The article seems to have been written by a non native writer. It is likely intended to give the meaning you got out of it. I deduced the same just based on the obvious mistakes such as using words interchangeably when they should not have been.
The article becomes not nonsense but poorly written.
Would you support using the time spent on cursive to teach typing, but still teach block letters? Because, while the article is not well written, and that carried through to the copypasta summary, that seems to be the case.
Would that we could discuss the articles here instead of trying to agree on what they are about.
Run that through your standard judicial IWentToHarvard-izer, replacing a couple of random words with their longest equivalent in the thesaurus, and you've got a pretty solid legal opinion.
Fuck a bag of shit in the morning. That's not how the legal system works. It was priceless. Ignorance in little parts pisses me right the feck off. But grand-scale ignorance, the kind that could gag a gigantosaurus, is fricken hilarious.
I could stab a guy with a dictionary, watch him bleed out, and remove his brain, and when I say "You're still smarter than Bennett" he'd reply, "Who, they still let that cock on the internet?"
This is not a good description. I've no idea what a topological defect or energy crack is.
Fine. You haven't finished your dinner. Sit down and eat your vegetables, or 20 years from now you'll have high triglycerides and hate me for being a bad parent.
Oh, wait,
Explain it like I'm five
Would you like some candy? I have candy. I'm not saying I would give you candy, but I do have candy.
Normally I might feign something. But for real, how did you figure it out? Because that makes a huge difference.
I was asked to get my girlfriend's mom's pictures off the hard drive. I took peripherals out, and decided the keyboard had to go. The keyboard of the notebook. So I hooked up some USB stuff and booted the thing and copied things and all was good.
I didn't have log files, and I didn't need them. So how did you figure it out, and would it have been different with text logs?
I'm interested in the next year of quarterly earnings reports. If sysadmins successfully communicate that they would rather not purchase support for systemd distros, then the market has spoken.
A thousand angry nerds on the internet mean little compared with one lost contract.
The financial impact will be slow to show, and the response will probably be immediate, but again slow to slow. Then things should move rather quickly.
Whether there are responsible people in the role as CTO of large businesses will soon be apparent.
EEE is a cautionary tale, not a knee-jerk reaction.
Is openness somehow bad? Is having source code for more and more products somehow bad?
I am going to classify your comment as "I don't know what they are doing, therefore I am confused, therefore they confused me and are trying something sneaky". In other words you are an idiot.
Embrace is good, and we support that. Extend is when we start to throw red flags. Extinguish is what users should do at the Extend phase.
Put another way, if they never get to Extend, then what in the fucking shitpile are you and your positive moderators on about?
A lot of this is historical. IE is baked into the shell, so the shell files can't be updated while a user is logged in. These ties have been broken lately, but not completely. It's not the architecture of Windows, but rather the need to keep up appearances despite most people knowing better. And the architecture of the web browser of course.
Windows itself relies on having a lot of shared libraries, known as ".dll files". They can't possibly be patched if they are in use.
Oh wait. Forgive me for not knowing the details off hand, but there is a preamble they emit in the assembly solely for the purposes of hotfixing. If they need to insert a call, do things, return, they have space for it. So they can patch all of the processes that loaded the library without restarting. It's something like MOV EAX,EAX or something else obviously without purpose (yes, not followed by a flag test).
Anyway, the expectation of the users is probably why restarts are needed. If a service should be running, then users expect it to be running. If it is needed for some reason, like antivirus, then it is needed. Considering that Windows hosts the biggest money-making and proprietary software, the general expectation is that a service will be running when it needs to be running.
Sure, tell me about how something crashed et cetera, but the software runs how it is expected to run as a matter of course and with some exception. In the world of Microsoft, this benefits the user. In the world of Linux, other attributes help the user.
TL;DR the architecture is only a small part. Use case and audience seem to be the defining factor.
Because the BBC was basing their decision on a machine learning algorithm?
No, wait, you seem to be an illiterate moron who was moderated positively because people agree with your basic premise of "archive anything" without realizing that you have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
And when I say illiterate I mean your prostitute slash sister typed these words for you. And the two people who moderated you positively are on some unknown strain of weed that makes them agree with someone who says 3 words in a row that they agree with.
And you, Anonymous Cretin, should stop posting when you are high.
On the other hand - I have heard a lot of throat singing, and I generally don't like it. On the rare instances that I have heard overtone singing, I have not had a computer and spectral analysis software handy.
This puts it all in one place.
I suspect the moderators who considered you insightful did not have the experience to differentiate a genuinely novel presentation of a mostly novel phenomenon.
If everyone here has been studying overtone singing, not throat singing, with a spectrum analyser, for 1000s of years, then burn my account to the ground with down-moderation for being so ignorant.
If, on the other hand, very few have heard of throat singing, and fewer yet can distinguish that with overtone singing, and fewer yet have seen it described along with a spectrogram, then this is news for nerds, and you and your moderators should be ashamed of yourself.
Sort of. There are many different styles of "throat singing". The basic component is to make a sound so raspy that it has a whole bunch of overtones. It's almost white noise. It's not a melodious note, and only serves as a basis for manipulation.
Dag Kargyraa or Steppe Kargyraa are the best examples, and most well known.
Overtone singing means moving the fundamental pitch around, which traditional throat singing does not do. It's the logical extension of throat singing, bringing it to the next level.
Overtone singing, when I have heard it, employs a fundamental pitch that sounds good. Throat singing basically sounds like a bagpipe drone, serving only to allow the higher harmonics to stand out, while overtone singing is a normal singing voice and then some.
Throat singing is not a duet with yourself - it is a single harmony line above the "white noise". Overtone singing, as in the last part of the example video, can truly be a duet with yourself. It is much more difficult, especially since the mouth has to filter for overtones which, though they may sound adjacent, are in reality very far apart because the fundamental tone has shifted.
Context is important. In particular, "nothing is taken" is wildly out of context in your quote.
Now, I admit that I do not agree that "nothing is taken from the people whose videos are arrested." But context, being important, requires me to label you, anonymous retard, a petulant and uncomprehending net loss on society.
State your thread, and the context in which it was stated. Or, fuck off back to dixie and die on a piece of concrete or similar intended as a means of conveyance.
In opposition, OLE has been a zero-day since at least two years after it was introduced.
Anything using OLE, or any of the later labels for OLE, should have assumed that it, somehow, was infected.
It could have been done securely, I assume, but I can't tell you how. I can say that every OLE book has told me, indirectly, how to fuck up a dude's 'puter.
Is it more likely that the article, which is a summary, and the summary, which is a summary of a summary, elided over important bits? Or that you are an idiot?
Is it possible that warmer blood was redirected to the brain, and cooler blood elsewhere, yielding, in idiot terms, "nothing", but in pseudo-science terms "preservation of a favored organ"?
Is it possible at all, that an overheated arm is of little concern, but an overheated brain might be a little more important?
I apologise, science is obviously wrong, and you are no idiot. Let's pin a medal on you for being the only person in the entire collection of people who wrote the research results, published a study, peer reviewed it, and read it, to be the only one who realizes that it does nothing.
"The fossil evidence suggests that Stegoceras was basically similar to an ostrich or an alligator," Porter said. "Hot arterial blood from the body was cooled as it passed over the respiratory turbinates, and then that cooled venous blood returned to the brain. It may not have been much of a brain, but you don't want it cooked!"
I don't think they forgot the "Trenders", who are identified in the abstract by the term "mainstream".
Your daughter goes along, not because it's the trend, but because that's what people do. That it's the trend is beside the point.
By being contrarian in nature, the hipsters go against the mainstream, and without awareness of what other hipsters do, they will tend to make the same contrarian choices. This seems to be a function of being aware of current trends, without such knowledge one cannot rebel against those trends. So there has to be a dynamic that exists, and awareness of that dynamic to know when the trend is no longer something to hate. And of course when it is no longer something to like.
You are forgetting the trailblazers, but that's not what the article is about. For there to be a trend, someone needs to set that trend. They are not contrarian in nature, but they are novelty seekers. When something has been hated in the mainstream, but appreciated underground, the value can rise for the novelty seekers, and they set the trend for the mainstream.
So, DumbSwede, you basically said in words what the article here put into a mathematical model. But you addressed only part of the model, and omitted an important part. What you didn't address is: why do hipsters all look alike? Especially over time as the thing to hate changes?
So back to the point - the purpose of funding open source instead of closed source is to ensure future production. Closed source has a product in mind, and you pay for what you were delivered, with fixes to major bugs.
In that sense, Caligari Truespace did exactly what it was supposed to do for whatever money people gave it. Sure it disappeared, but people didn't pay for a continuing company. They paid for a product that worked.
Open source means that the people who care and want to develop it will. If they think it's important, they don't have to answer to a green-eyed bean counter. The features that the developers think are important will get developed. Not necessarily finished, but at least started.
The future of the project is not related to funding. The open nature of the code may be. The production of the code is the reason for funding. Don't confuse closed source, where the production of the binary is important. It may be abandoned, because no one cares to develop it, but that's not the point of funding.
For the record, and not to your individual situation, the article is warning people away from having a business full of ignorant people.
You (not roman_mir specifically) can have lego-assembling window-lickers if that fits your bottom line. It is not necessary to require understanding from everyone.
Because they aren't, you ignorant fuck. The premise of the book - slash - interview is that this is happening in lots of areas.
Soulskill, who frequently needs to be fucked in the babymaker with a rusty triceratops, decided not to include the parts that would calm you the fuck down, knowing that you wouldn't bother to read it, and instead would post some ridiculous nonsense that you made up out of nearly whole cloth, with a few scraps provided by Soulskill, and make people like me correct you, and allow retarded fucks like those who replied to you thinking you had a point to have at least one additional page load by replying.
In short, programmers are singled out because Dice.com and your myopic refusal to use your brain.
Someone has to build the automation. So at the beginning at least, someone needs to understand the relationship between the automation results and the underlying, non-automated truth. To develop the automation software further, someone needs to know the fundamentals to be able to say if it's better or worse that the current version.
Are you saying that the skills needed to develop the software don't need to exist? Or that they will always exist? If we automate everything, in other words, who will fix your bug?
The problem, and we see it with pilots and doctors, is when the computer fails, when either the technology breaks down, or the computer comes up against some situation that it hasn't been programmed to handle, then the human being has to jump back in take control, and too often we have allowed the human expert skills to get rusty and their situational awareness to fade away and so they make mistakes
If a farmer's tractor breaks down, he has time to get it repaired. What about a pilot, in charge of a thing traveling fast enough, or running out of fuel fast enough, that he doesn't have time for a training refresher?
If you can look to integrated development environments, other automated tools, to automate tasks that you have already mastered, and that have thus become routine to you that can free up your time, [that] frees up your mental energy to think about harder problems. On the other hand, if we use automation to simply replace hard work, and therefore prevent you from fully mastering various levels of skills, it can actually have the opposite effect.
Your whole second paragraph has nothing to do with any of this, and the first sentence has nothing to do with the context of the discussion. No one needs to know the whole stack top to bottom, but where does the guru come from?
That modern developers suck at assembler is a bad thing assumes there's a reason you'd want them doing assembler in the first place
I would want someone doing assembler, somewhere. I would want someone to know the whole stack, somewhere. I would not want to have my whole company full of people who don't do assembler, don't know the stack, and can't function outside of the tinker toys.
The audience is IT managers, especially those that may not yet be facing these questions directly. Business will adopt the method that is cost effective in the short term, often at the expense of the long term. What if the only people who know the whole stack are principled idealists in open source who aren't going to be ruled by the almighty dollar? And the remainder are in high dollar jobs in places like Microsoft, who wrote the technology, but can't fix your problems without a support contract? You can't buy your way out of the problem.
The whole point of this book, and the interview, is to avoid putting yourself in the situation where you are in the field, miles from a repairman, and the tractor won't start, and frost is setting on, or locusts are over the hill.
Is capitalism going to forgive the capitalists who put themselves in that situation? No, they are going to wither on the vine and/or be eaten in place. Don't take the warning, fine. But don't defend those who want to put themselves in danger's way just to save a few dollars. It's not that there is no place for it. But we all need that guy who knows what to do when things go south. And the author's whole point is that those people have the responsibility, but not the skill to step in and fix, or at least deal with, things going south.
Confirmation bias is a general container for a number of different coping mechanisms. It is also the foundation of a number of behaviors. In contrast, Solution aversion seems to be one behavior which results in confirmation bias. Explaining how we get there, rather than just saying that it exists.
This study seems to say that when I don't like a solution, I deny there is a problem. If I like the solution, or it is not a strongly held belief one way or another, I don't deny there is a problem. Your attempts at summarising lack important details. "What if the facts being distorted came from a scientific paper" was already studied as "the backfire effect", and "what if the ideas were political" has been beaten to death. Their combination isn't novel.
This is not about the general case of "here's a fact, do you believe the fact?" It's a more specific case of "here's a problem, do you agree based on whether you agree with the solution".
"This lacks rigor" without some sort of explanation is horseshit.
What level of research were you expecting? The Duke U profiles and Google Scholar results show that these two researchers seem to have an idea, do a basic study, and move on to something more interesting. (Campbell, Troy H.; Kay, Aaron C.) For that, on its surface, I have no objection.
I haven't read the paper, so I can't say whether there are citations that cite tangential research, or prior study. Tangential citations suggest that this is a new idea building on previous related but different ideas. Prior study citations would suggest that an initial finding is being examined more thoroughly, and the expected rigor goes up.
So, feel free to review the citations and give me your opinion on whether this is exploratory or followup research. And tell me also how this fails in rigor, because I can't tell that based on the abstract.
"This experiment" seems to focus on Republicans for the first of 3 studies, and then a fourth contrasting study was done apparently to make sure this effect was not limited to the conservative mindset. The only failing in rigor I can see is that I don't see a screening for candidates to see if they are in fact members of the target group (i.e. do they hold the belief that free markets are good and regulation is bad). But it might be described in the study.
Shift work does seem to be mostly dull or repetitive. I would expect a study, even if did not make that sort of distinction, to inevitably study that distinction.
If the study did not make some sort of accommodation for the type of work performed, it definitely studies boring, repetitive work compared with less boring, repetitive work.
Slashdot Mirror
The article seems to have been written by a non native writer. It is likely intended to give the meaning you got out of it. I deduced the same just based on the obvious mistakes such as using words interchangeably when they should not have been.
The article becomes not nonsense but poorly written.
Would you support using the time spent on cursive to teach typing, but still teach block letters? Because, while the article is not well written, and that carried through to the copypasta summary, that seems to be the case.
Would that we could discuss the articles here instead of trying to agree on what they are about.
Too bad, you missed this.
Fuck a bag of shit in the morning. That's not how the legal system works. It was priceless. Ignorance in little parts pisses me right the feck off. But grand-scale ignorance, the kind that could gag a gigantosaurus, is fricken hilarious.
I could stab a guy with a dictionary, watch him bleed out, and remove his brain, and when I say "You're still smarter than Bennett" he'd reply, "Who, they still let that cock on the internet?"
Fine. You haven't finished your dinner. Sit down and eat your vegetables, or 20 years from now you'll have high triglycerides and hate me for being a bad parent.
Oh, wait,
Would you like some candy? I have candy. I'm not saying I would give you candy, but I do have candy.
Normally I might feign something. But for real, how did you figure it out? Because that makes a huge difference.
I was asked to get my girlfriend's mom's pictures off the hard drive. I took peripherals out, and decided the keyboard had to go. The keyboard of the notebook. So I hooked up some USB stuff and booted the thing and copied things and all was good.
I didn't have log files, and I didn't need them. So how did you figure it out, and would it have been different with text logs?
I'm interested in the next year of quarterly earnings reports. If sysadmins successfully communicate that they would rather not purchase support for systemd distros, then the market has spoken.
A thousand angry nerds on the internet mean little compared with one lost contract.
The financial impact will be slow to show, and the response will probably be immediate, but again slow to slow. Then things should move rather quickly.
Whether there are responsible people in the role as CTO of large businesses will soon be apparent.
n.b. "responsible" is a very specific word.
EEE is a cautionary tale, not a knee-jerk reaction.
Is openness somehow bad? Is having source code for more and more products somehow bad?
I am going to classify your comment as "I don't know what they are doing, therefore I am confused, therefore they confused me and are trying something sneaky". In other words you are an idiot.
Embrace is good, and we support that. Extend is when we start to throw red flags. Extinguish is what users should do at the Extend phase.
Put another way, if they never get to Extend, then what in the fucking shitpile are you and your positive moderators on about?
A lot of this is historical. IE is baked into the shell, so the shell files can't be updated while a user is logged in. These ties have been broken lately, but not completely. It's not the architecture of Windows, but rather the need to keep up appearances despite most people knowing better. And the architecture of the web browser of course.
Windows itself relies on having a lot of shared libraries, known as ".dll files". They can't possibly be patched if they are in use.
Oh wait. Forgive me for not knowing the details off hand, but there is a preamble they emit in the assembly solely for the purposes of hotfixing. If they need to insert a call, do things, return, they have space for it. So they can patch all of the processes that loaded the library without restarting. It's something like MOV EAX,EAX or something else obviously without purpose (yes, not followed by a flag test).
Anyway, the expectation of the users is probably why restarts are needed. If a service should be running, then users expect it to be running. If it is needed for some reason, like antivirus, then it is needed. Considering that Windows hosts the biggest money-making and proprietary software, the general expectation is that a service will be running when it needs to be running.
Sure, tell me about how something crashed et cetera, but the software runs how it is expected to run as a matter of course and with some exception. In the world of Microsoft, this benefits the user. In the world of Linux, other attributes help the user.
TL;DR the architecture is only a small part. Use case and audience seem to be the defining factor.
Because the BBC was basing their decision on a machine learning algorithm?
No, wait, you seem to be an illiterate moron who was moderated positively because people agree with your basic premise of "archive anything" without realizing that you have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
And when I say illiterate I mean your prostitute slash sister typed these words for you. And the two people who moderated you positively are on some unknown strain of weed that makes them agree with someone who says 3 words in a row that they agree with.
And you, Anonymous Cretin, should stop posting when you are high.
On the other hand - I have heard a lot of throat singing, and I generally don't like it. On the rare instances that I have heard overtone singing, I have not had a computer and spectral analysis software handy.
This puts it all in one place.
I suspect the moderators who considered you insightful did not have the experience to differentiate a genuinely novel presentation of a mostly novel phenomenon.
If everyone here has been studying overtone singing, not throat singing, with a spectrum analyser, for 1000s of years, then burn my account to the ground with down-moderation for being so ignorant.
If, on the other hand, very few have heard of throat singing, and fewer yet can distinguish that with overtone singing, and fewer yet have seen it described along with a spectrogram, then this is news for nerds, and you and your moderators should be ashamed of yourself.
Sort of. There are many different styles of "throat singing". The basic component is to make a sound so raspy that it has a whole bunch of overtones. It's almost white noise. It's not a melodious note, and only serves as a basis for manipulation.
Dag Kargyraa or Steppe Kargyraa are the best examples, and most well known.
Overtone singing means moving the fundamental pitch around, which traditional throat singing does not do. It's the logical extension of throat singing, bringing it to the next level.
Overtone singing, when I have heard it, employs a fundamental pitch that sounds good. Throat singing basically sounds like a bagpipe drone, serving only to allow the higher harmonics to stand out, while overtone singing is a normal singing voice and then some.
Throat singing is not a duet with yourself - it is a single harmony line above the "white noise". Overtone singing, as in the last part of the example video, can truly be a duet with yourself. It is much more difficult, especially since the mouth has to filter for overtones which, though they may sound adjacent, are in reality very far apart because the fundamental tone has shifted.
Easier to tear down than to build. Care to help?
Context is important. In particular, "nothing is taken" is wildly out of context in your quote.
Now, I admit that I do not agree that "nothing is taken from the people whose videos are arrested." But context, being important, requires me to label you, anonymous retard, a petulant and uncomprehending net loss on society.
State your thread, and the context in which it was stated. Or, fuck off back to dixie and die on a piece of concrete or similar intended as a means of conveyance.
In opposition, OLE has been a zero-day since at least two years after it was introduced.
Anything using OLE, or any of the later labels for OLE, should have assumed that it, somehow, was infected.
It could have been done securely, I assume, but I can't tell you how. I can say that every OLE book has told me, indirectly, how to fuck up a dude's 'puter.
Is it more likely that the article, which is a summary, and the summary, which is a summary of a summary, elided over important bits? Or that you are an idiot?
Is it possible that warmer blood was redirected to the brain, and cooler blood elsewhere, yielding, in idiot terms, "nothing", but in pseudo-science terms "preservation of a favored organ"?
Is it possible at all, that an overheated arm is of little concern, but an overheated brain might be a little more important?
I apologise, science is obviously wrong, and you are no idiot. Let's pin a medal on you for being the only person in the entire collection of people who wrote the research results, published a study, peer reviewed it, and read it, to be the only one who realizes that it does nothing.
Nope, your a idiot.
That's what the article said, but they said it with math.
If you are down-moderated as off-topic for bringing up anticonformancy when no one was talking about it, don't be mad.
rossgneumann did a shitty job with the intro. Let me re-phrase and then you re-try your comment.
"Hipsters, in rejecting mainstream trends, seem to cluster around certain "minorstream" trends, how does this happen?"
I don't think they forgot the "Trenders", who are identified in the abstract by the term "mainstream".
Your daughter goes along, not because it's the trend, but because that's what people do. That it's the trend is beside the point.
By being contrarian in nature, the hipsters go against the mainstream, and without awareness of what other hipsters do, they will tend to make the same contrarian choices. This seems to be a function of being aware of current trends, without such knowledge one cannot rebel against those trends. So there has to be a dynamic that exists, and awareness of that dynamic to know when the trend is no longer something to hate. And of course when it is no longer something to like.
You are forgetting the trailblazers, but that's not what the article is about. For there to be a trend, someone needs to set that trend. They are not contrarian in nature, but they are novelty seekers. When something has been hated in the mainstream, but appreciated underground, the value can rise for the novelty seekers, and they set the trend for the mainstream.
So, DumbSwede, you basically said in words what the article here put into a mathematical model. But you addressed only part of the model, and omitted an important part. What you didn't address is: why do hipsters all look alike? Especially over time as the thing to hate changes?
So back to the point - the purpose of funding open source instead of closed source is to ensure future production. Closed source has a product in mind, and you pay for what you were delivered, with fixes to major bugs.
In that sense, Caligari Truespace did exactly what it was supposed to do for whatever money people gave it. Sure it disappeared, but people didn't pay for a continuing company. They paid for a product that worked.
Open source means that the people who care and want to develop it will. If they think it's important, they don't have to answer to a green-eyed bean counter. The features that the developers think are important will get developed. Not necessarily finished, but at least started.
The future of the project is not related to funding. The open nature of the code may be. The production of the code is the reason for funding. Don't confuse closed source, where the production of the binary is important. It may be abandoned, because no one cares to develop it, but that's not the point of funding.
For the record, and not to your individual situation, the article is warning people away from having a business full of ignorant people.
You (not roman_mir specifically) can have lego-assembling window-lickers if that fits your bottom line. It is not necessary to require understanding from everyone.
Because they aren't, you ignorant fuck. The premise of the book - slash - interview is that this is happening in lots of areas.
Soulskill, who frequently needs to be fucked in the babymaker with a rusty triceratops, decided not to include the parts that would calm you the fuck down, knowing that you wouldn't bother to read it, and instead would post some ridiculous nonsense that you made up out of nearly whole cloth, with a few scraps provided by Soulskill, and make people like me correct you, and allow retarded fucks like those who replied to you thinking you had a point to have at least one additional page load by replying.
In short, programmers are singled out because Dice.com and your myopic refusal to use your brain.
Someone has to build the automation. So at the beginning at least, someone needs to understand the relationship between the automation results and the underlying, non-automated truth. To develop the automation software further, someone needs to know the fundamentals to be able to say if it's better or worse that the current version.
Are you saying that the skills needed to develop the software don't need to exist? Or that they will always exist? If we automate everything, in other words, who will fix your bug?
If a farmer's tractor breaks down, he has time to get it repaired. What about a pilot, in charge of a thing traveling fast enough, or running out of fuel fast enough, that he doesn't have time for a training refresher?
Your whole second paragraph has nothing to do with any of this, and the first sentence has nothing to do with the context of the discussion. No one needs to know the whole stack top to bottom, but where does the guru come from?
I would want someone doing assembler, somewhere. I would want someone to know the whole stack, somewhere. I would not want to have my whole company full of people who don't do assembler, don't know the stack, and can't function outside of the tinker toys.
The audience is IT managers, especially those that may not yet be facing these questions directly. Business will adopt the method that is cost effective in the short term, often at the expense of the long term. What if the only people who know the whole stack are principled idealists in open source who aren't going to be ruled by the almighty dollar? And the remainder are in high dollar jobs in places like Microsoft, who wrote the technology, but can't fix your problems without a support contract? You can't buy your way out of the problem.
The whole point of this book, and the interview, is to avoid putting yourself in the situation where you are in the field, miles from a repairman, and the tractor won't start, and frost is setting on, or locusts are over the hill.
Is capitalism going to forgive the capitalists who put themselves in that situation? No, they are going to wither on the vine and/or be eaten in place. Don't take the warning, fine. But don't defend those who want to put themselves in danger's way just to save a few dollars. It's not that there is no place for it. But we all need that guy who knows what to do when things go south. And the author's whole point is that those people have the responsibility, but not the skill to step in and fix, or at least deal with, things going south.
Confirmation bias is a general container for a number of different coping mechanisms. It is also the foundation of a number of behaviors. In contrast, Solution aversion seems to be one behavior which results in confirmation bias. Explaining how we get there, rather than just saying that it exists.
This study seems to say that when I don't like a solution, I deny there is a problem. If I like the solution, or it is not a strongly held belief one way or another, I don't deny there is a problem. Your attempts at summarising lack important details. "What if the facts being distorted came from a scientific paper" was already studied as "the backfire effect", and "what if the ideas were political" has been beaten to death. Their combination isn't novel.
This is not about the general case of "here's a fact, do you believe the fact?" It's a more specific case of "here's a problem, do you agree based on whether you agree with the solution".
33 gallons of gas a week for a year is 1,716 gallons. That study makes the case for approximately one dollar per gallon tax at most.
"This lacks rigor" without some sort of explanation is horseshit.
What level of research were you expecting? The Duke U profiles and Google Scholar results show that these two researchers seem to have an idea, do a basic study, and move on to something more interesting. (Campbell, Troy H.; Kay, Aaron C.) For that, on its surface, I have no objection.
I haven't read the paper, so I can't say whether there are citations that cite tangential research, or prior study. Tangential citations suggest that this is a new idea building on previous related but different ideas. Prior study citations would suggest that an initial finding is being examined more thoroughly, and the expected rigor goes up.
So, feel free to review the citations and give me your opinion on whether this is exploratory or followup research. And tell me also how this fails in rigor, because I can't tell that based on the abstract.
"This experiment" seems to focus on Republicans for the first of 3 studies, and then a fourth contrasting study was done apparently to make sure this effect was not limited to the conservative mindset. The only failing in rigor I can see is that I don't see a screening for candidates to see if they are in fact members of the target group (i.e. do they hold the belief that free markets are good and regulation is bad). But it might be described in the study.
Shift work does seem to be mostly dull or repetitive. I would expect a study, even if did not make that sort of distinction, to inevitably study that distinction.
If the study did not make some sort of accommodation for the type of work performed, it definitely studies boring, repetitive work compared with less boring, repetitive work.