ike77

Maybe for a lot of people the media they consume actually shape their preferences?

But I would steer clear of generalizing, I think a lot of people have a strong preference for stories where the lines between what's moral and not are much more blurry and where you have reversal of preferences for various characters and where the main character is somehow sketchy. I think at the acclaimed Parasite for instance.

It's relatively easy to elicit a strong emotion, but that doesn't make a story, just a news.

When people are exploited systemically, they tend not to turn against their exploiters (which are often hard to identify) but against each other.

I think part of the promise of increasing the quality of life of everyone after WWII wasn't only out of the goodness of the heart, but also to avoid reaching the level of generalized hate that made it possible in the first place.

The major issue with this paper and this protocol is that it is not reproducible.

As the protocol is not accessible / published, we cannot determine how the difference in the set of measures between participants were determined and as such no researcher can independently replicate this study.

This is why those licensed diet / lifestyle change are never science: by definition. Even if they actually produce the desired outcome, all the research is produced either by the creator or by researchers that entered a license agreement and thus have conflicting interests and bias.

Maybe you should also stop being nude at home since an image of you could be captured by a satellite or a drone. It's also probably better to use aluminum shower curtain as those cameras could be equipped with thermal imaging.

Your phone is your home. We tech savvy people know it's unfortunately not really the case so we act defensively, but it doesn't mean that we should tolerate this state of affair.

But it's impossible without a law.

I wonder if Business Insider was paid by Facebook to report a news so absolutely obvious and benign, and package it as if it was part of the serious privacy requests formulated by the public and security/privacy NGOs, in order to discredit those.

You're right of the goal is to lower the temperature of the structure lower than the ambient temperature.

If the goal is simply to lower the temperature of the building to that of the wind, simple radiators such as those is perfectly fine.

Knowing that cities temperature is often a few degrees higher than that of the surrounding air, that would work in contemporary settings as well. But trees could play the same role more efficiently and with additional health and environmental benefits.

What if a stagflation of 15 years starts now?

Will you have to work again?

But not having any of the players able to stand up to TSMC is also not good for competition.

Allowing smaller market participants to consolidate to face the behemoth is not necessarily going to be perceived as anti-competitive.

The issue is that you think about it exclusively when sharipe-less, tape-less, angry and weak.

It seems it formalizes giving a greater weight to the loud minority.

I'm afraid it incentives anger as an effective political signal.

Then you end up like in France, where the perception is that a protest is required for any meaningful change to be enacted.

Yep the title should be edited as it's misleading.

It's not even annualized, according to the WSJ title it's 5% from May 2020.

> Using vim as the objectively correct editor.