Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.
It literally was though. Not a military intelligence tool, but a big business intelligence one.
Niantic was founded by Google and their first product, Field Trip, and their first game, Ingress (a much better-designed game than Pokémon Go, btw) were pretty obviously about gaining geolocation data for Google to improve their products like Maps and Shopping.
Honestly I’m a light hobbyist myself. My exposure to history is primarily via YouTube channels like the excellent Historia Civilis (their series on Julius Caesar and the downfall of the Roman Republic is stunning) and via games like Age of Empires.
I just don’t understand how someone interested in antiquity can possibly fall for Trumpism. The fall of the Roman Republic was presaged by a guy literally trying to get elected to office so that he could escape prosecution for illegal abuses of power, and the legal system standing aside and saying “yeah, we’ll let you do that in order to maintain the peace” and then falling into civil war anyway.
How much of that sounds familiar…?
“would” as in, “I would, if I could find one that isn’t insane”, or “would” as in “I have a plan and already know who I’m giving the position to and what position it is”?
They’ve got options.
And maybe others. It’s about making sure that a product you have paid for actually works as it was sold to you. It’s honestly a really basic consumer protection concept. You sell me a television and it stops working within a reasonable lifetime due to your own failure, and you’re obligated to repair or replace it. The same should be true of software.
CCTV produced an article asking “six shocking questions” about “US doping scandals.”
Hilarious, considering they had a known doper on their swimming team at the Olympics who was banned in 2014 and then banned again after destroying testing samples in 2018. Not sus at all…
Hamas is the logical response of decades of Israeli policies
It would be bad enough if that were all. But it’s actually even worse. Israel directly aided Hamas because it helped destabilise Palestine’s more moderate leadership.
The summary of the debate Wikipedians had:
This was a lengthy but actually quite straightforward discussion. There was a clear consensus from the beginning that the former title was not acceptable. From several suggestions, three plausible alternatives emerged:
- Option 1 Gaza genocide question
- Option 2 Gaza genocide accusation
- Option 3 Gaza genocide
The discussion ran for several weeks and was well-attended after being centrally advertised to all editors. The rough headcount in favour of each option was 23 for Option 1, 26 for Option 2, and 32 for Option 3. Few editors in favour of option 1 were strongly opposed to option 2 and vice-versa; amongst those that indicated support for both, the preference was generally for option 2. A fair number of comments in favour of options 1 and 2, but generally not option 3, were not policy-based (i.e. along the lines of “there is no Gaza genocide”) and the headcounts for those options should be down-weighted accordingly.
The main argument in favour of option 3 was that ‘Gaza genocide’ is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources, and several editors presented detailed source analyses in support of this. This argument was contested but not convincingly rebutted. The main argument in favour of options 1 and 2 were that the unqualified use of the word ‘genocide’ in an article title, when the existence of a genocide is disputed, would violate Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, and specifically the principle that titles should be non-judgmentally descriptive. Editors in favour of option 3 countered that the source analysis supported ‘genocide’ as a neutral descriptor (and conversely that ‘accusation’ is non-neutral), and/or that the presence of a statement in an article title does not imply that the statement is factual.
Considering that option 3 had the most support by a clear margin, that the arguments in favour of this title generally had a stronger grounding in reliable sources, and that neither side achieved a consensus on the question of which title is favoured by WP:POVTITLE, I see a rough consensus that the title of this article should be Gaza genocide. – Joe (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, but still, since this conclusion is couched in democratic terms, I think it’s worth engaging with it on that level. It’s not clear to me how those numbers—23/26/32—were arrived at. They mention some people were in favour of multiple options, are those numbers counting them twice, Approval Voting style? Or only taking what is perceived to be their absolute favourite, FPTP style? If the former, then this is very obviously the right decision, especially when you take into account that the poor arguments used were un-wikipedian and should be down-weighted. If the latter, it becomes much, much more difficult to justify through sheer numbers. As stated, options 1 and 2 experienced a lot of cross-support, and so in an imagined IRV vote you might end up with something like 49-32, a strong vote in favour of option 2. Maybe more like 45-33 if you consider some exhausted votes who really don’t want another option and some who even jump from 1 to 3. And less once you down-weight the un-wikipedian answers, but probably still not so much less unless that “down-weighting” is to 0. So justifying option 3 becomes comparatively difficult, purely as a numbers game.
But skimming through a few of the actual detailed responses, I didn’t see any opposition to option 3 that even vaguely stood up to scrutiny. Which makes sense, because it just says what all of us have been saying for months.
Overshadowed? What was it overshadowed by?
If I’m not being explicitly paid to be on call, I’m not ever even having notifications come through to my phone from anything work-related.
And what exactly happened over the last few decades prior to October last year?
Official opening ceremony is on Friday. Some events like soccer and archery start their pool matches and preliminary rounds early.
Saying Taiwan is part of China is an obvious lie. Everyone knows Taiwan is a separate country in reality, and it’s only the bullying of the People’s Republic that prevents it being acknowledged as such in an official capacity.
However, based on the article, the waters entered by the Japanese vessel were Chinese waters, not Taiwanese.
No, read the article. It’s Chinese waters. PRC territory.
The difference is just another nit pick someone will find excuses to argue over
No, it isn’t. The scientific research actually suggests that keeping DST is worse than switching back and forth. I have to admit I find that confusing, since a lot of the specific studies I’ve looked at concentrate on the effects caused by the switchover itself, but the meta-analysis doesn’t mince words:
In summary, the scientific literature strongly argues against the switching between DST and Standard Time and even more so against adopting DST permanently.
To be fair, they did say “and for some a half”.
Though that misses the Kathmandu, Eucla, and Chatham Islands, which are all :45.
Oh, I see. Yeah I suppose it is, now that you point it out. It comes from:
But really, I only know it because it’s a very common host that comes up when you’re searching for published research papers. I just see “bunch of Ns .gov” and know it’s reliable.
Yeah you’re absolutely right that it does create a tradeoff. My experience has just been that I’d usually consider it a worthwhile tradeoff. In general, the number of people who have to deal with setting meetings is lower than the number of people who attend meetings, especially when you take into account multinational companies.
And when you’re attending a meeting, you only care about knowing what time it has been scheduled for already. It’s in scheduling that you have to work out when is going to be best for your audience, and I’m of the opinion that the distinction between “what time is this in my time zone and their time zone?” and “where does this time sit in relation to their working day?” is net neutral. With one aspect being a strict positive and the other being a net neutral (in my opinion), I think it still wins out and becomes worthwhile.
I personally would prefer if we all used UTC. My working hours would be 23:00 to 07:00. A Brits working hours would be 09:00 to 17:00, and a New Yorker would work 13:00 to 21:00.
But this does have its own drawbacks. Personally I just think those drawbacks, in the sorts of real-world time-related conversations I’ve had, are less than the drawbacks of dealing with varying time zones.
But yeah, the biggest factor is daylight saving time. Doing away with it is the number one option places that use it should take, regardless of whether one advocates for abolishing time zones or not.
True, and that’s important context if you’re trying to get a deeper understanding of how Julius Caesar came to have the power he held before his assassination.
But there’s enough of a problem you can see even if you just start at Julius, which is what I was concentrating on in my previous comment. The parallels to Trump are terrifyingly on the nose.