Australians mostly just complain about the protestors causing traffic to be slightly worse than normal, and accuse them of undermining public support for their cause.
Sweety, if slightly worse traffic causes you to change your opinion on genocide, the climate, the economy, etc. You didn’t actually hold that opinion in the first place.
I pay just under $20 per week in Australia. That’s on a special promo price because I signed up in the weeks before the gym opened. (That’s under $15 USD at today’s exchange rate, but still…)
Apparently nobody can agree what that’s worth. It could be anywhere from $40 million to £1.5 billion.
I’d get my stone from far in the future, then bury it in the past, so if they date it they’ll be like…“this is from 10 million years after today, that doesn’t make any sense.”
Enshittification doesn’t mean “making a good system bad”. It’s a specific process whereby the user experience of a platform is degraded in order to benefit the business partners. Then even the business partners are ripped off to benefit the platform owners.
It wouldn’t, but translating to the currency of the reader is very commonplace.
Technically, not quite. Saying something is good is not the same as saying it’s worth it. To use a stupidly simplified example: throwing away $40 is not good. Throwing away $40 when it gets you a new video game might be worth it, if you decide you want the video game.
Of course, that does require that you want the video game. And if it’s a game you think is bad, then you’ve created a lose-lose situation. Which is how most of us would evaluate the situation in the OP. But some people clearly support the war on Iran. They should be criticised for that support itself. But there’s no inconsistency with believing some negatives brought about because of it might be “worth it” for the outcomes of the war.
The justification they give for the figure is that it’s the lowest performing 10% according to internal key performance indicator (KPI) metrics
The thing is, that’s not what layoffs are supposed to be. That’s effectively firing someone for cause. Maybe in America the difference doesn’t matter, but in the civilised world, at least in theory, it does. But in reality they can somehow get away with this and call it “layoffs”.
If a company does layoffs, they should not be allowed to hire any staff in the same or similar roles for 12 months.
The primary thing we have detected is an attractive force within galaxies. Whether that’s otherwise-undetectable particles or a mistake in how we calculate gravity or something else, we definitely know it’s that there is more attractive force holding galaxies together than there should be based on detectable matter and general relativity.
Simply put: galaxies rotate too fast. Much, much too fast. That can’t be caused by repulsion between galaxies. Only by the stars within a galaxy being pulled towards the centre of that galaxy my than we would expect. Similar to how you have to spin faster to hold a big bucket of water horizontal without spilling than to hold a small bucket of water.
In 6 months no one will have to manually write code anymore
For the last 18 months
196 days until Avatar 3
Huh? Repost bot?
Make sure your fridge temp is on the lower end (40 or less)
Well, I guess it’s technically true that your fridge should be below 40 degrees…
Biologically speaking, there is no way to define butterfly in a way that includes everything people consider butterflies and does not also include moths.
Then it’s…not sexual assault.
Literally the first post in my feed. And I’m sorting by Hot.
No, that’s completely fair. And Dave’s well-publicised admiration for Jimmy Donaldson certainly doesn’t help in that respect. (They also seem like they may have previously had a professional relationship, though the details and extent are unclear.)
But everything he or the other founders have said about Nebula makes it sound like they’re doing the right thing, and they are very deliberately avoiding the number one cause of companies that were once fair ceasing to be fair: venture capital. There’s no outside source that could turn around and demand to get a greater return on their investment against the wishes of those operating the company.
As far as a lifetime subscription to Nebula, I’ve watched way too many sites fail/die to consider a lifetime subscription to anything on the internet. They could shut the site down tomorrow, and now I’m out $500 ($300 if I happen to get a discount from a creator code).
There’s no “happen to”. It’s the default expectation. You can go through literally any creator on the site to get that, it’s not a time-limited thing or anything like that.
As for the rest of it, it’s certainly a possibility. But it will only take 10 years before that lifetime membership becomes strictly better than paying yearly. And the reason they’re doing it is to avoid one of the biggest sources of companies with fundamentally-sound businesses going bankrupt: investors deciding they want to squeeze. They use the lifetime memberships as an alternative to seeking outside investment from venture capital. And from what we’ve seen, it certainly does appear to be a fundamentally sound business. It has seemed to be growing in both the amount and the range of content it offers at a pretty steady rate, and all indications are that their subscriber count is growing along with that.
It certainly is a risk, without a doubt. There’s a reason Nebula themselves say that the objectively best option is the yearly membership. Lifetime membership is directly presented by them as an investment you can make in the company; something to do because you believe in what they’re doing and want to help them, with the potential for some payoff down the line (but honestly not very much).
So uhh…sorry for this comment being as long as it is. I was initially basically just going to leave the first paragraph and then link to two or three videos demonstrating the claims. But then I wanted it to be of value even if you don’t spend the time watching the videos. And so I had to rewatch the videos myself to summarise salient points. And that led me to finding and rewatching yet more videos. And then I had to summarise those. And the comment just blew out.
The first paragraph should serve as a TL;DR if the rest is too much or not worth the time. And jump to the last paragraph for other recs.
Sabine Hossenfelder
Hey, just be very careful about her. She knew her stuff with astrophysics, but has since become very jaded even within what was once her own field, and she has a nasty habit of speaking with great authority about matters outside her expertise, and getting it wildly wrong. And often doubling down rather than adapting when corrected. And also of spreading a message that emboldens and encourages science deniers, despite not being a science denier herself.
Here’s a video about it from a former ABC journalist who I think is being overly generous to Hossenfelder at times (in particular regarding Hossenfelder’s take on trans people), but which nonetheless does a good job of laying out the problematic way she presents certain views.
And here are a few more videos that take a more directly critical approach. Professor Dave Explains’ first video. This is probably the strongest, because it makes every effort to present things from Hossenfelder’s point of view and assume she means well. One key thing this video does is point out that the fact that she comments on fields outside her expertise is not a problem. The problem comes when she refuses to properly update her beliefs (and retract claims) when she gets corrected, and she often does not sufficiently caveat her views with her lack of expertise in this subject.
Professor Dave Explains’ second video, a followup a week after the first addressing some responses to the first one.
eigenchris explains why she’s wrong about trans teens. In short, Hossenfelder plays the bothsidesism game to appear as reasonable, but to do so ignores significant amounts of evidence in favour of trans affirming care, and ignores significant problems with the limited evidence in favour of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (i.e., the idea that people think they’re trans even though they aren’t purely because it’s “socially popular”) in order to present it as a reasonable view.
Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) also does a much shorter video about this trans misinformation. She also points out that Hossenfelder hides her citations behind the Patreon paywall, making it impossible for most viewers to do basic fact checking. Watson also follows up about how Hossenfelder is wrong about capitalism. The video links over to this much longer video by Unlearning Economics (a creator I have watched before and enjoyed, but I have not seen this particular video recently enough to recall it), but spends most of its runtime explaining the many ways Hossenfelder was wrong about penicillin, by falsely claiming it only took off thanks to capitalism, despite the Australian Government being one of the biggest drivers of its uptake by producing enough to use for the Australian Army during WWII (with enough leftover for civilian use), and despite numerous capitalists from the UK and US actively choosing not to invest in producing penicillin until promises of significant tax breaks for aiding in their own war effort.
Now, I’ve got my own separate problems with Watson that have led me to stop watching her. (Namely: that she seems more interested in dunking on people than actually spreading good information. The Adam Conover video was an awful hit piece, and the pinned comment was nothing but anti-union propaganda. And she refused any update, not even pinning someone else’s comment pointing out the update, after Conover put out a complete retraction of the thing Watson was dunking on him for. Not to mention the significant amount of time in that video spent dealing with style issues rather than the actual substance. Just gross.) But in these two videos she does a really good job of laying out the facts and deferring to experts who can demonstrate why Hossenfelder is problematic.
Dave has a third video. It’s much longer and might be worth watching if you’re still on the fence. It shows some of the more recent claims from Hossenfelder of her getting more and more extreme in her anti-scientific institutions takes, and then does interviews with current scientists about what they do and how it conflicts with Hossenfelder’s warped explanations.
For former academic astrophysicists who occasionally make videos about the problems with academic science or with the popular response to science, I would highly recommend Angela Collier and Dr. Fatima. Though neither are exactly the same niche that Hossenfelder purports to be in, since they don’t typically do science news reporting.
To me it doesn’t feel real. It feels performative as shit. I meant it when I said “you didn’t actually hold that opinion”.