I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I was considering writing a long, thought out response to this, illuminating the points that I think contradict your statement. But somebody else has already done it. I highly recommend checking out Everything Great About The Last Jedi.

I also don't think the star wars franchise has been ruined. However, there's an incredibly loud, vocal minority that's doing their best to ruin it, at the moment. It's a story. It's not your story, it belongs to the authors, directors, actors, and studios that pour their time, money, blood, sweat and tears into making it. You're free to dislike what they do, and what they say, but nothing that happens now, or in the future, can change your love of the OT, unless you let it.

-Megadeth, Captive Honour

This appears to probably have been caused by FOSTA, which Congress recently passed. That's why it appears that many sites are coordinating these changes - the government is forcing them to by holding websites responsible for users undertaking illegal activities. More details can be found here:
https://boingboing.net/2018/03/22/craigslist-personals-shut-down.html
with some additional links to the Reddit announcement, and an EFF announcement of how Congress is censoring the internet.

As I am not a democrat, and the views of Democrats weren't being reviewed, it's a proper attempt at derailing to act as if the issue raised is somehow nullified by your (possibly entirely valid) concerns about Democrats' viewpoints. I am not here to discuss those, and they would likely be a better fit for a different thread.

I really want to take this new article at face value, but the source is highly questionable. Add to that the perfectly reasonable academic refutation that you yourself cited, and the source loses all credibility, and we're back to square one.

If we've reached the point where you have to resort to personal attacks to try to convince others (you certainly can't convince the other side with personal attacks) that your viewpoints are valid, you're already in trouble. You raised a point. I refuted it with what should be very worrying data, as well as a reasoned argument for why your objections don't amount to a great deal, in the real world. You responded with flawed studies and personal attacks. I think we're done here.

It's a graver concern because a) a majority of one of the dominant political parties wants it to happen, which makes it far more likely than any possible change toward Sharia Law, b) because it demonstrates a significant lack of appreciation for the text, spirit, or values enshrined in the Constitution, and c) the survey you cited includes no evidence that American Muslims agree with Sharia Law - there's no evidence in the article, at all - which means you have reality (Americans want a state religion) against a completely made up story.

I'm far more concerned about the number of Americans who want to make Christianity the official religion of the US.

Mr Franklin, I know you're a Founding Father, but this is one of the worst examples of anecdotal evidence driving policy that I've seen. Where's your data?

I can assure you, from personal experience in both the UK, and the US, that there are lazy people everywhere. They make up a small portion of the populace, and are used as an argument to say that everybody who isn't working is like them.

Times are also different now, from when you were alive. The standard of living among the general populace doesn't hold a candle to what it is now. There were always jobs, or unexplored parts of America where people could make their fortunes. Most of them died destitute and miserable, but we don't need to get into that. In addition, America was poor. It wasn't a nation of power and wealth, nor was it a nation that accepted the idea of equality for all human beings. You'll forgive me for taking your words, which are backed by nothing, with a grain of salt.

You're pretty solid, up to about here.

Unregulated free markets always tend toward oligarchy or monopoly. A basic income won't change that tendency, or its pernicious effects. Government would still be required to step in and ensure that companies don't destroy things which belong to all of us (water supplies, national parks, cities, etc). They would also be required to build roads and other infrastructure, and undertake pure research.

Government's role is reduced with a universal basic income, but it is by no means gone. There is a lot of really important, valuable work that governments do, largely invisibly, which needs to continue, no matter how we jigger the capitalist side of the economy.

Government research is actually the entire reason that companies look like they do good things. Private companies are horrible at pure research. Instead, they take the output of pure research that looks promising and work to develop products that can make money off of it.

Drugs? Research done by government, and universities funded by government grants
Space exploration? Pioneered by government
Internet? Pioneered by government
WWW? Written by someone funded by the government

The raw truth is that private companies are horrible at high risk situations, as shareholders and enterpreneurs either don't have the stomach, or the wallet for it. Only government can take the risk that a billion dollars in research will pay off with nothing to show for it. Anybody else would be lynched by their investors.

Can we at least be honest about the role of government in capitalism? If we can, we can start to see that billionaires aren't the solution to the problem, they're beneficiaries of government policy. Share the wealth, guys. You've done very well, now make it available to the next person who wants to do something nobody's ever thought of before.

Mod parent up.

It's amazing. The first time I heard the term Social Justice Warrior, it was on a thread issuing personal attacks on Anita Sarkeesian. Then I saw it applied to Zoe Quinn. Then I saw it applied to anyone who defended their viewpoints. It was always used derogatorily. That's the only way I've ever come across it.

It's just amazing to me that people who wish to insult others could choose so complimentary a term and turn it into an insult. How many people, who believe in equality for everybody, would object to being called a warrior for social justice?

Check out the definitions at Urban Dictionary. There is no indication that it's a self-selected term, for a group of people. It's used as a pejorative, by people who wish to insult, belittle, or demean those with arguments they disagree with, exactly as parent suggested.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social+justice+warrior

I suspect the reason is actually fairly simple. In the case of a major recall, speed of confirmed communication is paramount. Hierarchy means that one organization isn't simply trying to contact everybody for personal handoff, but is instead multiplying its capacity by creating a cascade effect. If every pharmacy in the country was centrally registered with emergency contact details, this procedure could probably be done away with, but protocols take a long time to change, even when they're no longer valuable.

Another possibility is that due to devolution of powers, including medicine, the hospital pharmacies and PCTs are the authorities which are responsible for maintaining a list of practicing pharmacies in their area. If that's the case, it's a no-brainer to have them send out the notification, since they're the final arbiters of truth regarding registered pharmacies.

Either option seems plausible to me.

"So there is apparently some reason to be patient with your paper's critics — they will do you good in the end."

I have a different possible viewpoint. The papers that are most likely to be rejected are the ones that are controversial because they challenge the status quo. But once they're accepted, they're game changers. And since they're game changers, and the first publications with the new viewpoint, they're cited disproportionately frequently by follow up work.

(formatted correctly this time)

"So there is apparently some reason to be patient with your paper's critics — they will do you good in the end." I have a different possible viewpoint. The papers that are most likely to be rejected are the ones that are controversial because they challenge the status quo. But once they're accepted, they're game changers. And since they're game changers, and the first publications with the new viewpoint, they're cited disproportionately frequently by follow up work.

Developers are responsible for supporting production, which means they can release whenever they want, as long as they're willing to deal with the consequences. This has lead to a release frequency which ranges from 1-20 times per day, depending on how critical the application is, what is being added, and how complex the change is.

The most important thing to us is that people who are treated like adults act like adults. Trust your developers to release responsibly, and (with a little teaching/learning) they will.

Science and reality both say you, and those whose viewpoints you represent are deluded.
Labor, experiments, and industry all agree that a 40-hour work week is better for everybody - individuals and companies. Productivity by people who regularly work more than 40 hours per week is lower than those who work 40 hours.
The only reason people get ahead for working longer hours is because a generation of managers appears to have been taught to think that bums in seats = productivity. So longer hours = increased likelihood of promotion. It's a vicious cycle that's fuelled by people like yourself who speak with no understanding of how the human mind and body work. As a matter of fact, /. posted an article on this very subject 2 months ago today.