While I’ll agree he never uses the phrase “arms race”, he does say this:
>The growth of advertising is fueled by the enormous waste it creates. In any somewhat saturated market - which, today, is most of them - any effort you spent on advertising serves primarily to counteract the combined advertising efforts of your competitors.
Wisconsin is in the US so US laws and regulations are what apply. Moreover it seems Europe also has similar legislation/protections for people with disabilities. This is equality. No bending necessary.
You’re implying the article casts doubt on DHA supplement bioavailability. It doesn’t. It casts doubt on any notion some vegans/vegetarians may have that simply eating seaweed in their diet is enough, because there’s doubt on its bioavailability in that form (she even points to fiber as possibly being part of the problem).
lmao that’s was my reaction. I’ve been taking DHA supplements and eating a plant-based diet for over a decade. I thought the article might expose some skeezy marketing ploys on the part of BigVitamin, that I had been buying into all along, but alas.
Wow. TIL. Thanks for this comment even though people are downvoting you into oblivion.
Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" is relatively new. It was used pejoratively by British politician and sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay[2][12][13][14][15] The Rise of the Meritocracy, which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else, ... In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group. The essay, written in the first person by a fictional historical narrator in 2034, interweaves history from the politics of pre- and post-war Britain with those of fictional future events in the short (1960 onward) and long term (2020 onward).[17]
[2] Young, Michael (1958). The rise of the meritocracy, 1870-2033: An essay on education and inequality. London: Thames & Hudson.
[12] Young, Michael (29 June 2001). "Down with meritocracy: The man who coined the word four decades ago wishes Tony Blair would stop using it". The Guardian. London.
[13] Ford, Boris (1992). The Cambridge cultural history of Britain. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-521-42889-7.
[14] Ford, Boris (1992). The Cambridge cultural history of Britain. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-521-42889-7.
[15] Best, Shaun (2005). Understanding Social Divisions. London: Sage. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-7619-4296-2.
Your first 3 links are all referencing the same University of Minnesota study. Your last link seems to be based on the writer’s observations (I did not find it linking or mentioning any study). I’m not even disagreeing with the fact that some emojis can be misunderstood (especially cross-culturally and when they are displayed very differently on devices) but you can’t just link 3 news stories covering the same study as if you’ve found a mountain of evidence to support your claims.
I think Nixon and Reagan’s push for “tough on crime” policy (policy that went on to be pushed further by HW Bush, Clinton, and W Bush)also played a large role. But it definitely got worse after 9/11.
This so much! As I've been watching people freak out over FB, I've been wondering - if people didn't even bother to read the pop-up, bulleted lists of information they were sharing with the apps they were connecting to FB, then how are they gonna feel about the similar, bulleted lists of information they're sharing with browser extensions? I mean, I assume they don't read those either.
[for the record, I know there are other issues w/ FB, but A LOT of the fallout seems to be related to the apps users were connecting to their profiles.]
All of my comments have been about the shooter's relationship to YouTube as a company, so that's why I brought up employment status. I was literally replying to the comparison to "someone getting fired from their job".
I'm not trying to make a dig at anyone - I'm describing reality and it's upsetting a lot of people who feel entitled to ad revenue. I honestly hope YouTube just does away with their partner program altogether.
As for YouTube careers - I couldn't agree more that many creators are full-time and put their time and energy into making content. The Slo Mo Guys, VSauce, etc are all making money outside of Adsense. They've done what Philip Defranco often tells people to do - diversify where you're getting your money from.
My whole point is that being a YouTube creator or a blogger is a perfectly fine profession - but that requires work to monetize your product and/or direct support from your subscribers/readers.
I am a huge proponent of users in general creating and participating in services that truly meet our needs and wants rather than going all in and hitching ourselves to a multinational corporation that has advertisers and board members to please.
I honestly think we're on the same side of this argument. I just don't think the answer is in expecting YouTube to take care of us.
I know a lot of people want to nationalize YouTube/Google, but unless/until that happens (and unless/until their IP becomes free & open source), we cannot count on them.
I love this about ddg. I watch to a lot of YouTube videos, and being able to just type “!yt search terms” is just too useful.