I probably wasnt raised right, but none of that matters if you can't shoot down other planes, buildings, something, anything. And if you can shoot down planes the bells an whistles don't matter. 1942 was perfect.
According to the article Interior is just centralizing the release of the information. That sounds reasonable to me rather than letting any NPS employee discuss it with the press, and is consistent with many other agencies and employers policies (family privacy etc). As far as I can tell the only "cartoon villainy" is based on speculation in the article that the administration has some other motive. The only evidence I can see the article providing is that two deaths last week are not yet listed on the NPS website.
I certainly believe that, but why did school systems jump on board, especially to be such early adopters as the 2010s, when the iphone was just a few years old? We used to use TV to keep kids quiet, but schools always talked about how bad it was.
You also see the behavior in the middle of the woods on a hike, or as the article mentions at upscale cafes. The whole point of the article is the near universality of wearing airpods. So a comment dwelling on US urban subways tells you more about the comment-writer's preoccupations then any sociological insight. And a top comment tells you mainly something about the preoccupations/demographics of the site.
" they wouldn't be getting sued and aggressively pursued for takedowns"
I don't think so. That behavior only tells you the modest cost of sending takedown notices/threatening letters is less than the (supposed) lost revenue. Kids I know (I'm a teacher) don't seem at all aware of it when complaining about textbook costs and I kind of vaguely hint they look online for it--nothing like the popularity of napster.
"because of what I learned." Do these books/seminars actually teach you something new about being married or a father, that you didn't know before? Like what? I always figured they were more about coaching, persuasion, convincing. To the extent I've scanned them, I never saw any kind of new fact, definitely not about something like being married.
I certainly didn't claim " this notion you’ve thought of outweighs the demonstrable real-world system ". However the original comment requires that " " this notion you’ve thought of [doesn't] outweighs the demonstrable real-world system ", and that's what I wanted evidence of. Don't shift the burden of proof onto me.
Yeah, again, there are some incentives to fabricate evidence like career advancement. Now why should those, on a mass scale, outweigh disincentives like getting caught in an adversarial process and (presumably) some qualm about regularly convicting innocents and regularly letting guilty parties run free in communities. Easy to argue in particular cases but I haven't heard the basis for a trend.
"we discovered that at minimum 10% of people on death row were innocent"
How did we do that? I never heard this: certainly 10% of people on death row weren't exonerated by DNA? This is some kind of shaky extrapolation I assume?
That is true--the checks and balances the founding fathers fought so hard for were thrown out the window with overlegislation and expansion of prosecutorial discretion in 20th century. To make a convincing argument that "double digits" of cases involve fabricated evidence, you still need to explain why prosecutors would engage in fraud at this massive scale. Just laziness? Collecting scalps? The incentives run that way in some limited cases, e.g., prosecutor up for election, post-reconstruction south. But you need some explanation there.