HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

jack9

no profile record

comments

jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
> Some companies made investments in properties, or signed multiyear leases, before the pandemic happened.

That was unfortunate, but incidental. Larger companies certainly can do the cost-benefit analysis that cancels out those losses if they plan on being around in 10 years.
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
> Occams razor tells me that other animals probably do have a concious experience just like ours.

For most mammals, everything is so similar...including responses to stimuli like light, sound, temperature, pain, pleasure, even predictive behavior (knowing when they have done something to provoke a human response) that the same principle leads me to believe it's likely they have a very similar experience.
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
#3 AKA The most toxic person at the workplace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljLlpOAGRsQ
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
> The linked page doesn't say anything about what is and isn't a human subject.

Why you decided that was a claim is your own bias talking. I was pointing out the relevant section. You've tried to raise something that isn't the issue, nor is it a sensible question as you undoubtedly realized (But even so).

Every human in an experiment is a human subject. Glad we got that out of the way.

The issue is what an IRB is looking for in evaluating the ethical feasibility of an experiment.

> Experimenting on unwitting subjects is unethical

> I had hoped that by now that would be something that didn't need stating and restating.

That's because it's your opinion. Seriously, go tell your local Target or College Bookstore to stop playing with the wall colors because there is no disclosure AND they make money off of it.
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
Canned soda ph2.5 and is a solution

Fountain soda ph6.5 to ph8.5 and is a suspension

The differences are stark.
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
> The IRB should not have allowed this to happen.

I see this repeated, but arguments like "You don't get to secretly do things to your subjects." are not sufficient nor is "it's arguably the most important software on the planet". These viewpoints are not agreed upon or codified anywhere that would affect an IRB decision.

"human subjects" qualification -> https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res... (et al sources)

The notable history of outrage in some communities (did this make the evening news anywhere?) that has been created, may influence future decisions, at best.
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
If you stick to fountain sodas, it won't wreck your teeth for decades. The acid in the can (and 2liters, small bottles, etc) is very hard on them.
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
> The school must abide by policies and incorporate student's right to free speech,

"Though public school students do possess First Amendment freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression. For example, school officials may prohibit speech that substantially disrupts the school environment or that invades the rights of others. Many courts have held that school officials can restrict student speech that is lewd.

Many state constitutions contain provisions safeguarding free expression. Some state Supreme Courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater protection than the federal Constitution. In addition, a few states have adopted laws providing greater protection for freedom of speech." - https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-rights-...
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
> a sincere apology cannot in any way entertain doubt about the fact that there WAS harm

Someone will always be apologizing wrong for some. Some interpretation of what harm there was, is not necessarily the same as my interpretation. There are too many ways to construe what harm there was or may have been according to others to satisfy everyone addressed. This is an efficient wording that doesn't explicitly satisfy your (and many people's) specific issues out of "the community", which illustrates the point.
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
Indeed, honorary degrees are earned. The accreditation process differs for every individual, at a micro level and for individuals across organizations (and time and discipline, et al) at a macro level. The idea that a degree is "earned" based on a lack of the "honorary" descriptor belies a bias of ignorance, at best.
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
> As I just informed you

I think you have a flawed set of beliefs. Good luck with whatever.
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
> The phrase “earned degree” has a particular meaning: it means “not honorary”

Maybe you meant academic degree.

> But they are what they are.

Still not clear on what that means. Recognition of expertise? They are that.

> The convention is not to use the title “Dr.” on the basis of an honorary degree

Again, by those aforementioned.
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
"Doctor" is widely used throughout the US media without repercussion.

Dr. Phil - philosophy

Dr. Drew - medical doctor

Dr. Laura - physiology (honorary in tradition and culture from a tiny college)

Dr. Ruth - education

Dr. Oz - medical doctor

M.D. or Physician means what you think "Doctor" means. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/702.404

Legally, it depends on the very lenient existing laws of the land to determine if you are prohibited (or default allowed) to be referred to as a doctor when you receive a doctorate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5026525/ (mentioned US and CAN)
jack9
·5 lat temu·discuss
"earn" as in was granted by a university? The purpose of a graduate degree (Masters, Doctorate, et al) is to further knowledge. Without churning out "dissertations", Universities would be nothing more than echo chambers for what's already accepted and considered "known". https://vimeo.com/9270320 - Greg Wilso mentions this, because it's important to all modern human industry and somehow that's rarely understood.

In that vein, there are discoveries, studies and experts that occur or develop outside of universities. This is the source of an honorary degree. Famously, others have been given various degrees for effort and demonstrated competence (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Joel). People who scoff at honorary doctorates are elitists, at best. Those who do not accept that expertise can be cultivated excepting through anything other than standardized processes understandably believe that no other process is legitimate despite the fact that there are narrow and wide fields of study for which there exists no framework.

There is some truth to the observation that age unfairly plays into academic accomplishment insofar as someone younger could not be granted a teaching position or honorary degree, even if they demonstrate comparable knowledge. Part of the leeway is due to a passion or commitment to topics that can only be demonstrated through a life-long pursuit of knowledge and criticality.
jack9
·9 lat temu·discuss
I agree. This is why the "counter-argument" doesn't make sense. It assumes that it's not preventative (so it's a negative effect?). Might as well let them carry on?
jack9
·9 lat temu·discuss
> The counterargument is that if drugs are legalized then the crime syndicates will need to find a new line of work

Is that a counter argument? There are bad actors (in society). Some bad actors have social, moral, physical, intellectual barriers that prevent them from acting WORSE. Raising the social barrier (marketplace) isn't any different than the social barrier (legality). If you rather not compete bad actors out of the market because of what they might do, why legally punish them out of the market? Why bother trying to stop them at all?
jack9
·9 lat temu·discuss
What are soft drugs now? Interesting new neologism.
jack9
·9 lat temu·discuss
Isn't the 3 strikes system for felonies?
jack9
·10 lat temu·discuss
> you're ignoring a fact...it's close to impossible to buy a part of land

What does that have to do with s3nny's post? I can't afford to buy a house in the area I work.