I'm not outraged, just surprised that people would so heartily upvote such a comment.
People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone.
If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.
A couple of people hating on this. Despite the obvious fact that you can in fact get lost on a trail, the progress of autonomous rescue drones doesn't just end at following trails.
Once they're able to detect trails and follow them looking for people, the next step would be detecting signs of where they might have wandered off trail, or (especially in snowy conditions) detecting and following where they have started their own trail.
Except that in your example, the trees are influencing by environmental factors throughout their life, whereas the first sentence of this article says it's environmental factors in utero that influences fingerprints.
It's been two hours this has been posted and no one has yet self congratulatingly posted a wikipedia link to a certain law about title's ending in question marks. I'm proud of you guys.
It's not the difficulty of the lock but just the fact that it's there as a deterrent. If someone really wants to get into your home they'd break a window or kick down the door. The lock is mostly for crimes of opportunity and personal reassurance.
My main issue with the article is that despite only using pseudonyms, the author easily revealed the real life name of one of the individuals by quoting her Twitter account.
Maybe the author doesn't understand technology, but this shouldn't have slipped by editing. Which really leads me to believe there was none.
I find it to be garbage self promotion when an article with little and/or poor content is submitted by the author and immediately gets 10+ upvotes without any comments, sending it straight to the front page.
In this case, straight to the front page despite many negative comments about the content.
If the article is not an Amazon link farm, it sure as hell reads exactly like one. So much so that my assumption is that the author intended to add in referral codes at a later date when reaching peak audience.
That's assuming a technological civilization's natural progression is towards space travel, which may or may not be true. The Aztecs were way "behind" when explorers first discovered them, but were doing pretty fine.
Author writes a whole article extrapolating uninformed claims from a single wikipedia article. No sources listed likely because it would be too obvious that no real research was done.
What part of India are you from? Rural or urban? The article seems to be focused on women in rural communities.
Also, I don't think India is unique in negative coverage. With a newspaper as big as the NYT you're bound to find something negative, but every country gets primarily negative coverage, including the U.S. That's the news that sells.
"Amazon doesn't disclose Prime membership numbers"
"The numbers were based on surveys of 500 U.S. residents who made a purchase at Amazon.com in the period from October-December 2015"
Lot of bold claims here. Just a few ways off the top of my head for why this estimate is ridiculous:
- People who use the Internet are more likely to be Prime members. We have elderly people here.
- People who've made a purchase on Amazon are more likely to report being prime members.
- People who made a purchase during the holidays are far more likely to be Prime members (I was a Prime member this holiday season, because I finally cashed in my free month and cancelled).
- 500 people is far too low a number to extrapolate such a bold claim about Americans.
- I'd even argue that people who fill out surveys may be more likely to be Prime members.
In short, Consumer Intelligence Research Partners sounds like a joke.
It's cute but it's speculative fiction that hasn't remotely come to pass. I don't get why anyone is saying this is spot on. People love good dystopian nonsense.