I think people may be missing the connection between punishments being with severe, and kept at a low level. A platoon will do a lot more to punish someone than a battalion.
Justice under the UCMJ is similar to how a grand jury operates, where the highest ranking officers will hear a case with evidence, and make decisions about guilt and punishment. Platoon level punishment is much more freeform, and tends to ignore those rules about type and duration of punishment; much more corporal in nature.
Probably could have phrased it better. The military culture is very different than civilian culture, jokes and turns of phrase that would be completely unacceptable in the civilian world are common, and the tolerance for them is higher. It's very much like the difference between working an office job, and going out to a seedy bar; different culture, different expectations and rules.
But as for what I said, there was a lot of borderline sexual harassment (and much of it that I witnessed not involving females at all) that went unreported. But when something was reported, it stayed at lower levels most times, and involved squad and platoon level justice, which is very, very severe. Like more severe than is allowed under the UCMJ.
> It's also worth noting that the military is a toxic cesspit for sexual abuse. Comparing any sane workplace to the military is a joke. Nobody should want to be like the military, including the military.
Can confirm true from experience. To be fair, the military (USMC experience only) is structured to intentionally harass all members below certain ranks continuously, with the idea being that it keeps them sharp and willing to follow orders that put them or others directly in harm's way. Sexual harassment was punished severely, but at the lowest levels possible, and wasn't often reported.
It's a normal argument for the time, but it is far from reasonable. The person who wrote the original response to me failed to respond to any of the logical arguments I was making, just spouted some outrage and moved on. So, normal yes, reasonable, no. The word "ban" in this context applies to legal or cultural actions where you make owning, acquiring, or reading a book disallowed. All that has been done is a company decided to stop selling it. You can still get the book elsewhere, still keep it if you own it, and still read it in any library that has it (which I'm sure many, many do). They are just spouting outraged nonsense.
Can these people you are talking about still sell their book, legally? Could they give the book to another person in exchange for money, right in front of a cop, and face no legal recourse? You're confusing the word "banning" with the word "inconvenience".
Have you looked up the definition of the word "banned"?
"to prohibit, forbid, or bar;"
These books are no longer being published; this is a legal freedom that the publisher has. They are no longer sold on Amazon; this is a freedom Amazon has. They are still available somewhere in the US, they are still legal to read, and they are still legal to own. This isn't banning, this is becoming distasteful to the market.
They have simply become less convenient to acquire.
> I do have a problem if they ban the older editions.
I don't see how they are "banned". Banning means "forbidden, disallowed, illegal". The older editions do not fall under any of the definitions. They are harder to get, because the author stopped selling them. You can still find them somewhere, and if you already have them you can keep them, they are just less convenient to acquire than they used to be.
Well, using the typical argument promoting Wayland, just don't use screen locker, gui terminal, or gui apt, and you'll be fine!
That being said, I've been using Wayland for 2 years, and it's mostly just worked, and worked better than Xorg for many things. Unfortunately I often have to switch back to X for specific applications, but luckily Ubuntu has made that fairly painless. There are pros and cons; the arguments for and against Wayland don't really add much to the conversation, which is sort of an odd state to be in.
I would point out that those are older also tend to write off the younger. I think it's just perspective mismatch; If I can emulate another person's perspective in my head, I can anticipate their decisions (and reasoning), so I can decide if they are being reasonable.
However if I can't understand their perspective, I have a very hard time in understanding and judging their reasonableness (because I'm basing my judgement solely off of my own experiences and memories that are similar to their circumstances).
This lack of understanding translates to seeing a lack of credibility in them. "Maybe if they were more like me, they'd make more sense, be more reasonable". This type of thinking is common in most types of prejudice.
It's why young people write off older people: "They're too older to remember what it's like being my age, or to understand how things are now".
Why the opposite occurs: "They're still too young to understand how life works yet".
Why people of very different cultures tend to be prejudiced: "Their kind are ignorant of how the world works", and the opposite: "They've never been through what I've been through, they don't understand me or mine".
All of these statements evaluate down to: "If they were more like me, they would be reasonable". Which is of course true, if "they" were more like "you", their systems of reasoning and value be more similar to yours, and vice versa.
> Arguably, the web is worse with chat bots, sticky headers, and modals constantly vying for your attention.
We can blame this on the MBA types. I've literally never heard a software engineer say "hey, let's make this pop-up after they've already been looking at the page for a minute!" or anything like it.
Lol so did I. Ageism is a thing, and it's everywhere. At least when you're young, you don't have the excuse of already having been in the other age class. That being said, several of my older professors were entirely full of snobby shit. The older I get, the more I see how they were not trying to impart knowledge, but to gain some kind of status as "hard-ass" old men with the younger generation.
Google has effectively crowdsourced both developer support/restitution and extension filtering for chrome.
Instead of paying people to answer emails for developer support, they pay a small number of people to monitor social media sites for complaints that reach some threshold of outrage/publicity.
Way less hassle to let the public solve their problems.
The US armed forces are not run as a democracy; it is an oligarchical tiered serfdom as near as I can peg it. When you sign up, nearly everything you agree to is in a binding legal contract with the US government, and if you breach contract, it is very different than breaching a normal contract. Part of that contract is that normal courts of law and their rules are secondary to military courts and all of their very, very power imbalanced rules.
Source: myself, a decade in the Marine Corps, witness in several Non Judicial Punishment cases, and one Courts Martial case.
Yes, I always cancel thousands of dollars worth of travel plans when I start coming down with something. I also always check my temperature right before entering an airport, so I can be sure to cancel my plans.
Justice under the UCMJ is similar to how a grand jury operates, where the highest ranking officers will hear a case with evidence, and make decisions about guilt and punishment. Platoon level punishment is much more freeform, and tends to ignore those rules about type and duration of punishment; much more corporal in nature.