How is that any different from the left?
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
It's an ugly and vicious idea; it's an attempt to enslave the competent to provide for those willing to fake disability. It's an inverted morality, where pus-filled sores become a mortgage on the lives of decent people.
The 1% of Linux users among the 1% of gamers currently playing VR. I think that's about 7 people tops.
The problem with their logic is, of course, that the police aren't forcing anyone to buy an Alexa device.
o.0 That's not a problem with their logic - that's something utterly irrelevant that you've pulled out of thin air.
If I choose to purchase a device that, by design, records everything I say, then I've voluntarily sacrificed my right to privacy in exchange for the benefits afforded by the device.
That's an assertion on your part, not a fact.
It's not the police's fault that I've done so, and they're entirely within their rights to seek a warrant for the information that I've served up on a platter.
Yes... and no. The police certainly are within their rights to seek a warrant to obtain information so long as is it relative to the case. They may not however use warrants to conduct fishing expeditions on the off-chance that information might be found that might be relevant to the case. Though they phrase it in First Amendment terms, that's the heart of Amazon's argument - they police have not established that the recordings are material to the case, and thus have no legal right to make a blanket request for private information.
My experience from my coursework was that the cited studies seemed to me to be pretty rigorous. There was an entire section dedicated to what might have been titled "junk science", though as I recall the authors of the textbook used a somewhat more diplomatic term. In there were all kinds of commonly-held disorders like pre-menstrual syndrome, seasonal affective disorder in the like where research suggests that while the disorders may be real, they in fact effect a far smaller group of people than earlier studies had claimed. In other words, even in psychology it sure looks to me like there is at least some psychologists who follow valid methodological principles.
The other thing to remember is that "psychology" is a pretty damned broad term, and that in a lot of cases other professions like psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, counselors and the like often get lumped in, and in some cases these other groups publish in journals of varying degrees of quality. That's not to say that some of these people don't adhere to pretty strong methodologies, but it does tend to be a bit of a wild west in some cases. But when you're talking about cognitive psychology and other similar branches, there's a lot of overlap there that pulls in neurological experts, behavioral experts and the like who sit within the harder edges of the psychology field. It most certainly isn't all just kooky neo-Freudians.
Sounds more like an example of http://example.com?query=chess... not returning a 404 error, and some clown firing off a takedown notice and collecting a bounty from the music publisher.
Having taken a college-level psychology course (which of course makes me an expert in the field!) I can tell you that psychology isn't necessarily as soft as you think, and while there are certainly holdover schools of psychology that are based on partial or total rubbish, when you start talking about cognitive psychology and behaviorism, these are just as hard a science as physics or geology, to the point that I got the strong impression that my instructor viewed many of the other schools pretty dimly as being as much wishy-washy metaphysics as anything else. Psychology is an awfully big field, so claiming most of it is rubbish is deeply unfair.
The problem being is that the effects of CO2 aren't that hard to pin down. The skepticism is basically fake, fueled by some of the wealthiest companies and individuals on the planet, even as they themselves prepare for the low-carbon future.
Of course there has been in a lot of research on management styles, some of it predating WWII which suggested that bullying management style may bring about short-term gains, but usually at the cost of a paranoid and low-morale organization which can negatively effect long term performance.
I've only been yelled at once in my working life, and while it scared the shit out of me to be sure, the only take-away I had was that my boss was a fucking asshole. I could only work as fast as I was going, and because he was a cheap asshole, he wouldn't hire someone else to take over some of my sysadmin role so I could more coding.
I see little evidence that science is regaining ground. There has been far too concerted an effort in the last ten to fifteen years to demonize scientists, to make them out to be profiteering frauds. In the end reality will very much bring back the pro-science movement, but for now, even on Slashdot, the attitude on everything from climate change to basic research is incredibly negative.
It is perfectly normal for science to yield contradictory results. That's why when you see a study reported saying taking Garcina Cambogia yields astonishing weight loss results you don't immediately run out to the health food store to buy miracle pills. It's absolutely routine for results like this not to stand up. The problem is that journalists are too ignorant of how science works to understand this.
The problem may be the while Garcina Cambogia causes 30% more weight to be lost, 30% more of zero is still zero.
In the realm of scientific observation, luck is granted only to those who are prepared. - Louis Pasteur