I regularly watch all the above, even if they are "out-of-date"...
certain parts of the text are required to have greater visual emphasis relative to the rest of the document, as they tend to be the important parts
Is this a legal requirement?
Deer don't have a 'point of view.' They do not conceptualize. They can not think ahead and imagine what it would be like to be killed and eaten.
Don't be so sure. I saw this programme and am damn sure that the horse in question knew the kind of thing that was planned for her. That's why she escaped - jumped over a fence she had not jumped over all the rest of her life.
I'm not suggesting that animals philosophise in French in terrace cafes - but I find it hard to believe that they have don't have some kind of "world view" that is based around life experiences with a few "abstractions" to fill in the gaps.
it would be a nice demonstration if they were to get it to work
One thing that would demonstrate is that the mathematics is valid. It's a bit like like trying to run a Java program on different JVMs
"Math is not reality." Not even if it's correct?
Math is not reality.
Otherwise, we might be reading headlines like "Air France jet was out of 4s".
Math is always "correct"; that's why mathematical models of natural phonemona break down whan the numbers get extreme.
Now there are good jobs, the internet (censored) and pop culture, to occupy students. These werent really around in China 20 years ago.
It's not that surprising that the Chinese government is not in favour of youth movements - and in favour of pop culture, to the extent that they allow it.
Crude summary: The Cultural Revolution was a strategy implemented by Mao Zedong, with the help of his wife Jiang Qing to get his career back on track. The Red Guards were recruited from students (I wonder if he got the idea from news reports from the US?) and went around the place with a little red book of Mao quotes. Eventually, Mao had to send in the regular army to help disband the Red Guards. Then he implemented a forced dispersal of "intellectuals" (read "students") to rural areas for the following 10 years or so (to make it harder for them to congregate/communicate).
The models are useful, but in the end lots of business stuff just has to come down to gut feelings and judgement.
All human decisions - even the most abstract or "rational" - have an emotional component; this has been experimentally measured. It's easy to imagine that the emotional component a decision will carry more weight if the decision-maker has personal interest in it. We do not expect the people who are deciding the futures of our pensions (if we have jobs to qualify for said pensions) to possess Ninja-like reflexes; in fact, we would prefer them to be able to look beyond "spikes" and "bubbles". In other words, it's hard to imagine that decision-makers haven't had time to figure out what their "gut feelings" are telling them - maybe it just was something they didn't want to hear.
It is up to "decision-makers" to implement strategies that are in keeping with available evidence; a failure to do so is evidence of incompetence at best (alternatives being fear or greed). Blaming the model is a cop-out: delegating decision-making to a mathematical model is like delegating navation to your GPS.
Your prediction that people will try to "game" the next model alludes to something interesting: people were already "gaming" the old model ("system"/"culture") . The "scandal" goes all the way down as well as up. Everybody gotta eat.
If I set here and stare at nothing long enough, people might think I'm an engineer working on something. -- S.R. McElroy