Plenty of companies don't hire for diversity in skills. HR copy-pastes the same stupid requirements into every job requirement, and artificially limits applicants to those that sort-of have those skills. I've known a lot of people really angry that they struggled to get good employees because of HR's stupidity in this regard.
Diversity in sexual orientation, race and all that shit is useless only if your customer base consists of straight, white males. If you are trying to appeal to anyone else, it is really helpful to have people on staff who can actually weigh in on whether or not what you're doing is appealing to their demographic, or often more importantly, if it's very insulting.
I'm not saying that we should have diversity quotas, but if an organization's makeup is very different than it's customer base, there's a very good chance that they aren't going to understand their customers well enough to be successful against any sort of competition that does.
Yes, they absolutely exist. I don't know how common they are, because I've mostly worked for somewhat sensible small and medium sized businesses, but I've definitely seen them.
I did one interview for a pretty large business, above $1b in revenue, and this is how they did interviews. Something like a 3 hr interview, with a half-hour tour of the campus, half-hour "ask an employee anything" interview, half-hour "general interview", half-hour "specific job interview", and about an hour in between split up into mini-skill tests. And not for trivial positions either! Other than director level and up, everyone had to go through the same bullshit. I was in my mid 30s when I applied, and I was stuck in a room with a bunch of other people including kids still in their senior year of undergraduate to take quizzes.
It's definitely not a strawman.
Now, I didn't get the position, mainly because they changed what position they were offering me after the general interview. I was non-committal, because while I had researched the original position and it was a good fit, I knew nothing about the other position. They felt that I should be thankful that they had deemed me worthy of working for them in any position, and were shocked that I wasn't down on two knees. Apparently not drinking the cool-aid means you don't get hired.
I've worked with several people who left the company since, and they have all made me glad I didn't get that job. Overworked, and while the pay was commensurate, they lost years of their lives putting in 80 hour work weeks. The company continually hires the best (as measured by their ridiculous ranking and quizzes) and replaces them after they burn out with fresh meat. Their revenues are ever increasing, so it does appear to be a valid hiring mechanism, at least by that metric.
I have seen this in action, and it's a double-edged sword.
There is equal chance of taking a lot longer to reinvent the wheel or not making anything of use as there is to really innovate.
It can work if you have management willing to make it work, but it can flop if you don't have useful management. Good management understands what the goal is, and gives the team the time and freedom to explore. But good management also knows when to circle back to reality, and when to reign in and/or pull the plug on efforts like this. What management can't do is mandate innovation. That never works. When you do that, you end up making "courageous" business decisions.
Experts often have very, very entrenched ideas, because they've spent years becoming expert in them. There is some real benefit in putting some fresh eyes on a problem, system, process, etc., to see if those eyes can come up with something better. Circling back to the management piece, management needs to also be ok with those fresh eyes confirming that the current way is indeed the best way to do it, after failing to come up with something better. That needs to be seen as a positive confirmation of the status quo, not as a failing.
Sometimes the old way really is the best way. But you don't know that for sure without investing some time and money to explore other options. It all comes down to business risk, and how much of a gamble an organization is willing to take at any given time.
I think I'd be a little more nuanced and say, "user control of their data".
There are times people don't need or want privacy. When people want to broadcast shit on social media, they don't want privacy. What they should have is the choice, and control of their own data. Maybe they want to post under a pseudonym. Or maybe they want to post without including a location. That should be allowed.
And honestly? I think people should be allowed to sell their privacy. I think it's a stupid thing to do personally, but I don't think it's reasonable for me or anyone else to deny someone that choice. It already happens with membership/loyalty cards and subscriptions, and there's no reason to say, "nope, you can't do that on the internet".
But the choice should be there, and the default should be opt-in.
the logical response to investors buying up houses and parking their money in real estate isn't to outlaw rentals. It's to build more homes.
Yes. And where do you plan to build those homes? Not where they are buying up houses, because there are already homes there. The answer is in the suburbs, and that's what's leading to our suburban sprawl. And if you do that, you're also building highways and possibly public transportation, energy infrastructure, water and sewer, etc.
The US is appalling at city planning for the most part. We happily develop the farmland outside of cities, build more highways, and create these giant suburban islands, with no real character, and none of the things that people actually want to live near and go to.
Displacing long-term residents to instead create pockets of short-term residents really fucks up communities. While building more houses is the answer, we make it so hard to want to live where we can build them and commute to the jobs, stores, parks, etc. that a lot of people don't want to do that.
I'm moving in the next few years, and I honestly don't know where to. I can pay 1/2 the price for a place out in one of the suburbs, with a big house, nice yard, and terrific community. But there's nothing really there, one restaurant, small library, no movies, no grocery store, no hardware store. And I'd have to commute 40 minutes to work. If that somewhat tempting suburb had been built around a main street, and it had public transportation into the city, it would be a no brainer. But nope. And I can't possibly find a place nearer to the city center, because they got snapped up for the red-hot rental market. And honestly? Those neighborhoods are not really pleasant places to live anymore because of this.
You've moved the goalposts significantly here. First it was "Fox is rarely wrong", then it was "Fox's Hard News is rarely wrong", now it's "The stuff on Fox News that I call straight news is rarely wrong".
Regardless of your goalpost moving, and the much, much smaller subset of Fox you're now ok with calling mostly correct, you still haven't identified how you determine if it's true or not.
And I'm still somewhat confused about how you can cleanly parse Fox's "straight news" from all the rest of their programming. Are there particular segments that you consider that? Particular anchors? Given their very large amount of programming, and not being a normal viewer, I'm not sure I'd even know where to start.
You really think people would be willing to pay him to launch multi-million dollar satellites on an untested platform? That wasn't launching profits to mars. That was setting a max limit on how high SpaceX can pile it's money after that demo.
As second major issue is that with 24 hr news, they all have to have a LOT of filler.
Having to have filler means there is a real dilution between what's "real news" and what's "entertainews". The sensational but not really relevant becomes entwined with what's really important.
Unfortunately, news competes for eyeballs, and once the 24 hr networks embraced the sensational and the celebrity news, the "Big News" that wasn't 24 hr wasn't too far behind to start sliding in those stories. That makes it even harder to separate the signal from the noise, and really creates an information fatigue. In turn, it makes it harder to ensure that you're asking for sources rather than accepting gossip. 3/4 of the sensational and celebrity is unsourced gossip!
I disagree that nobody trusts the big news orgs anymore - lots of people still do, and for good reason. In general, they're more likely to still issue a correction, still boot an anchor or reporter if they repeatedly falsify or misrepresent. Often it takes far longer than it should, but that it happens at all sets them apart from most of the other sites on the internet, left or right.
As second problem is that any site who might have a bounty claimed against them could just have an employee claim it for them. The gamesmanship in stuff like this is infinite.
Interesting. So you admit there's no evidence to be had by anyone except those involved at the highest levels of the FISA court, yet are happy to believe people telling you what's going on, despite knowing that they don't have access to that evidence either. I definitely do not have that level of faith in any news organization, and I'm a little amazed you do.
And your claim that Fox is rarely wrong really contradicts your claim to be paying attention to their accuracy for 30 years. For one, it's only been around for 20 years. For another, Fox is definitely wrong pretty often, and rarely retracts stories or offers corrections.
How, exactly, have you come to the conclusion that Fox is rarely wrong? What was your methodology?
Go anywhere that sells Dell stuff and check out their Precision laptops. Then go to their site, choose developer or small business, and get it pre-loaded with ubuntu. I'm guessing that it's niche enough that they won't have ubuntu to demo in stores, so your options are either to just check out the hardware running windows, or, if they are permissive enough, potentially bring a ubuntu boot stick with you.
And your comment just made me realize that this can be weaponized. Just toss one of these in every one designed for humans, and if they pick that one, they're a bot. Humans won't likely pick it, as demonstrated here.
Surveillance of Carter Page, which has been going on for multiple years prior to the Trump candidacy without any evidence or legal action is not it'self actionable...
Either you are lying and have no idea, or you are publicly releasing classified information. Which is it?
They have the head of the FBI testifying before congress on the record that without the Steele dossier there would not have been a FISA warrant pursued or approved on the Trump candidacy. Period full stop.
Once again, either you are lying and do not know that, or you are publicly releasing classified information. Which is it?
You might want to try thinking for yourself and listening to multiple sources....
Not sure that's going to help, because look where it got you! You're here ranting about things that you can't possibly know, absolutely certain that you're correct.
Ask yourself this: Why do I believe all these things with no hard evidence of them being true? Then go and read the paper that started this whole discussion.
For a source to be labelled as junk news at least three of the following five characteristics must apply: * Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information. * Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes. * Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility. * Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently present opinion and commentary essays as news. * Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.
So lets take Slate for an example. A quick look shows that they pass the bar for Professionalism, as they identify their authors, and they make corrections. They're not counterfeit, as they don't mimic another news organization. And a quick look (I'm not a normal reader, obviously) shows that they seem to pass the Style and Credibility sniff test. Biased? Potentially. But they'd need to fail all 3 of those to get picked up as fake news.
Lets look at Drudge. Fails the Professional test on a couple accounts. While yes, it's an aggregator, it doesn't have any accountability, authors listed, and doesn't publish corrections. Obviously fails on Style. And I think the Credibility is a fail as well, as they don't seem to be doing a lot of vetting at all - it's a giant unorganized mess of links to both pretty legitimate MSM sites as well as some crackpot ones.
I'm honestly unsure why you feel that these two are on the wrong side of the fake news line. It seems pretty clear-cut to me, based on their metrics. And while I agree that some of these are somewhat unrelated to the quality of the reporting, without doing a deep analysis of the reporting itself, which would be a hurclean effort, I think it's a reasonable proxy for the quality of the stories.
I don't see any real bias in how they laid out their selection method. Given that this is coming out of Oxford in the UK, I have a hard time believing that they would be manipulating this research to favor one US political party over the other. That's a rather serious claim, and I'd expect such a claim to come with some serious evidence to back it up. You being angry that you are fed fake news isn't really that sort of evidence.
I would imagine that they would be able to pretty accurately calculate this ahead of time, and not miss their estimate by so many millions of miles. But maybe they didn't really bother to think that far ahead, given the possibility of failure. I wanted to see a decade long science mission on this thing, but it really does seem like it really was just a gimmicky dead weight flight, with no real extra cost spent to try to do anything useful.
Don't those turn the frogs gay? Or am I confusing those with something else? It's hard to tell with all the shouting, crying, and incoherent sentence fragments.
But I agree. I'd love to see the left wing equivalent. I'm not convinced that anyone can exceed Alex Jones' level of crazy without being institutionalized. I'm frankly amazed that he's been able to do it himself for so long.
Secondly, a college education is only an opportunity to learn critical thinking, one that relatively few people take advantage.
I think that there's more to a college education that's relevant to this discussion than just critical thinking. I do agree that a lot of people do make it through college without learning how to do that.
One really important part of college is exposure to cultures, ideas, concepts, religions, etc. that you just don't get if you remain in a small town all your life. That wider world-view gives one an edge when considering whether or not something is true. Being required to take courses outside of your major tends to force college kids to at least get a taste of some things that they never knew existed. Once you realize how big the universe really is, I think most people are more conscious of potentially looking at it through a periscope. And while college isn't required for this shift in perspective, it definitely can help facilitate it.
Secondly, if you're getting passing grades in college at any respectable place, you've most likely got some bare-bones skills in searching for info and writing a coherent paper about it. A lot of the crap that gets shared between crackpots is really not in any way coherent or logical. If you know that what you're reading would be an obvious 'F' if you turned it in, I think that it immediately raises red flags. If your only point of comparison is stuff you wrote in high school 20 years ago, I think it's got to be a little harder to spot the obvious lack of quality that a lot of these articles have. Again, college isn't required for this, but being forced to do that level of personal scrutiny for a few years of your life must help, I would think.
Lol, Musk just tweeted that the third burn was "successful", except that they missed mars and ended up with a giant elliptical orbit that goes way into the asteroid belt. Not quite to Ceres, but close.
Not sure I'd call that sort of burn successful, but if the goal was "get way far from earth uncontrollably", I guess that works.
Another poster noted that in a news conference Musk said that they only had 12 hrs of battery on board to transmit with. That seems a little odd to me, as Musk does high-tech battery and solar, and Dragon obviously does space solar. But if that is true, it's dead weight in a semi-perpetual orbit. Not sure how permanent it will be, as the orbit is not what they initially claimed it would be.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree on both counts.
Plenty of companies don't hire for diversity in skills. HR copy-pastes the same stupid requirements into every job requirement, and artificially limits applicants to those that sort-of have those skills. I've known a lot of people really angry that they struggled to get good employees because of HR's stupidity in this regard.
Diversity in sexual orientation, race and all that shit is useless only if your customer base consists of straight, white males. If you are trying to appeal to anyone else, it is really helpful to have people on staff who can actually weigh in on whether or not what you're doing is appealing to their demographic, or often more importantly, if it's very insulting.
I'm not saying that we should have diversity quotas, but if an organization's makeup is very different than it's customer base, there's a very good chance that they aren't going to understand their customers well enough to be successful against any sort of competition that does.
Yes, they absolutely exist. I don't know how common they are, because I've mostly worked for somewhat sensible small and medium sized businesses, but I've definitely seen them.
I did one interview for a pretty large business, above $1b in revenue, and this is how they did interviews. Something like a 3 hr interview, with a half-hour tour of the campus, half-hour "ask an employee anything" interview, half-hour "general interview", half-hour "specific job interview", and about an hour in between split up into mini-skill tests. And not for trivial positions either! Other than director level and up, everyone had to go through the same bullshit. I was in my mid 30s when I applied, and I was stuck in a room with a bunch of other people including kids still in their senior year of undergraduate to take quizzes.
It's definitely not a strawman.
Now, I didn't get the position, mainly because they changed what position they were offering me after the general interview. I was non-committal, because while I had researched the original position and it was a good fit, I knew nothing about the other position. They felt that I should be thankful that they had deemed me worthy of working for them in any position, and were shocked that I wasn't down on two knees. Apparently not drinking the cool-aid means you don't get hired.
I've worked with several people who left the company since, and they have all made me glad I didn't get that job. Overworked, and while the pay was commensurate, they lost years of their lives putting in 80 hour work weeks. The company continually hires the best (as measured by their ridiculous ranking and quizzes) and replaces them after they burn out with fresh meat. Their revenues are ever increasing, so it does appear to be a valid hiring mechanism, at least by that metric.
I have seen this in action, and it's a double-edged sword.
There is equal chance of taking a lot longer to reinvent the wheel or not making anything of use as there is to really innovate.
It can work if you have management willing to make it work, but it can flop if you don't have useful management. Good management understands what the goal is, and gives the team the time and freedom to explore. But good management also knows when to circle back to reality, and when to reign in and/or pull the plug on efforts like this. What management can't do is mandate innovation. That never works. When you do that, you end up making "courageous" business decisions.
Experts often have very, very entrenched ideas, because they've spent years becoming expert in them. There is some real benefit in putting some fresh eyes on a problem, system, process, etc., to see if those eyes can come up with something better. Circling back to the management piece, management needs to also be ok with those fresh eyes confirming that the current way is indeed the best way to do it, after failing to come up with something better. That needs to be seen as a positive confirmation of the status quo, not as a failing.
Sometimes the old way really is the best way. But you don't know that for sure without investing some time and money to explore other options. It all comes down to business risk, and how much of a gamble an organization is willing to take at any given time.
I think I'd be a little more nuanced and say, "user control of their data".
There are times people don't need or want privacy. When people want to broadcast shit on social media, they don't want privacy. What they should have is the choice, and control of their own data. Maybe they want to post under a pseudonym. Or maybe they want to post without including a location. That should be allowed.
And honestly? I think people should be allowed to sell their privacy. I think it's a stupid thing to do personally, but I don't think it's reasonable for me or anyone else to deny someone that choice. It already happens with membership/loyalty cards and subscriptions, and there's no reason to say, "nope, you can't do that on the internet".
But the choice should be there, and the default should be opt-in.
the logical response to investors buying up houses and parking their money in real estate isn't to outlaw rentals. It's to build more homes.
Yes. And where do you plan to build those homes? Not where they are buying up houses, because there are already homes there. The answer is in the suburbs, and that's what's leading to our suburban sprawl. And if you do that, you're also building highways and possibly public transportation, energy infrastructure, water and sewer, etc.
The US is appalling at city planning for the most part. We happily develop the farmland outside of cities, build more highways, and create these giant suburban islands, with no real character, and none of the things that people actually want to live near and go to.
Displacing long-term residents to instead create pockets of short-term residents really fucks up communities. While building more houses is the answer, we make it so hard to want to live where we can build them and commute to the jobs, stores, parks, etc. that a lot of people don't want to do that.
I'm moving in the next few years, and I honestly don't know where to. I can pay 1/2 the price for a place out in one of the suburbs, with a big house, nice yard, and terrific community. But there's nothing really there, one restaurant, small library, no movies, no grocery store, no hardware store. And I'd have to commute 40 minutes to work. If that somewhat tempting suburb had been built around a main street, and it had public transportation into the city, it would be a no brainer. But nope. And I can't possibly find a place nearer to the city center, because they got snapped up for the red-hot rental market. And honestly? Those neighborhoods are not really pleasant places to live anymore because of this.
You've moved the goalposts significantly here. First it was "Fox is rarely wrong", then it was "Fox's Hard News is rarely wrong", now it's "The stuff on Fox News that I call straight news is rarely wrong".
Regardless of your goalpost moving, and the much, much smaller subset of Fox you're now ok with calling mostly correct, you still haven't identified how you determine if it's true or not.
And I'm still somewhat confused about how you can cleanly parse Fox's "straight news" from all the rest of their programming. Are there particular segments that you consider that? Particular anchors? Given their very large amount of programming, and not being a normal viewer, I'm not sure I'd even know where to start.
For me, it's "watching 9 year-olds ragequit and cry". But as you say, to each his own.
You really think people would be willing to pay him to launch multi-million dollar satellites on an untested platform? That wasn't launching profits to mars. That was setting a max limit on how high SpaceX can pile it's money after that demo.
How do you determine which is which? Does Fox keep a list somewhere?
As second major issue is that with 24 hr news, they all have to have a LOT of filler.
Having to have filler means there is a real dilution between what's "real news" and what's "entertainews". The sensational but not really relevant becomes entwined with what's really important.
Unfortunately, news competes for eyeballs, and once the 24 hr networks embraced the sensational and the celebrity news, the "Big News" that wasn't 24 hr wasn't too far behind to start sliding in those stories. That makes it even harder to separate the signal from the noise, and really creates an information fatigue. In turn, it makes it harder to ensure that you're asking for sources rather than accepting gossip. 3/4 of the sensational and celebrity is unsourced gossip!
I disagree that nobody trusts the big news orgs anymore - lots of people still do, and for good reason. In general, they're more likely to still issue a correction, still boot an anchor or reporter if they repeatedly falsify or misrepresent. Often it takes far longer than it should, but that it happens at all sets them apart from most of the other sites on the internet, left or right.
As second problem is that any site who might have a bounty claimed against them could just have an employee claim it for them. The gamesmanship in stuff like this is infinite.
Interesting. So you admit there's no evidence to be had by anyone except those involved at the highest levels of the FISA court, yet are happy to believe people telling you what's going on, despite knowing that they don't have access to that evidence either. I definitely do not have that level of faith in any news organization, and I'm a little amazed you do.
And your claim that Fox is rarely wrong really contradicts your claim to be paying attention to their accuracy for 30 years. For one, it's only been around for 20 years. For another, Fox is definitely wrong pretty often, and rarely retracts stories or offers corrections.
How, exactly, have you come to the conclusion that Fox is rarely wrong? What was your methodology?
Go anywhere that sells Dell stuff and check out their Precision laptops. Then go to their site, choose developer or small business, and get it pre-loaded with ubuntu. I'm guessing that it's niche enough that they won't have ubuntu to demo in stores, so your options are either to just check out the hardware running windows, or, if they are permissive enough, potentially bring a ubuntu boot stick with you.
And your comment just made me realize that this can be weaponized. Just toss one of these in every one designed for humans, and if they pick that one, they're a bot. Humans won't likely pick it, as demonstrated here.
If factual evidence is out there, please provide some links. Everything I've seen so far is just heresy, and that includes the Nunes memo.
Surveillance of Carter Page, which has been going on for multiple years prior to the Trump candidacy without any evidence or legal action is not it'self actionable...
Either you are lying and have no idea, or you are publicly releasing classified information. Which is it?
They have the head of the FBI testifying before congress on the record that without the Steele dossier there would not have been a FISA warrant pursued or approved on the Trump candidacy. Period full stop.
Once again, either you are lying and do not know that, or you are publicly releasing classified information. Which is it?
You might want to try thinking for yourself and listening to multiple sources....
Not sure that's going to help, because look where it got you! You're here ranting about things that you can't possibly know, absolutely certain that you're correct.
Ask yourself this: Why do I believe all these things with no hard evidence of them being true? Then go and read the paper that started this whole discussion.
Seems like a(n illegally) good business model would be to slap some GPS trackers on the black cabs and use that data to feed the GPS algorithms.
For a source to be labelled as junk news at least three of the following five characteristics must
apply:
* Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of
professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real
authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do
not publish corrections on debunked information.
* Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions,
hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe
generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.
* Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they
often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not
employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their
standards of news production lack credibility.
* Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is
otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently present
opinion and commentary essays as news.
* Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts,
branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically
disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and
headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.
So lets take Slate for an example. A quick look shows that they pass the bar for Professionalism, as they identify their authors, and they make corrections. They're not counterfeit, as they don't mimic another news organization. And a quick look (I'm not a normal reader, obviously) shows that they seem to pass the Style and Credibility sniff test. Biased? Potentially. But they'd need to fail all 3 of those to get picked up as fake news.
Lets look at Drudge. Fails the Professional test on a couple accounts. While yes, it's an aggregator, it doesn't have any accountability, authors listed, and doesn't publish corrections. Obviously fails on Style. And I think the Credibility is a fail as well, as they don't seem to be doing a lot of vetting at all - it's a giant unorganized mess of links to both pretty legitimate MSM sites as well as some crackpot ones.
I'm honestly unsure why you feel that these two are on the wrong side of the fake news line. It seems pretty clear-cut to me, based on their metrics. And while I agree that some of these are somewhat unrelated to the quality of the reporting, without doing a deep analysis of the reporting itself, which would be a hurclean effort, I think it's a reasonable proxy for the quality of the stories.
I don't see any real bias in how they laid out their selection method. Given that this is coming out of Oxford in the UK, I have a hard time believing that they would be manipulating this research to favor one US political party over the other. That's a rather serious claim, and I'd expect such a claim to come with some serious evidence to back it up. You being angry that you are fed fake news isn't really that sort of evidence.
And I learned two new things today! The first was this. The second was that multiple holy foreskin relics were passed around for centuries. Horray?
I would imagine that they would be able to pretty accurately calculate this ahead of time, and not miss their estimate by so many millions of miles. But maybe they didn't really bother to think that far ahead, given the possibility of failure. I wanted to see a decade long science mission on this thing, but it really does seem like it really was just a gimmicky dead weight flight, with no real extra cost spent to try to do anything useful.
So you didn't bother to read the paper, but the summary made you angry enough to rant about what you think they did?
Friend, you really, really need to read it. It was pretty much written for you personally.
Don't those turn the frogs gay? Or am I confusing those with something else? It's hard to tell with all the shouting, crying, and incoherent sentence fragments.
But I agree. I'd love to see the left wing equivalent. I'm not convinced that anyone can exceed Alex Jones' level of crazy without being institutionalized. I'm frankly amazed that he's been able to do it himself for so long.
Secondly, a college education is only an opportunity to learn critical thinking, one that relatively few people take advantage.
I think that there's more to a college education that's relevant to this discussion than just critical thinking. I do agree that a lot of people do make it through college without learning how to do that.
One really important part of college is exposure to cultures, ideas, concepts, religions, etc. that you just don't get if you remain in a small town all your life. That wider world-view gives one an edge when considering whether or not something is true. Being required to take courses outside of your major tends to force college kids to at least get a taste of some things that they never knew existed. Once you realize how big the universe really is, I think most people are more conscious of potentially looking at it through a periscope. And while college isn't required for this shift in perspective, it definitely can help facilitate it.
Secondly, if you're getting passing grades in college at any respectable place, you've most likely got some bare-bones skills in searching for info and writing a coherent paper about it. A lot of the crap that gets shared between crackpots is really not in any way coherent or logical. If you know that what you're reading would be an obvious 'F' if you turned it in, I think that it immediately raises red flags. If your only point of comparison is stuff you wrote in high school 20 years ago, I think it's got to be a little harder to spot the obvious lack of quality that a lot of these articles have. Again, college isn't required for this, but being forced to do that level of personal scrutiny for a few years of your life must help, I would think.
Lol, Musk just tweeted that the third burn was "successful", except that they missed mars and ended up with a giant elliptical orbit that goes way into the asteroid belt. Not quite to Ceres, but close.
Not sure I'd call that sort of burn successful, but if the goal was "get way far from earth uncontrollably", I guess that works.
Another poster noted that in a news conference Musk said that they only had 12 hrs of battery on board to transmit with. That seems a little odd to me, as Musk does high-tech battery and solar, and Dragon obviously does space solar. But if that is true, it's dead weight in a semi-perpetual orbit. Not sure how permanent it will be, as the orbit is not what they initially claimed it would be.
How do you know Jesus was male? Did someone see his dick? I don't recall that part of the bible.....
And lo, did Jesus uncoil his serpent of manhood, and those near to him turned away from its majesty.[17]