See the Involuntary Bumping subsection under Overbooking in [1]. The airline is obligated to give you either:
`min(2 * your ticket price, $675)`; or
`min(4 * your ticket price, $1350)`
depending on how quickly they can reroute you to your destination. You also have legal standing to demand they pay you with a cashier's cheque instead of a voucher.
Judging by personal anecdotes I've read around the web, airlines may be willing to pay more if they are in a bind. But note that this whole voluntary/involuntary bumping procedure happens before you scan your ticket and board the airplane.
I binge-listened to the podcast over two listening sessions, so I imagine that is a modest endorsement for how interesting and engaging the podcast is. That said, while I disagree with the article's title, some of its sentiments regarding the last three episodes resonated with me.
The most cogent among them is that I did feel a sense of invasiveness when the podcast took the hard turn to dive deep into John's personal life. Unlike the author's criticisms, I think this arises from the combination of unexpected and unsatisfied expectations; unexpected expectations due to the sharp turn away from a linear plot and its primary subject; unsatisfied expectations because the story, probably inherently and by no fault of the producers, left many questions unanswered regarding the original plot. Perhaps this feeling of invasiveness is intended so the listener feels more invested in or connected to the intimate details of John's personal life that shaped his character and his flaws, but that feeling is nonetheless instilled in the listener.
I deeply enjoyed listening to the series in full and think that others should listen, but I can't say I don't have many lingering questions. I can understand how the mix of unanswered questions regarding the initial story and the possibility of perceived guilt for intruding into the man's personal life could leave a sour taste in the mouths [of] some, perhaps sour enough to title a [critique] scorning the podcast's creation.
These charts are just bad data visualizations, the legends are uninformative, and this article is very light on commentary. While I can see how one could argue these support the author's brief conclusions, overall this looks like too simple and shallow of an analysis to say anything really valuable.
Having reviewed several papers for Scientific Reports in the past year, it was very similar to my experience reviewing for PLoS One. You are mandated not to factor in the significance of the work and only to critique the methodology and conclusions [1]. My experience reading articles there ranges from complete junk to papers that probably just missed the mark of getting into Nature proper.
Articles should make it more clear the distinction between Nature Publishing Group, Nature (journal), and Scientific Reports (open access journal). Confusion then propagates to the headlines of the articles when posted to content aggregators, take /r/science and it's related subreddits for example.
Isn't this reasoning essentially comparing a drop-in replacement with an ideal, though? Assuming this is a new technology that can actually make it through to manufacturing changes, the possible 30% reduction in plastic by using hybrid PE/PP is controlled by the relatively few milk producers and should be much more tenable than the societal change required for 30% reduction in milk use. Both reduce plastics usage, but one is a relatively quick change and the other requires change from many independent agents over a long time, so I don't understand why one is being trivialized. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
> [the] embargo serves scientists, journalists and the public. Our policy is to release information about our content in a way that provides fair and equal access to the media, allowing them to provide informed comment based on the paper that is to be published. Authors and their institutions' press offices are able then to interact with the media in a well-ordered fashion ahead of publication, and benefit from the subsequent coverage.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think part of the issue is not just that you can't afford to "go to dinner and a movie"; some aspects of the Ivys' cultures are built upon wealth and being poor inherently sets you apart.
Anecdote: at my wife's Ivy medical school, there are several events each semester in which students are encouraged to drop several thousand dollars in a single 4 hour event. One example is a charity auction in which faculty auction off experiences like a boat trip or tours of their wine cellar to students. Some of these items go for 5 figure dollar amounts. Events like these specifically exclude poor students or students with families by design. While attendance isn't mandatory, the events are planned and executed by the student body via assignment or election, so it is difficult to not be included in some form or another. I can understand how, after attending for a few semesters, one would feel that wealth defines the culture there and that being poor excludes you from that culture.
Edit: it's also important that while all ages and socioeconomic statues attend the Ivys, the vast majority of undergraduates are 18-22. As someone 10 years older and who has an adopted daughter that age, what you suggest isn't advice that will be widely adopted by people of that age group.
> We used two types of lighting devices. For exposure to white LED, commercial cold white LED panel generating 2300 lumens during 24 h was used. The LED panel was placed above 8 transparent cages, placed on white surfaces, leaving enough space for air circulation and constant temperature maintenance at 21 °C. The illuminance measured at the rats’ eyes position was 6000 lux (Photometre DT-8809A, CEM, China).
> For long-term exposure, specific devices were built and characterized by Statice, France (Fig. 1A). Metallic boxes contained rows of LED with a diffuser in order to improve the directional uniformity of the radiation and avoid punctate sources. Alternatively, CCFL or CFL were uniformly distributed around the metal cages. Each cage was placed in a metallic device that was then placed in a ventilated cupboard allowing for a constant 21 °C temperature control (Fig. 1A). The light intensity was controllable and the distribution of light in the cage was homogenous whatever the rat position. Different types of LEDs were used: cold-white LED (pure white 6300 K), blue LED (royal blue 455–465 nm), and green LED (520–35 nm) (Z-power LED, Seoul Semiconductor, Korea). Exposure intensity was spectrophotometrically measured by Statice.
> Exposure protocols
> Acute exposure: LE and W rats were maintained in a cyclic light/dark (250 lux, 12 h/12 h) environment for 21 days. The day before light exposure, rats were dark-adapted for 16 h. The next day, pupils were dilated with 1% atropine (Alcon, Norvartis, Rueil Malmaison, France) under dim light, and rats were isolated in separate cages containing enough food for one day. After 24 h of exposure, rats were placed again in a cyclic light/dark (250 lux, 12 h/12 h) environment for 7 days and sacrificed for histology and immunofluorescence analysis. Control rats were submitted to the same pre conditioning protocol but not exposed to light. Different types of light sources and light intensities were used as detailed in Fig. 1B. For cold-white LED, different light intensities were tested from 6000 lux, to 1500, 1000 and 500 lux. Blue and green LEDs were used at 500 lux which is the domestic classic light intensity. CFL was used at 6000 lux and 500 lux, CCFL at 6000 lux. Illuminance was measured at the level of the rat eye.
> Long-term exposures: Rats (LE and W) were maintained in a cyclic light/dark (250 lux, 12 h/12 h) environment for 21 days, then placed in specific cages for chronic cyclic exposure to different types of light at 500 lux: CFL, white, green and blue LEDs. Animals were sacrificed right after 8 or 28 days of exposure. For the long-term protocol and in order to be as close to domestic light as possible, rat pupils were not dilated.
Yes, we do not want the flu. If you want to train your immune system, get the flu shot.
I got the flu 10 months ago as a healthy male in his late 20s, the first major illness I've had since I was 11. 102+ fever for over 5 days and then developed a pneumonia coinfection which knocked me out for another week. It was not just an inconvenience, it scared me being that sick.
The hospital I went to in Philadelphia to get treatment for the pneumonia said they had several young adult patients who were otherwise generally healthy in intensive care due to the bout of flu going around and related complications/coinfections. The flu kills people -- between 3,000 and 50,000 per year in the US [1]. Count yourself lucky that your experience with the flu has been as you described, if it was even the flu at all.
From [1], "Hampstead is the deepest station below the surface, at 58.5 metres (192 ft), as its surface building is near the top of a hill". So the deepest is about 60m, but from browsing around, it seems many are at least 40m deep.
> If anything, the fact that Yale fosters closer relationships with administrators and faculty should make it _more_ likely that students would take gentle advice from their house master with equanimity instead of unhinged screaming and calls for his ouster.
That's one way it's relevant, to answer your first sentence. The fact that Yale fosters this family-esque relationship with peers, faculty, and deans is one of the contributing factors to extremely emotional response of the protesters, right or wrong. This fact was glossed over in almost all media reportings.
While I agree with you, I think it's worth noting that Yale's system of on-campus housing is drastically different than that at most universities. The residential college system offers much closer and personal interactions with a set of deans, faculty, and staff that is reinforced over the entire four years at the school. Whatever one's stance on the Yale controversy, I think it's important to distinguish Yale's housing system from standard college dorms.
It likely depends where the netflix servers are relative to you versus those used by other speed tests. For example, at my workplace in a big US city, I get about ~500Mpbs down from dlsreports, speedtest.net, and xfinity speedtest, because they are all using servers based in this city. Speedof.me and fast.com are not from what I can tell and give me download speeds between 200-300Mbps.
This blogpost also doesn't appear to include the entire response from Cooley, LLC. Is there more after is lists the definition of the idiom and several other major places where the idiom is used? I imagine with the way the previous paragraph concluded, there would be more.
Also, is "Spread the word" really the "most integral part of [y]our branding and marketing"? The phrase doesn't seem inherently or distinctly creative, nor can I really see a second meaning the immediately invokes your product/services. Surprised you were granted the trademark at all.
depending on how quickly they can reroute you to your destination. You also have legal standing to demand they pay you with a cashier's cheque instead of a voucher.
Judging by personal anecdotes I've read around the web, airlines may be willing to pay more if they are in a bind. But note that this whole voluntary/involuntary bumping procedure happens before you scan your ticket and board the airplane.
[1]: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights