Wasn't this the same journal who, in March 2020, Nature Medicine published the influential paper "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," which argued that the virus could not plausibly have originated from a laboratory and must have emerged naturally? This wasn't neutral science but a tool to shield potentially negligent or secretive state-funded research (at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, linked to U.S. grants via EcoHealth Alliance) from scrutiny, thereby preventing accountability and public outrage. This is poster-child behavior for authoritarian-adjacent journals to suppress whatever their handlers wanted suppressed. Biosafety experts like Richard Ebright, have accused Nature and similar journals of being "complicit in helping to shout down any mention of a lab leak," labeling it a scandal of media and government censorship. They softened their stance later, but the damage was done.

Nature helped legitimize coercive state actions that violated the non-aggression principle. Nature published numerous studies and editorials endorsing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) like lockdowns, mask mandates, and travel restrictions, often framing them as "large, beneficial, and measurable" for public health. Nature's coverage of anti-vax views as driven by "distrust in scientific expertise" pathologized skepticism, linking it to "anti-intellectualism" and non-compliance, which indirectly supported vaccine mandates and social pressures.

In short, mother fuck Nature. I don't trust you nor do I believe anything you publish. You're government apparatchiks and PAID LIARS.

Other then the entire education industry (and it is an industry) and the public sector education system alike spent decades telling people 'don't just go to college to get a job' sure.

I think there are few real issues:
1) The standards for secondary school graduations are to low. Yeah yeah there is so much more to know now; fine but whatever the causes are, diverting time/achievement standards away from mathematics and literacy hasn't delivered the outcome I think society was really looking for

2) We turned college from something specifically aimed at high achievers and persons interested in very specific career pursuits into - something for everyone one

3) We expanded the collage 'experience' to be something that is really unaffordable. Stuff like sports at one time was 'friendly' competition between institutions. Now its big business stadiums that rival professional leagues. Students once ate what was being served in the mess hall that day, now a lot of schools are basically running restaurants 24x7.

4) The size of the administrative staff has ballooned, to support other areas of wild mission creep.

5) we fund all this with student debt, which people then can't pay because (2) has increased they supply of grads well beyond what the labor market demands, and that is how we arrive at people concluding 'it is just not worth it'

They are correct it isn't worth it in terms of personal economic prospects and to whatever degree you can put a price on being 'well rounded' there are probably other ways to meet that personal aspiration that could cost a lot less too.

If you pay for the bleeding edge hardware you'd like to be able use it.

For a really long time games targeted kinda of lowest common denominator so they could enjoy the widest possible market. The console/PC parity era of gaming (as in consoles get the same game with the same engine) really kinda made things suck for PC gamers honestly.

I guess what I am saying is if I shelled out for RTX50[89]0 I'd want to see some really wiz-bang graphics and effects at high frame rates. I don't know if the economics make sense for a developer but I'd rather see studios and game engines target the upper end of the availible hardware spectrum as a consumer. Provided its not just lazy or inefficient software design sucking resources, but actually doing really cool stuff. After all if you can't run a game today, you can always do it a few years from now when a either used RTX5090 is affordable or a budget oriented future 2028 7030 or something hits the market and is able to deliver parity with 2025's flagships.

You know before the ACA a lot of us had really good healthcare coverage that pretty much paid for everything when we went to see a provider.

Now every provider interaction results in piles of unexpected, undisclosed bills that arrive months sometimes full years later.

I am way way more hesitant to seek any kind of medical professional post ACA as a result. This is true for a huge portion of US white collar workers btw.

First of all I don't agree the Kirk demonized anyone; but also that is not power any human possesses, I can't turn you into a demon, but if you shoot someone for expressing their opinion you do it to yourself.

So yes the person who did it and the people cheering are demons you stupid fuck!

it is our business if he expects bring it up in a political debate use it as a motivating anecdote. If he can't say why than its not a real argument.

Almost everything else he said was total lies as well in terms of the authorization for domestic spying and military powers. Democrats had plenty of political opportunities to role back surveillance powers in the Obama era and they did the opposite.

Oh but that was just 'representing us', funny whenever lefists win elections it is always 'elections have consequences this is what EVERYONE WANTED' but someone in the center like Trump wins and then it is 'he's facist!'

Just STFU moron.

Yeah, it is almost like State actors have powers we don't legally afford individuals or some crazy reason like that..

Perhaps but that is a great argument for why the scope of domestic clandestine services and the lengths of times they are allowed to keep secrets away from public discovery is wildly excessive and wholly incompatible with democratic society as implemented on both sides of the pond.

If an action was just (provided society can agree on that thru some kind of republican process) but illegal, then answer is the law should be changed to enable the activity.

Keeping this stuff hush hush for a decade and longer is just a recipe for abuse and excess by agents and at the same time an impediment to implementing the actual procedure and legal framework in place so they have proper tools to do what is required.

Some people are being fired from private employment. Some public employees have been dismissed, but probably only a handful at most. I'll even agree that I find that improper UNLESS they did it while actually on the job, if a teacher tweets something while he/she isn't in the classroom that should not be disciplinary offense.

Exactly nobody is being arrested over anything said about Kirk. Now lets take a look at what happens to you in the UK or most of the EU if you say something obvious like there are only two sexes.

But you are right there are good protections in some parts of Europe. Viktor Orban for example is doing a great job.

RFLOL - An Internet archive in the land of criminalizing speech because it hurts feels and the right to be forgotten.

You don't work in a Fortune 500 company, eh?

Public companies do ALL KINDS of things aligned to the quarter. It's exhausting and there is a ton of pressure to do this or that within this quarter. I think a little longer "lens" will provide more insight to investors and cause less constant churn within companies so they can focus more on providing value and less on getting A, B and C done within a specific quarter.

The term "thread" in this context is older than Slashdot. It originated on usenet, before the web existed.

On the flip side financial reporting should be a far less of burden today in the era of fully electronic accounting and enterprise resource planning, then it was in the 70s.

Considering the distribution of reports is also mostly digital where are these savings coming from?

I am hardly the last person to defend Trump or his administration around here but 'savings' does not seem to be the story here. I don't really have an opinion on this call as if it is right or wrong. I can see some arguments being made a long the lines of it would give corporate leaders more time to show a strategy works before they have to 'face the shareholders' and that might enable more strategic thinking or even lower market volatility; but cost savings hard to see it.

Without commenting on if moving a to a semiannual cycle is good or bad you're telling me corporate boards, and the C-suites are not going to take the calls of funds managers at big institutional investors but are going to pick up the phone because Zuck/Besos/Gates/Musk is on the line...

I don't buy it.

> "Proves" might be too strong

Different fields have different standards of proof. The most rigorous that I'm aware of, is in mathematics, wherein a proposal that almost all the experts think must surely end up being true, can be heavily studied and yet remain "unproven" for an arbitrarily large number of centuries, until eventually someone finds an actual real-world use case for the math that you get if it's NOT true. (The poster child for this is non-Euclidean geometry, but there are lots of other examples.)

There's an old joke about three university professors from England who took a trip up north together, and on their way out of the train station, the journalism professor looked over at some livestock grazing on a hill, and said, "Oh, look, the sheep in Scotland are black!" The biology professor corrected him, "Some of the sheep in Scotland are black." But the math professor said, "There exist at least three ship in Scotland, and at least three of them appear black on at least one side, at least some of the time."