Dandelions are calcium pumps (among other benefits). If you have dandelion, the topsoil has problems. If it's too large an area for someone to treat, there's no point in trying to kill them. They will always come back.
Google: China Cheating. Stereotype or not, it's a well documented characteristic of some social systems. This isn't to imply a moralist view. This cultural phenomena is a recognized pattern of behavior across industries, as well as the education system. It's viciously pragmatic. A key part of their rapid industrialization and digital transition. It's not surprising, given the success, nor is it necessary to pretend otherwise.
It's just irrelevant and ignorant to bring up in the context of this article. These things aren't correlated. I can name countries where academic fraud (fake papers, fake data) is much more rampant than the US, yet faking a disability to get a single dorm room is unthinkable. You're oversimplifying things and making connections that aren't there.
As per the following discussions, I would say pointing this out is relevant. China has been a leader in this respect. The cultural trends have shifted, regardless of the specific mechanisms. I suspect the cause to be multidimensional. The erosion in confidence of both institutions and process, across the US and world, have contributed to an ends-justify-the-means philosophy. There's almost palpable economic strata that are increasingly difficult to ascend, causing a great deal of stress and pressure. Granted, foreign influence is probably far down the list.
I was pointing out how the "stereotype" fits, not that it has somehow corrupted higher education by exposure. I think there's a good comparison here, which is why it was initially mentioned.
This is largely how all complex competitive games work. At some point there is a shared valuation of which player is ahead and the behind player must take steps that are outside of optimal play to attempt to leapfrog ahead. The GWENT card game was particularly well designed for this. ie How many extra cards to play/sacrifice for round control if you drew badly, based on meta-matchups.
I have always asserted that some games (like Heroes of the Storm) suffer from not having catch up mechanics beyond player skill. This is problematic, when player skill can be quantized to an average value that has led to the losing state. This makes it much less likely to ever be a useful catchup mechanic, in comparison to some intrinsic gamble mechanics.
The lack of catch up mechanics also means the games are less interesting because risks are only worth taking after the known state, not casually during as a chaotic factor that might be capitalized on.
> This doesn’t make sense, how is your preferred range of attention expenditure even relevant?
This is an ironic statement, insofar as it's myopic.
The implication was clearly a monopoly by market availability (convenience), which is not a legal precept, but a sociological one. Comparing rates across all possible locales and vendors is impractical. This is part of what makes Amazon so successful. Sheer momentum.
What constitutes an advertisement is not a simple proposition. eg Is a paragraph describing some facts (phrased carefully) about a product or company an advertisement?
To what effect speech would have to be controlled to enforce this, is unthinkable. While some handwaving is necessary, as anyone can agree (since even the simplest legislation would be corrupted by the US political class), "banning advertising" is not a practical goal.
it’s quite a simple definition of what is or is not advertisement. run it through real world examples, it’s trivial to say whether something is or isn’t an advertisement
as with any broad regulation there would be grey areas, continued cat and mouse games with bad actors, etc.
but it is not a remotely insurmountable obstacle to define what is and is not advertisement in relation to free speech
(as an aside it’s really funny to me anyone would consider being paid to say something free speech, but I get it)
I believe that is incorrect. My grand-uncle worked on the Hoover Dam. The safety precautions were limited, to be charitable. Suspending manned Bobcat (equivalent) excavators from ropes, lowered down to the sides of the dam was witnessed. The reason the 96 names are not on the memorial plaque, is because they literally couldn't keep track and aren't exactly sure. IDs and IDing not required at that time. Conveniently, everyone who worked on the Hoover Dam project is now dead.
There were thousands of workers, tens swapped out daily (which is why there are fewer deaths than you would expect). If you weren't a top performer because you were the lowest on the near-manual boring machine with mud/water and stone dumping on you from above, you were replaced. This was built during the Great Depression where there were crowds appearing at the gates everyday looking for the opportunity to work. My great-grandfather, grandfather and granduncle all worked it as Foreman, Carpenter, and Shift Supervisor, respectively. These were at different times in the project.
My extended family all know a different version where there certainly are bodies. I think they are more credible dead, than the official numbers for a highly controversial project back then. Peck wasn't an outlier, but it had the problem of accounting for the people lost. The Hoover project did not.
> This sounds like the type of dismissive response that reinforces distrustful sentiments.
Notably, Mary Mallon (Typhoid Mary) was never convinced either. This didn't make her less dangerous. The big difference is the average lethality. If we were talking about Polio, people's paranoia is a lot less important.
Slaves generally don't get to choose not to participate.
Sports players are as much wage slaves as Hollywood actors or Walmart greeters, albeit with much shorter runways to comfortable lifestyles.
My argument is created to test the original "corporations are people" legality in common law.
- slavery, the owning of people, is prohibited by the 13th amendment.
- the law of the land is that corporations are a type of legal person based on the famous ruling based on the 14th amendment
- corporations are bought and sold, and owned by shareholders. Can they be people if this is so?
obviously there is a problem here with all of the contradictions involved, but thats the point of my argument. The legal system picks and chooses the desired outcome, and doesn't actually pay attention to the words involved.
reply