These studies hardly ever take into account that some jobs just can’t accommodate the flexible scheduling championed by the study.

Always reminds me of somebody I heard talking about how much time they thought people should have off. They were really adamant about not overworking people and included not making people work hours that would disrupt their circadian rhythm for better sleep and everything which is admirable. But at the end they justified by saying what they thought people should be able to do with their time off. This person said they should be able to go out to eat in a nice restaurant with friends and family.

Who would have served them in the restaurant though? According to them nobody should have to work that kind of shift, including the restaurant staff

Want your father to have a doctor see him when they have a heart attack on Christmas? What about the fire department when your house is on fire during Thanksgiving? Of course for the jobs where it’s possible we should be flexible and reduce hours if possible, but headlines like this gloss over that and in my experience the articles do too.

Depends, I could see that non-answer being intentional, and therefore not a non-answer if you can read between the lines but yeah it could be either

Could have been a misinformed tour guide, I embarrassed one during the Harpoon Brewery tour once but it’s not my fault they incorrectly stated a fact about beer while guiding a tour through a brewery. That’s not the time to make stuff up or stand your ground about your incorrect fact.

Yeah lots people don’t realize that capitalist societies rely on consistent 3-5% population growth and if that stops things can slowly start to get weird

Yes the Russian Federation has no history before 1991 I forgot

So nobody who founded it or working there can have opinions from before the paper was founded?

Edit: people downvoting me are smooth brained af. That’s like saying I couldn’t have an opinion or stance on 9/11 if I started a newspaper next week because it already happened.

I don’t follow them but they’ve had a good reason since about March 2014 imo

I’ve never seen the show but I used to see their ads everywhere. They are overtly political and even the posters would give you reason to at least suspect it. Part of their pitch is about how they were banned under China’s communist party. Whether that’s true or a talking point I don’t know but again, nobody should be surprised it gets political.

This is a weird feedback loop that some people fall into. They look at strife abroad and think surely we must help but almost always it ends up badly and then they think we have no business even being there until the next problem that tugs at their heartstrings arises.

It’s a bit of a straw man but I’ve seen it play out enough to disregard that. People can say I’m full of shit but here’s what comes next/has been happening. We decide we are going to do something but with no military intervention. We give food but local warlords seize it and only dole out generous portions to themselves and their most loyal supporters and if there’s any left everyone else can fight over it. Warlords keep doing business as usual because we’re feeding them and regular people, the ones we’re desperately trying to help, starve. Which brings us back to either cutting off all aid or military intervention, which we’ve already tried and failed, to ensure the people are getting the food and other supplies.

Frankly I think you’ve got the right idea of skipping over the next part. There’s nothing we can do so why enable the warlords. I’m open to an alternative I’ve just never heard a one personally.

Edit: some words

Studies usually have conclusions. I’m not actually a trained scientist, and I haven’t read this study, but that doesn’t mean I’ve never read a study. They looked at under 100 books, they could have and should have checked the table of contents, it would be all too easy to check this stuff. Frankly if they didn’t then I’d call it really bad methodology.

If entire chapters are missing why didn’t they say so. It seems so obvious that that information would have been included in here that I cannot even fathom why it it would be omitted. I mean think of how much more weight the article could have. The only way that makes sense to me if it’s in the study but not the article about it and that frustrated the editor, who then editorialized the headline to match what they considered to be the importance of the study. Almost, but admittedly not quite, an ad absurdum fallacy to me given the lack of context.

It also would have been useful to include the average chapter length but maybe I either missed that or it’s in the more detailed study

Wow, implying I don’t understand what the word “average” means is incredibly insulting.

I’m guessing that since there was only 50 sentences on climate change overall there has never been an entire chapter on this in the books they’re talking about. Leads me to believe this is studied elsewhere in a specialized way but maybe I’m looking at it wrong

Awful headline but also frankly maybe a worse article.

Basically they’re concerned that there is less information about climate change in the books than there used to be. While I agree with people in thread saying it belongs in Biology but is nowhere near the focus I want to say this is a problem but the problems comes with how they’ve quantified it. They go by amount of sentences. They got up to 50 sentences in the average Biology textbook but it’s now down to 45.

I’m not saying they’re moving in the right direction but I don’t think this is a big deal. Especially since the thing they were most concerned about was that actionable remedies to climate change were removed, but that content doesn’t really belong in Biology. You need to understand some climate change basics to understand certain changes in a species biology but how to end climate change seems to primarily belong to another area of science IMO

edit: a word

I don’t think it’s ever been that big of a concern and the risk isn’t on the state, not unless they actually do put it in their state liquor stores

Yeah I don’t want go full NIMBY but I see potential problems with this idea

“I know” -people who went to summer camp

Rifle is normaler

I tell people this all the time and they look at me like I’m batshit crazy

Me too and I got my car fixed up a month ago. Guess I’m just ugly :/

They are not the only people reporting on this, there have been cases of Chinese nationals/immigrants being followed by suspected Chinese officials in the US. The “police stations thing was already uncovered in Canada and now the Netherlands too.

So this is not an isolated story and backs up a pattern of behavior China has already been found out to be engaged in.

Oh no I have read?

Guess I’m not voting after all /s

That’s great, how is your thoughts on the matter a reflection on what millions of people think tho? I also personally wasn’t celebrating but I can read and go the internet. People were definitely happy he got Covid and hoped for the worst.

I didn’t wish anything bad on him publicly or privately, but I don’t have the hubris to think I can speak to the feelings of hundreds of millions of people, especially when I can see what they’re writing about the subject

See, this why I don’t get the above comment. What fantasyland do they live in?

For a self serve buffet where they pour one drink? I’m normally a generous tipper but I’d probably leave a $5 and not be happy about it at all. I’d also fill out whatever they have for feedback letting them know what I think about being asked to tip at least 15%

If it’s the type of thing where they have like an omelette station with a tip jar throw that person a few bucks tho, they’re making something on the spot for you.