it's surprising how often this has been an issue. given up on it a long time ago. now old school print statements instead. seem to work better anyway. the debugger isn't slowing the app down.
While not the only ones, the NYT notoriously pushed a lot of false and poorly verified information from questionable sources as fact in an effort to be the first to publish. They subsequently issued a mea culpa.
any more "ethical" tobacco company got out competed. result: blame tobacco companies that survived.
People still smoke. any lies the tobacco companies sold to the public were either so old that few alive heard them, or believed them when they were told.
I think I mis-spoke when I wrote "blame-free" because while I come from a psychological-safety inquiry perspective, the term isn't quite descriptive. The purpose of dropping "blame" is that stopping inquiry there without understanding what lead to the "bad thing" leaves a lot of valuable knowledge on the table.
who is to say that it is great. what makes it so, why is that valuable. Is doing more good than harm. that there is even some inherent value in a "great institution". A bunch of smaller companies would probably be better economically and be more innovative.
A legitimately rule based legal system is far more beneficial than one that takes sides based on the taste of the day. beneficial for everyone involved. If you want to write "Stan for billionaires", without any sort of reasoning, well, that says more about you.
The system should serve the people, not a small minority of concentrated players. If you can't see how the system is manipulated in their favor, you are part of the problem.
I do wonder how many people that criticize the renaming, were criticizing Obama when he rename Mt McKinley. What are the principles here? Or is it just names I like vs names I don't like.
I think "avoid naming things after people without a deep personal connection to the thing being named" and "prefer established names used by locals" are pretty good principles to follow.
> The Koyukon people who inhabit the area around the mountain have referred to the peak as "Denali" for centuries. In 1896, a gold prospector named it "Mount McKinley" in support of then presidential candidate William McKinley, who later became the 25th president.
Tons of people complained about the renaming of Mt McKinley for the same reason people complain about "Lake America" now. It has nothing to do with the names and everything to do with the reasons for the renaming.
Just because folks always conveniently leave out the facts on this one, the Alaskan state legislature had been requesting the name change back to Denali since 1975.
I'm waiting to hear when anyone remotely close to Lake Ontario requested the name change to Lake America, as opposed to the big orange baby throwing a temper tantrum.
The principal is it's OK if a democrat does it. For example:
It's OK to rename something named after a Republican president who was shot (Mt Mckinley).
It's not OK to rename or change something about a Democratic president who was shot (ie. The Kennedy Center).
Man, give me an effing break, do you honestly believe that is the correct analogy?
As another commenter said, Obama was reverting a previous name change - he didn't change the name to "Mt. Obama and McKinley" and paint the whole thing gold.
Interesting. This showed how imperceptible it is at first glance. If they had 100 of these and they showed you if you got it right or wrong and why after each answer instead of making you do all ten in a row, I wonder if I would be able to train myself to detect it. I would figure it would just start to seem like something is a little off. The fact that it is so hard to detect just makes this more insidious.
volume and velocity used to stand out, you could get very far with it, and if you had built a career on that(I had), your career is now over or you pivot. Volume and velocity also had it's own quality and over time you did so much that the reps just by themselves got you to the next level. None of that is true anymore. Some skills became important and some skills became useless. this industry has always moved fast and this is just another round of adapt or die.
I wonder how this list ended up being created anyway. Was it a long standing issue, or just some ai slop? web.com, web.org, web.net don't look like an email provider.
The rationale probably was that end users primarily identify the email provider by the subdomain, not the TLD, and therefore to prevent spoofing they block all domains where the subdomain corresponds to an email provider, regardless of the TLD. Like, they don’t want to allow gmail.<anything>, and the same for all other email providers they know of.
scroll through a list of known email providers and you will notice they registered tlds for the countries they operate in, very typical for the old ones like yahoo yandex Freemail Hotmail etcpp
web.de is an oldschool German provider, as is gmx.de (and .at, .fr, .com, ...)
the regex smells like an inexperienced developer trying to be clever
reply