The dichotomy of conspiracy theory / not conspiracy theory is semantic poison. This entire article is reinforcement. Do you see it?
Are you the kind of person who believes convincing sounding research from an Ivy League school posted on social media and wikipedia articles? Is your epistemology based in socialmediaism?
Do you know that we've seen a difference in how information cascades through conspiracist networks vs science oriented ones?
If you want a better differentiation, is computer science the same as magic? Is there no difference between the skills someone develops as a professional and expert in their field, and the lay person? Everyone has the same level of ability and willingness to understand a subject?
For example, did you read the article before commenting?
Conspiratorial networks? I'm not wasting my time reading research which is probably entirely intentionally incorrect conspiracy theories that people believe. Might was well have done research into whether people believe Gone With The Wind was actual history. Reading the research is not necessary because of the framing. The framing makes the research useless for truth seeking.
The idea here is exactly what you say, belief in authority because science people spend time on it. Essentially this is science as religion. Which was exactly my point.
Dude has a mildly traumatic experience in a high pressure environment at which he pushed through, and you respond with toxicity and name calling? This is not OK behavior for an adult. Do better.
Right at this moment people are sitting in the trenches and are getting torn apart by artillery and drone attacks in several places of this world of ours. You really should go out more if getting a B grade from a stuck up professor constitutes a traumatic experience for you.
What name did I call? That just was a fair description of how he said he felt. But seriously, we're calling getting a "B" a mildly traumatic experience? I'm bowing out of this conversation. Thanks!
Your comment read as accusing the og poster as being too insecure to deal with someone else's expertise, and of being pretentious. Probably not how you meant it to read, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who read it that way.
I don't think those observations are huge judgments. No less so at such a young age. All the more reason to give up the previous misgivings and try it again. No need to reach so hard to find offense. It's not there.
I would love to, but this is the wrong forum. This is going to sound weird if you understand these events purely literally, but me and you are ideologically aligned, but not dialectically aligned. There is a much greater truth to this entire situation.
Been using this in our Workplace account. Most people don't like it because they are luddites, but I absolutely love the summaries for those multi-week 50 email threads. Also the ability to quickly insert an absurdly overly formal response to a simple request as a joke is amusing.
I do wish it had the ability to respond to emails for me though with a prompt.
Oh please, not everyone who disagrees with you is a luddite. If this feature is so great they should make it opt-in. People were clamoring to get early access to Gmail; if these summaries are as good as you assert then people will happily enable them.
The fact that Google doesn't even provide an option to disable this one feature is telling. That strongly implies that Google managers agree with most of this thread and think this is more about juicing AI metrics than providing real value to users.
The Economist is a European publication owned by Italian owners of Fiat, Rothschilds, and other British families. This article is attributed to "Leaders" which means it is an editorial position of the publication.
Who cares? The statement "MAGA's assault on science is an act of grievous self harm" is, in my view, equivalent to stating "water is wet." The fact that it is published by or even an opinion of the owners of a publication owned by non-US people is irrelevant.
If you feel MAGA's assault on science is NOT an act of grievous self harm, you could provide your argument as to why you believe that to be the case. Otherwise you're just contributing noise.
My statement was intended to alleviate the tension caused by semantic dissonance that was created by the authoritative title and the the authors statement that this is an editorial opinion.
There's a difference between selling a multi-ton vehicle that has crumple zones and curved lines and selling a multi-ton vehicle that is designed to tenderize pedestrian rib cages. This comment also applies to today's pickups and SUVs; but while those vehicles are pretty nightmarish for the safety pedestrians and other drivers the CT is a further escalation of matters through both design and build quality.
I don't understand the motivation behind such a question. We sell cars because the benefits to motor transportation outweigh the safety risks in aggregate. That aggregate tradeoff is nonresponsive to the singular case of YOLOing avoidable risks on a Tesla.
I didn't read the entire paper, but I don't see lowered stress and lack of sleep mentioned anywhere. These would be the most obvious answers and should be addressed.
Are you the kind of person who believes convincing sounding research from an Ivy League school posted on social media and wikipedia articles? Is your epistemology based in socialmediaism?