If you could sit with the authors of this paper and let them know this valuable insight, what do you think they would change about their paper and its conclusion?
"Corporate welfare recipients that got free money to build data centers, testing the water on asking for more free money to hire employees."
The cycle repeats: send jobs somewhere else, hold those jobs hostage until the government pays you to bring them home. It will take the form of tax holiday on bringing foreign cash home, etc.
If you can have a nom de plume to speak truth to power, why can't one have a visage de plume as well?
I want future generations to have the power of anonymity, that some use that anonmyity for something I disagree with is precisely why I think it might be worth preserving.
If you invent a person and assume their identity, that's still a false identity.
> I always grew up with the assumption that everything on the internet is most likely fake.
How you interact with the internet is not really relevant to the discussion. The average person does not interact with the internet in the same way that people on this forum do, so that should not be the yardstick by which we judge this.
I think a commission of experts, put into place (but not supervised) by the democratically elected government, with judicial review as check & balance seems like a good first draft, but governance isn't my expertise.
Tbh the details don't really matter, what matters is that we ban this propaganda before it destroys us.
My point is that since it is so incredibly easy to cheat (despite countermeasures that are essentially theater), returning to in person exams is probably a good thing.
It's a dimension of neglect. If I run a service advertising itself as preventing people from harming themselves or each other (e.g. a mental health institution), then it would be criminally negligent of me to not limit people's access to sharp knives.
That is an excellent point. My recent coursework at Penn State, there were guardrails around cheating using Honor Lock, I am guessing a motivated student could find ways around it, but the system was better than trusting students to do the right thing.
The point you're making has nothing to do with anything the person you're responding to said, or with the OP. It's just a gratuitous description of sadism as a virtue-signalling imitation of seriousness.
You should find somebody who said cheating is fun and good to do, and explain your violent fantasies to them.
Swiss police can see your proton mail if they get a court to allow viewing it. But the Swiss do not have a submarine, so underwater bottle passing is safe against them.
Combine both, and you are safe! Offline mails in a bottle should be a april fool's RFC any time now.
People with advanced degrees accumulate in those specific states, despite not significantly different rates of HS graduation from other states.
Smart people, as measured by educational attainment, live in the NE coastal states and exceptionally stupid people (by the same metric) live in the South and Midwest. As a guy from Iowa, I was offended, but humbled by the reality of the numbers.
Gallup polls during the Vietnam War found that higher-educated Americans were more likely to be pro-war while the most anti-war group were those with only a grade school education: https://afterthewarproject.org/files/original/3e5e5a47a15203... (page 19 of the PDF, page 38 of the document)
reply