natex

This author does what other pro-industry mouthpieces do: 1. Reference a real scientific study with a genuine but conditional result, 2. Remove the qualifications associated with the study, so they can 3. Make a much stronger rhetorical conclusion.

Or they simply willfully misreport the results.It's exhausting exercise to have to continuously fact-check these shills. Here's just one example from the article:

"Approximately a hundred rivers, mostly in South and South-East Asia, account for half of ocean plastic."

That is not supported by the cited study. Earlier models estimated highly concentrated emissions; the cited paper concluded that emissions were distributed among far more rivers than previously thought.The cited paper actually helped overturn the older “a handful of rivers cause nearly everything” story. Yet the article uses it to tell essentially that same concentrated-source story.

Also, not "Half of ocean plastic." The paper actually says: “More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global _riverine plastic emissions_ into the ocean." They did not measure half of all plastic in the ocean. The paper modeled annual floating macroplastic (not microplastics) emissions from rivers to ocean. That is different from: "all plastic already present in the ocean or "all plastic entering the ocean from every source".

> The only thing we do is very light sound-alike spelling modernization, like "to-night" -> "tonight".

Curious. Why even bother?

Curios. What are you responding to?

You might want to read the rest of the studies - or at least try to no misrepresent before commenting. There are elementary differences in the studies.

Study 1: "What to Eat", Specific Demographics, Primary Clinical Trial, Mechanistic/Physiological Outcome, Conclusion: High-Protein breakfast is superior for suppressing appetite and maintaining satiety, while a High-Fiber breakfast promotes better weight loss and a healthier gut microbiome,

Study 2: Whether to Eat, Broad Demographics, Systematic Review (meta analysis), Broad Clinical Outcomes, Conclusion: eating breakfast increases total daily energy intake compared to skipping it, and that skipping breakfast resulted in slightly greater weight loss.

Recently, I've researched browser battery consumption for laptops. Every test I've seen rates Firefox the worst out of the big 3 or 4. Are there any settings/extensions that may have been overlooked for these reviews that can be used to help Firefox be more energy efficient?

Not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. Seems like a rational opinion? What am I missing?

A municipality's decision to implement common locally-owned internet as a public utility IS the free market. The State should not get to decide what's a "waste of resources" for me and my neighbors.

> The criticism should instead be directed towards Microsoft,

Totally agree that MS deserves criticism as you correctly point out. However, criticism towards the script and similar is equally valid (and important).

I don't think that supports the speculation since as the GP stated, Google is actually doing the opposite of maximizing profits in this case.

Is your feeling on what Google's hopes speculation, or do you have some inside information?

I have used TurboTax pretty much my entire working life and never have been audited. The one time I decided to use a professional due to "complex" tax issues that year, I was audited, which became a huge pain in the ass.

I appreciate this comment but I have some questions/comments:

> I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science.

I don't think the article was making a claim about philosophy being a science. On the contrary, it seemed make a pretty clear distinction between them and highlighted some perils of falsely mixing the two.

"Often implicit empiricist assumptions in epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of language are relied upon as if they were self-evident, and without awareness of the threat that those very assumptions pose to the author’s own reasoning. We can call this phenomenon scientistic pseudophilosophy."

"While pseudoscience can perhaps be counteracted by science education, the cure for pseudophilosophy is not science education but philosophical education."

> If you don't like a particular philosopher's work, you generally don't read and support it, and that's it. Calling the work pseudophilosophy will only enrage people who disagree and not help with anything.

The article wasn't about disagreeing with opposing philosophers' work, it as a critique of those non-philosophers who "fail to grasp the content of many of the philosophical claims and arguments that they criticize"

"There are two kinds of pseudophilosophy, one mostly harmless and the other insidious. The first variety is usually found in popular scientific contexts. This is where writers, typically with a background in the natural sciences, walk self-confidently into philosophical territory without realising it, and without conscientious attention to relevant philosophical distinctions and arguments.

The insidious kind of pseudophilosophy, which I will focus on here, is an academic enterprise, pursued primarily within the humanities and social sciences." (e.g. phenomenon obscurantist pseudophilosophy)

> The CEO did not explicitly state that they were quitting because they wanted time and space to plan their future.

Yes they did.