? They all seem to be Hearsts these days.
Murrow came from around Greensboro, North Carolina--can you imagine how a decent part of the media would treat an up-and-comer who wasn't a good little robot who comes from somewhere like that? The mainstream media already has a distinct tendency to perpetuate stereotypes about places outside of Boswash and its West Coast equivalent & people outside of their rarefied social circles, even when they're going on and on about stereotypes against obvious minorities being evil and wrong...
My main issue here is that Facebook defaults to public on damn near everything. It's pretty much why my Facebook profile is near-dead, and pretty much entirely exists for some work-related stuff.
"Partner" is a generic way to refer to someone's primary romantic relation in a gender and relationship neutral manner. In this case, maybe the woman was his wife, maybe she wasn't. When talking to a group of people, saying "feel free to bring you partner to the party," is way less awkward than saying "girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse, or domestic partner".
Wow...interesting.
I have never in my life heard the term "partner" for a normal straight couple....
It's very useful when you have no idea if they're married or what, and don't want to be too obvious about the fact that this is the sort of thing you'd like to mention--or when you're doing the form letter invite.
I'm younger Gen-X (actually I fall into what's deemed the "missing generation" - between Gen-X and Gen-Y, lopped one side or the other depending on who is doing the research and for what purpose)...but older generations didn't have those issues because they we're coddled for their entire upbringing. Only 1st, 2nd, and 3rd got any kind of Prize, misbehavior was punished, and if you did something wrong you were told so and expected to do it right the next time, having learned from your mistake.
But yeah - sadly Gen-Y's and Millennials got the worse end of the stick (sorry) - as you say - the worse method of raising kids is protecting their self-esteem, etc as it makes for really bad character in the end - a lot of which we are now seeing entering into the political arena. This was a by-product of the 1960's psychologists like Dr. Spock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock), much of which has in the last 20 years or so been fully debunked as the worse way to raise kids.
I only count as a Millennial when the upper limit is set high--I'm in the border between it and Gen-Y, pretty much--but a good part of this was hitting the late Boomers on generation-wise. Bad psych and pseudoscience tends to linger badly in the educational and social services fields; I think it may well be because most get no to next to no training in psychology, so the speed at which discoveries like "Rewarding behavior always, always reenforces it" filter over from that field is dismal. (And yes, I'm quite aware that my example is something that ought to be obvious. You'd think it'd have managed to make it over long ago, but...)
RTFS. They're not just staying in one city, they're staying at one address. This means nobody is buying houses. It's another sign the Millennials are getting screwed.
It means, that they're still living at Mommy and Daddy's house, waiting for the world to give them the high paying dream job they "deserve" and would enjoy doing.....and it ain't happening.
Previous generations understood this, but apparently the snowflakes do not.
I'll stop you right there...
The previous generation don't understand how much of their success is built upon luck and the generation before them, they tend to be biased in attributing all of their good fortune to their own hard work - because that's human nature, when you're down it's bad luck (Gen-Y), when things are going your way it's all you (Gen-X).
Stopping you right here...
In truth it's a combination, but you can't have the hard work without first having a substantial amount of luck,
Sure you can. It's called your grades in school. It's called not allowing your kids to be put on drugs to keep them in their seats because the teacher can't take them out for recess to run off the excess energy (yeah, not Gen-Y's fault on that one). It's call doing your best regardless of the circumstances around you, and having a strong work ethic.
Sadly, BabyBoomer/Gen-Xer's didn't generally do their Gen-Y/Millennial kids any favors with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "my kid can do no wrong" and "1+1 = 3, yeah - you tried; here's a lollipop" up-bringing.
But that doesn't leave it any less on Millennials/Gen-Y to do their best and put their head down and do the job(s) they've been given/hired to do. How you treat one employer will be picked up on your interviews in the future. So yes - it is ultimately in your hands, even if your parents didn't help you much.
You want the scary part? Pretty much every single bit of research in the social sciences on the upbringing basically says that you couldn't intentionally raise kids to be little narcissistic bullies better, with serious issues with society if they manage to not end up that way because it turns out that humans are not only pretty good at detecting false & empty praise, we're in general hardwired to be not very fond of it.
This research is about as old as me, and I'm in the older segment of the Millennial generation. This should tell you all you need to know about the halflife of pseudoscience in the educational system...
You do realize we're already looking at problems with the social safety net because the fundamental assumption of its financing is that the population is going to increase forever and ever amen? One of the few things keeping this from hitting hard quite a few countries already is the importing of population from countries which are just starting to have their birth rates drop--last I knew, there's practically nowhere which isn't getting people offering free birth control because they're freaked out by the idea of overpopulation and figure the best solution is less brown people.
I'm not even going to touch on the major reason why 'getting knocked up at 30 was a death sentence' in the past, since I really am not sure how to explain without being incredibly insulting that such medical innovations as 'washing hands between patients' happened after the point you're talking about. (Antibiotics cut down on a lot, but no, seriously, most of modern medicine is at best only a bit over a century old)
First: Never make such claims without citations, because amazingly enough not everybody reads every scientific publication ever and has access to all the databases. (You gotta pay for that, and I've got bills.) Second: If you think the US is a singular, unified culture, I'm not sure where to start on the problems here, aside from maybe "Your social science skills are bad." You're also assuming interesting things about my beliefs, which are actually very, very wrong. In fact, if you want to argue that cultural tolerance of fraud exists--finding the rates among presumably high SES individuals is not distinctly different among a low SES sample is actually more likely to support the basic theory that the behavior is more tolerated culturally.
I am pretty sure somebody's already kicked out the door what I need to get whatever flavor of Linux desktop to have that flat look, without things like tiles unless I decide in a fit of insanity I need those.
The really sad thing here is that you can get a lot of low-level accessibility just by installing the right themes--for example, if you've got light sensitivity problems, the high contrast themes do nothing, and I suspect you could kick out a visually-enjoyable set of themes designed for those with forms of colorblindness. (I'd have the dual goals of it not at any point needing the user to be able to perceive colors at all, and being obvious about it.)
Slashdot Mirror
One could just as easily interpret that as the difference between the guy who had such focus on his degree that he did not have any other activities - and is likely to give the same devotion to a job.
People who have a genuine interest in their field of study often do something beyond classwork. Classwork can be unfulfilling. New things learned in class resulting in an eagerness to try them out on something.
Depends on your field and what the experience requirements are--the bottom line is that there's not really much you can (or should) do to pad your CV with relevant experience in some STEM fields.
I can do the lit end of research on my own, it's actually generally the part people hate and I adore it anyway. However, what is regularly asked for is lab experience, and to work with anything that's particularly fun... It's just plain not something you can (or should) build in your garage. You can't do it legally, you certainly can't do it sanely, and that's not even considering the costs. You pretty much have to settle for maybe somebody at your university who has somebody doing the work already with a hole in their research group that you can volunteer to fill.
If we're just talking about the boring stuff? You've still got the documentation issue.
(And before you suggest finding a MakerSpace: I'm in biotech. They get weird about biotech...)
I think you may be into something. "There are no jobs" because millennials are too entitled and precious snow flakes to get lousy jobs like you to gain experience.
Donno how to tell you this, but in some fields those lousy jobs to gain experience require you have experience. As far as I can tell, they're either trying to get immigrants whose visas will depend on them, or figure that they won't possibly be the ones to benefit from giving you a chance to get that experience because as soon as you've enough to get a job elsewhere...you will leave.
In the latter case, the employer ought to be giving serious thought--especially in fields where they get their pick of employees--as to why HR doesn't think anybody they might find will stick around once they've lasted that long? That anybody they hire will be motivated to leave for elsewhere?
All sides of the politics making points. How about just focus on the realities: We're talking a few dozen people, and longitudinal study is of continued value, so how much money can we possibly be talking about?
Not only that, but it's actually rather amazing that they're not covering the treatment as part of the agreement to study his eyes. I was pretty much told to expect to have to have on the table at least partial coverage if I wanted to do this sort of research on human subjects--as part of getting permission to do it at all. (Compensation of research subjects is a standard outright requirement. You don't have it in there somewhere, even if it's just a shiny gold star sticker, and the only real question ought to be "How quickly will the ethics review board say no?" Oh, and it does have to scale properly: if I'm wanting, for example, a vial of blood, I probably should be shelling out cold hard cash and/or giving you free some testing you'd normally pay for, which if I'm smart is something I'd be doing anyway... "Access to personal test results" might even make it easier to get you to keep talking to me if it's a longitudinal study.)
The advisory speeds are set intentionally low. Certainly all the cars I've owned can take the turns much faster in good weather and even rental cars that I've driven were fine at +10 if you know how to drive well. The point is self-driving cars can do so much better than the thousands of humans in that situation. They will know that different kind of cars can handle very differently and will use the advisory signs as just a guideline, basing speed on the characteristics of the road and the data from thousands of cars driven before it.
Which means that a well-tested, robust set of driving algorithms should also be quite capable of determining if the advisory speed is too low, or did you miss the point that some roads are actually harder to drive at the posted (advisory or not) speed?
Of course, this depends on getting to where we've got well-tested, robust self-driving vehicles which isn't necessarily something we can say about any of them yet (if nothing else, the well-tested part)--and I'd be iffy on the whole of the entire idea of removing the ability for a human to take control as a failsafe feature. Sudden catastrophic failures of vehicles' electronics is a thankfully incredibly rare problem, but...it's not unknown. Minimum should be the ability for a human to cause the vehicle to come to a complete stop in an emergency; preferably, this should be a safe complete stop, at a safe spot...and not, for example, partially under a bus.
Expecting even a trained human to take over with only a few seconds (or less) leeway is crazy and cannot work.
Except that's pretty much precisely what driving instructors do--in vehicles that are intended for such, they even have a break pedal on their side of the car, because in situations where there's 'only a few seconds (or less) leeway' the best response is rather reliably "HIT THE !@#$ BRAKES." Occasionally, this is combined with reaching over and grabbing the steering wheel, and trust me, they can do it. (I learned because power steering went out on a curve--he knew what to do, and I...learned on the fly. That first time, though, I needed the help getting the wheel over far enough & fast enough.)
I don't know about where dryeo is, but I've encountered a lot of places where the advisory speed limits were, as far as I can tell, set by somebody who hopefully isn't involved in engineering roads nor has attempted to take the particular road at the advised speed--or if they have, they don't pay much attention to how well the vehicle handles the curve(s). In my experience the 'sweet spot'--where a car is going to hold the road well, and not fight you about taking the curve--is usually significantly different. There's no particular pattern to this: the amount and direction vary, sometimes significantly.
I also have lived right off a road that is actually a significant challenge to drive at the posted speed limit, and in fact is so well-designed for its original speed limit that people naturally drive it at that speed. Many of the curves are actually harder to do at the current, lower speed.
This actually might be something to use self-driving cars to check, though: If well-tested driving algorithms that are emphasizing safety decide to flip off the 30mph advisory sign on that curve and go a different speed when you do its test runs on this particular road...
If your photo ID got stolen, too, go to the DMV and request a reissue. They'll give you a paper temp license on the spot, which you can bring with you to the bank, and they'll mail you a permanent replacement.
That will be very, very interesting given that in some states, for them to do the paper temp license they need you to present photo ID. At least in my current state, in the past year they've switched to the paper temp license being just a B&W photo ID so you don't need to carry the (expired) photo ID with you for those purposes.
Recovering access to a bank account probably is better done via two-factor authentication--and if you want to check that Random Account Holder is the one answering Holder's phone, it might be better to have some set bits of information that lets both sides verify identities.
It is not Holder's fault if the cat's name is, say, "Mr. Mxyzptlk."
Given what was done on 9/11, odds are the question ended up being which is preferable--risking having to shoot down a flight that wasn't supposed to do anything other than transit US airspace (because it got hijacked, ect, ect, you should know the story) or just having your standard be that if they can't even get to stay for a bit as a tourist, they can't fly over?
It'd work a lot better if the security was not effective as theater, instead of as actual security, however.
Except, you know, an expert at getting through borders undetected, or anyone who has experience with social engineering...
So congrats, you weeded out the amateur criminals, and have a false sense of security about the professional ones.
That depends on your actual goals, doesn't it? If you all you really want or expect to successfully do to keep out the amateur and idiot criminals because you've got enough of them already, thanks, it works just fine. There are reasons to settle for this, too, such as the possibility that the costs will soar with little to show for it, and the unfortunate fact that a professional criminal may well do better at following local laws than your average tourist...
And others do not... China, for example. Most EU countries if staying more than 90 days. Much of the Middle East. And some countries, like Thailand, have different rules; if you're entering as a US citizen for tourism, no visa for up to 30 days. For business? You need a visa. Peru was the same way. When I went to visit as a tourist, no problem. When I went to do business, I had to have a visa.
Actually, you're rather wrong--what you don't need to do is apply for a tourist visa in some countries. What they put in your passport when you're entering is a visa, and it's automatically issued to people from certain countries. The deal is typically reciprocal, though you're not necessarily certain of getting one--usually, from what I've heard, it's when you've gone and come back to try to 'renew' your tourist visa. (If there's a formal/proper process, it's so well-hidden as to be practically not existant.)
This is something that can depend highly on the cat--while thankfully pretty rare, there are cats who are a bit...bad about their claws, and all efforts to teach them not to use their claws inappropriately fail.
The following information is assuming you have tried to teach your cat not to scratch inappropriately--or you have conclusive evidence that the problem is your cat got the short straw on paw anatomy, so your cat's just pretty much anatomically doomed to be lousy at velveting her paws. The latter should be in the form of consulting your vet.
Clipping the claws and soft caps can do a lot,and in extreme cases--when they're so bad that it's a risk to their own health--declawing if you can find a very good veterinary surgeon so as to preserve as much of the paw as possible. (The 'trim to first knuckle' method is, incidentally, the lazy asshole method of declawing from what I've read, and the threshhold here needs to be epic fail on kitty's part--think 'claws self by accident regularly' as the levels here, and yes, it's been seen.)
If you think Pewdiepie is "black humor", you need to spend some time in a library.
I've probably spent more time in a library than you ever have, and I am quite very certain now that 'have heard of Pewdiepie before this' is sufficiently to know more about him than you do.
I'm going to watch and care about Pewdiepie exactly as much as before--namely, not one bit--so the main thing I care about is that the WSJ's doing things that are outright disturbing to see from what normally is a very good newspaper with journalistic integrity and this feels more like a story that ought to be coming from the Daily Mail, a supermarket tabloid, or a clickbait 'news' farm.
However, since you're also going to ignore the point that, once upon a time, investigative journalists would do things exactly like test what you can get through on a place that lets you ask people to do something for 5USD, in favor of insulting me, I see no point in talking to you further.
People wouldn't use Google at work if it was full of spam and porn.
No, they would. Google Image Search is particularly bad, though at least it doesn't seem to quite have the same reliability for at least one bare breast within the first page--but what it considers, for example, a duck or a hamster continues to get rather interesting.
(As for the 'forced to continue paying him' issue--if the contracts say so, yes, or whatever the penalty named in the contract or determined by a judge is for them to get out of said contract. Being a large corporation should not mean that your contracts are only valid and enforceable when you want them to be, and by its very nature if you allow a company to do so 'because J Doe is an ebil person!!1!' then you've got it established that it is a thing they get to do and they can do it just as easily for, say, a generally innocuous vlog by a transwoman who is just documenting her transition because she brings up some of the trans issues that trans activists get weirdly pissy about. Never mind that they're kiiinda important if you're considering SRS...)
In other words, don't let the content of what the WSJ cut together distract you from the fact that we're looking at quite possibly having the traditional mainstream media attempting to stuff the genie back into the bottle so they can regain control of what media people have the option of consuming.
This seems a pretty valid concern given how consolidated the mainstream media is, and basic fact that there's an effective monopoly due to the incestuousness of the social circles at the top creating an echo chamber. This is not a problem that ought to be left alone, because this basically means you've got an elite cadre running a propaganda machine--regardless of if this is what they see themselves as doing--who are attempting to preserve/extend its control, and the important part should always be the question of if people are being locked out completely or not.
That's a joke? Are you into bumfighting videos too? Do you find conflict diamonds hilarious?
It's called black humor, and exists because some of us are not that into existential despair. Stepping back and finding the humor in the situation is a valid and healthy coping mechanism, or at least a lot healthier than the alternate.
Showing that, in fact, 'people will do something terrible for $5' (and maybe there's a problem here) is also good investigative journalism, just like doing a piece on what's going on with bumfighting videos or conflict diamonds would be.
So, admittedly, would be a piece documenting how the issue of conflict diamonds has shaped the diamond market & the ethical issues there. (Basically, if you want an ethically-sourced diamond? Avoid any recently-minded natural diamonds.) I'm not expecting any mainstream news source to actually run any such piece, because that would probably make the chain jewelers running ads uncomfortable...
The Palestinians are actually the people the Romans moved into the area after they did their usual routine when destroying a people--where exactly the various peoples who resided in the area when the Jews originally arrived is a good question, though honestly if you're going to claim only those who managed to be the first to arrive in an area can claim it as a homeland? The majority of peoples, if not all, cannot make that claim about their traditional homelands.
On the other hand, I'm all for making every single European go back to Asia, should be entertaining for everybody!
anti-jew != anti-zionist. There is actually orthodox jewish groups who are anti-zionist, but I guess that's like black-on-black violence, you conveniently forget about them.
Some of us remember that Zionism as movement basically started up because a growing number of Jews decided to give up on the whole "Trust Europeans to not persecute us" thing as a lost cause. When Israeli actually became officially a country, right after WWII, it was rather hard to argue with the logic here.
It's worth noting that Europe hasn't particularly improved in how it treats local ethnic minorities from how it was doing before WWII, which is why there are also such things as the Romani nationalism movement.
Also, a lot of the Orthodox Jewish opposition to Israeli is theological in basis, if memory serves, and roughly "this was supposed to happen only when G*d personally came down and did it." (A lot of other Jews note that G*d has a long history of being sensible enough to delegate things.)
I think you're in violent agreement with the GP. He's right, reporting on a celebrity isn't news. And "mainstream media" isn't news either - most of the outlets which say they're news are 95% op-ed. I suppose that's a result of pandering for eyeballs. They're not really lying, they're just going way beyond unbiased objective fact, with an intent to mislead in order to support their POV. Where, oh where, are today's Edgar R Murrows? They all seem to be Hearsts these days.
Murrow came from around Greensboro, North Carolina--can you imagine how a decent part of the media would treat an up-and-comer who wasn't a good little robot who comes from somewhere like that? The mainstream media already has a distinct tendency to perpetuate stereotypes about places outside of Boswash and its West Coast equivalent & people outside of their rarefied social circles, even when they're going on and on about stereotypes against obvious minorities being evil and wrong...
My main issue here is that Facebook defaults to public on damn near everything. It's pretty much why my Facebook profile is near-dead, and pretty much entirely exists for some work-related stuff.
Wow...interesting.
I have never in my life heard the term "partner" for a normal straight couple....
It's very useful when you have no idea if they're married or what, and don't want to be too obvious about the fact that this is the sort of thing you'd like to mention--or when you're doing the form letter invite.
I'm younger Gen-X (actually I fall into what's deemed the "missing generation" - between Gen-X and Gen-Y, lopped one side or the other depending on who is doing the research and for what purpose)...but older generations didn't have those issues because they we're coddled for their entire upbringing. Only 1st, 2nd, and 3rd got any kind of Prize, misbehavior was punished, and if you did something wrong you were told so and expected to do it right the next time, having learned from your mistake.
But yeah - sadly Gen-Y's and Millennials got the worse end of the stick (sorry) - as you say - the worse method of raising kids is protecting their self-esteem, etc as it makes for really bad character in the end - a lot of which we are now seeing entering into the political arena. This was a by-product of the 1960's psychologists like Dr. Spock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock), much of which has in the last 20 years or so been fully debunked as the worse way to raise kids.
I only count as a Millennial when the upper limit is set high--I'm in the border between it and Gen-Y, pretty much--but a good part of this was hitting the late Boomers on generation-wise. Bad psych and pseudoscience tends to linger badly in the educational and social services fields; I think it may well be because most get no to next to no training in psychology, so the speed at which discoveries like "Rewarding behavior always, always reenforces it" filter over from that field is dismal. (And yes, I'm quite aware that my example is something that ought to be obvious. You'd think it'd have managed to make it over long ago, but...)
It means, that they're still living at Mommy and Daddy's house, waiting for the world to give them the high paying dream job they "deserve" and would enjoy doing.....and it ain't happening.
Previous generations understood this, but apparently the snowflakes do not.
I'll stop you right there...
The previous generation don't understand how much of their success is built upon luck and the generation before them, they tend to be biased in attributing all of their good fortune to their own hard work - because that's human nature, when you're down it's bad luck (Gen-Y), when things are going your way it's all you (Gen-X).
Stopping you right here...
In truth it's a combination, but you can't have the hard work without first having a substantial amount of luck,
Sure you can. It's called your grades in school. It's called not allowing your kids to be put on drugs to keep them in their seats because the teacher can't take them out for recess to run off the excess energy (yeah, not Gen-Y's fault on that one). It's call doing your best regardless of the circumstances around you, and having a strong work ethic. Sadly, BabyBoomer/Gen-Xer's didn't generally do their Gen-Y/Millennial kids any favors with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "my kid can do no wrong" and "1+1 = 3, yeah - you tried; here's a lollipop" up-bringing. But that doesn't leave it any less on Millennials/Gen-Y to do their best and put their head down and do the job(s) they've been given/hired to do. How you treat one employer will be picked up on your interviews in the future. So yes - it is ultimately in your hands, even if your parents didn't help you much.
You want the scary part? Pretty much every single bit of research in the social sciences on the upbringing basically says that you couldn't intentionally raise kids to be little narcissistic bullies better, with serious issues with society if they manage to not end up that way because it turns out that humans are not only pretty good at detecting false & empty praise, we're in general hardwired to be not very fond of it.
This research is about as old as me, and I'm in the older segment of the Millennial generation. This should tell you all you need to know about the halflife of pseudoscience in the educational system...
You do realize we're already looking at problems with the social safety net because the fundamental assumption of its financing is that the population is going to increase forever and ever amen? One of the few things keeping this from hitting hard quite a few countries already is the importing of population from countries which are just starting to have their birth rates drop--last I knew, there's practically nowhere which isn't getting people offering free birth control because they're freaked out by the idea of overpopulation and figure the best solution is less brown people.
I'm not even going to touch on the major reason why 'getting knocked up at 30 was a death sentence' in the past, since I really am not sure how to explain without being incredibly insulting that such medical innovations as 'washing hands between patients' happened after the point you're talking about. (Antibiotics cut down on a lot, but no, seriously, most of modern medicine is at best only a bit over a century old)
First: Never make such claims without citations, because amazingly enough not everybody reads every scientific publication ever and has access to all the databases. (You gotta pay for that, and I've got bills.) Second: If you think the US is a singular, unified culture, I'm not sure where to start on the problems here, aside from maybe "Your social science skills are bad." You're also assuming interesting things about my beliefs, which are actually very, very wrong. In fact, if you want to argue that cultural tolerance of fraud exists--finding the rates among presumably high SES individuals is not distinctly different among a low SES sample is actually more likely to support the basic theory that the behavior is more tolerated culturally.
I am pretty sure somebody's already kicked out the door what I need to get whatever flavor of Linux desktop to have that flat look, without things like tiles unless I decide in a fit of insanity I need those.
Ricing my desktop was one of the things that got me into Linux and a source of amazement that Microsoft still doesn't provide a clean, out-of-the-box, just-werks way to buy and install themes on Windows.
It's like they don't even want that money.
The really sad thing here is that you can get a lot of low-level accessibility just by installing the right themes--for example, if you've got light sensitivity problems, the high contrast themes do nothing, and I suspect you could kick out a visually-enjoyable set of themes designed for those with forms of colorblindness. (I'd have the dual goals of it not at any point needing the user to be able to perceive colors at all, and being obvious about it.)