This is only partially related to the article but I still feel it is relevant and I'd like to know if anyone has data to support either side on this. Summed up, it explains that asocial violence or antisocial aggression in general are directly correlated with warmer climates.
Why isn't there something synonymous with a grand jury convening privately to determine if the case has enough merit to go forward? This seems like a step in the right direction to protect reputations.
Otherwise, it is reminiscent of the false accusations about political candidates in the 1940s/1950s making wildly false accusations, which forced their opponents to spend time and money to defend the claims. It still happens today as well although it seems easier to defend claims via social media and the 24hr news cycle having to keep up with all sorts of stories that draw people's attention.
If the burden of proof is on the prosecution then, similarly, why isn't the burden on the victim to prove they were actually sexually harrassed? This isn't victim-BLAMING. This is simply an accuser having to prove their case and there is nothing wrong with that.
Suggest ab exercises to her as well. It could be that her ab muscles aren't strong enough so her back is taking on more load than it should. Works the same with basically any front/rear muscle pairs (pecs & lats, biceps & triceps, etc.)
Have her try to stick with exercises that are more upright ab exercises. Roman chair is a better choice than sit-ups.
Also, gluteal exercises that don't put too much weight on the back help as well such as leg extensions pushing back with that foot strap on your foot work well.
The problem isn't training people to behave like ants for efficiency reasons. That shouldn't be difficult. The problem is people not planning ahead which translates to slamming on the brakes to make a lane change to exit, not speeding up quickly enough to merge smoothly with traffic which translates to the braking shockwave effect on the cars behind them, and finally, people's self-serving attitudes that translate to cutting other people off/weaving in and out of lanes/not letting others merge/etc.
TL;DR - This has been rehashed over and over but the same results are these: Ants do what is best for the colony. People do what is best for themselves.
My apologies. Yes, that's the correct reference. I learned about Paul Graham via several HN posts years ago and his explanation isn't unnecessarily complicated so I figured his work was widely known/understood.
P.S. when I put "dh0 response" into Google, the first link is Paul Graham's How to Disagree
This already exists. I posted links in response to the OP referencing a RadioLab episode where precisely this occurred over Fallujah and helped to track down suicide bombers/bomb makers.
I agree and furthermore I think that excessive praise even when someone is just doing what's expected of them can be harmful.
Anecdotal: My boss used to go around praising people in general for just doing their jobs. I was even on the receiving end of so many "have I told you how awesome you are" or "I hope you realize how valuable you are to the operation" canned responses that, although it was nice to hear, it lost its luster eventually. I ended up replying every time he'd do this with a motion of opening a beer can accompanied with a verbal "psshtt" sound and adding in a "thanks for the can of praise." It was meant in jest and he took it in stride and understood it wasn't meant with any malice. I was just poking a little fun at the observations he was making.
The point is, when you do it to too many people, too often, and for doing nothing but what's expected of them, it starts to ring hollow eventually.
Anecdotal: I observed something about myself which I found peculiar. A friend of a friend on Facebook, whom I observe to have quite intelligent DH4+ responses to comments even if the masses usually come back with a DH0 or DH1 response. I found myself observing his responses to other folks' comments and throwing in my own $.02. I discovered that the quality of my responses was greatly elevated when replying to him, clearly attempting to engage him at his level. This was sometimes rewarded with a 'like' from him, and sometimes not. When receiving a 'like' it resulted in a physiological response from me akin to a very light drug high.
They may be indistinguishable but common sense still applies when asking for clarification. For example, I work with folks of a certain intellect where I have to ask very specific and pointed questions that do not contain substantial detail in each question in order to clarify something or to get an answer I need.
When that conversation happened, it should have ended with, "just to clarify, I should, or should not, use organic cat litter?" That would have cleared it up.
Furthermore, “It would have been much clearer if they had said an inorganic zeolite sorbent,” Hobbs says.
Wouldn't one argue that a better way to explain it would be to specify nonorganic kitty litter since that would clear up any confusion whether written or spoken?
One of my favorite movies, Miracle about the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team that upset the Soviets, had this dialogue that actually happened between Head Coach Herb Brooks and Assistant Head Coach Craig Patrick. I feel it applies here.
Patrick: This is the final roster? You're kidding me, right? You're missing some of the best players.
Brooks: I'm not looking for the best players, Craig. I'm looking for the right ones.
e) security: arguably speaking, you're much more secure in your possessions and personal safety when you're in your car than when you're on a bus. Your possessions stand to bear some degree of risk while your car is parked but at least there's little to no risk of someone sucker punching you and swiping your phone or wallet.
Parking = I pay for this either by being a customer of your business or, if you're a landlord, by paying you rent every month.
Making free parking into pay parking or making pay parking into more expensive pay parking will serve to decrease traffic, but at what cost?
Once you monetize it or make it more expensive than a reasonable price it practically begs to become corrupt. The end result is only incentives to increase parking costs via tools such as premium/VIP parking. Theoretically, a premium spot could pop up and would normally be a regularly priced spot when the inventory of other spots dwindles. The spot itself isn't actually any closer to the destination for the customer but is just more expensive. Sure, you could argue that this is how supply and demand works but that only really applies to supply of goods for which there are similar alternatives. If you raise prices on parking, why not raise prices on public transportation as well, and if you're raising those prices then who is going to stop the taxis and ride-hailing apps (Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, etc.) from raising their prices as well? You haven't actually solved any problems. You've just made more money.
Let's not overlook the fact that not only did the whistleblowers' concerns not get addressed[0], they were also subsequently fired for <bullshit reasons> trumped up charges, AND their U-5[1][2][3][4] was also marked as well, which makes it much harder to get another job in banking as banking organizations have access to this universal employee report card as it is colloquially referred to.
Agreed. I didn't take from this that they were powering society for the 1%. I took that they were powering their own world and earning currency to keep them otherwise entertained. If you look at the small picture of what was going on, it is easy to see that perhaps they were cycling to power something to just to earn said currency in order to enjoy futuristic creature comforts like not having to watch commercials, eating healthier food, dressing up their avatar, etc. However, I took the idea of cycling as a way to occupy people's time and found that it could easily be a way to reduce or eliminate crime. If people are always riding in order to earn money to buy trivial things then they really have no time to be doing anything nefarious. I noticed nobody was watching a news channel or reading a newspaper which leads me to believe the trivial things (skipping commercials, food that is healthier and thus more expensive thus requiring more riding, and dressing up your avatar) are just enough to keep them satiated but not enough to invoke any feelings of unrest that could foster rebellion within the system (for the most part).
Agreed. The quality is just fine. I think because of the year-plus hiatus, we, the viewers, set way too high a bar for the return of the series. This takes into consideration that even though, in my opinion, the series was on par with the first 2 seasons (discounted for initial shock value and departure from conventional sitcoms and dramas), it was still engaging enough to enjoy despite not everything being perfect.
This is because many people don't care and/or switch to autopilot and double-down on their wrong point instead of being able to switch to a position where they can rationalize alternative answers and admit they are wrong. It is quite frustrating to deal with these people[0].
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23538771