That is exactly how it DOES NOT happen in universities: instead, if you’re giving a formal presentation with which the majority disagrees, they will “protest”, “demonstrate”, and generally make it difficult for anyone to hear you. If you’re just saying what you think, and the majority disagrees, there are a wide variety of disciplinary actions they take (calibrated according to how vague they have to make their accusation to make it into an “offense”) to intimidate you into not making the mistake of thinking you have freedom of speech until you graduate.
>Why do people always hate on teenage girls?
Because most of them have obnoxious behavior. Fortunately, there are lots of exceptions. But they’re exceptions: the norm is obnoxious.
What’s obnoxious? Self-absorbed, willfully ignorant of the world, completely immersed their chosen corner of the world, and interested only in things that will be either irrelevant or embarrassing in 15 years. And don’t forget: often cruel to those outside their group.
That is way too close to the truth!
Shameful confession: Ivy league grad speaking here.
@Night-Gaunt49 Of course, they edit heavily the episodes when things go awry, they damage the house or don’t finish the work or don’t do it properly, and the clients sue them.
That happens more than you might think. It seems that in their zeal to look good on camera, some corners sometimes get cut that make it hard to live the result.
These “Classic” Doonesbury comics are highly abridged. There could have been several strips between yesterday’s and today’s. I imagine they don’t want to take 40+ years to get up to the present.
Gravity is one of those things we still don’t understand well. For a good non-textbook treatment, see the new book “We Have No Idea.”
Wrong. Gasoline vehicles won out because the were noisy, more dangerous, and broke down more often. Electric cars, lacking all these attributes, were considered suitable for dainty women, not manly men. That’s why Mrs. Ford drove one. I am not making this up.
Actually, I spent a few days, not long ago, reading all the research available while preparing a lesson in climate change (I have a degree in Physics and was certified to teach high-school science).
The sloppiness in the science (to the point that it looks just unscientific to me) was just startling, on both sides. That’s even without accusing anyone of intentional sloppiness, i.e., bias.
To make even the tiniest bit of sense out of it, I ended up just looking at everyone’s raw data and trying to conclusions from it, which is really too big a project for a few days.
But it was really rare to find any study’s conclusions well supported by its data, and it was equally rare to find the data “corrected” in a way that was really supportable with a straight face.
It’s worth noting that when people from an unrelated branch of science, who are unfamiliar with (and presumably unmotivated by) the politics, published related papers, they usually threw a monkey wrench in both sides’ arguments.
TL;DR: One of these groups of liars is probably right, by no virtue of their own.
The only time they’re right is when they point out that the other side is being irrational, unscientific, and uncivil.
Amen. Eventually, the science will be clear who was right. But neither side is being particularly rational, scientific, or (especially) civil.
So one side will end up having been right by luck, despite their irrationality, unscientific perspective, and uncivility.
TL;DR: It’s trolls all the way down.