Honestly, I don't have enough real insight into the research, publishing, and review process to agree or disagree with you about their share of the blame. I would say this, though: Part of the job of reporters is to research the topic they're reporting on and vet their sources. If we assume that the universities and researchers are misrepresenting their results on a regular basis, then reporters should start refusing to air stories about these "discoveries", or at least report them with a tone of skepticism.
It'd be like if the political reporters were simply repeating the politicians' press releases, without even a superficial check to verify that the information in the press release isn't inaccurate propaganda. Unfortunately, that's actually something that a lot of reporters seem to do. They just take whatever story some business or political group is pushing, interpret it uncritically, and then publish it with a sensational slant that will be pleasing to their viewers/readers.
You're right that we keep getting contradictory information, but the problem often isn't that the studies are bad in themselves, it's that the reporting on the study is bad.
One group does a study that shows a correlation between diet and "brain shrinkage". That's all. One study finds some kind of statistical correlation. Further study is needed. First, the study should be replicated before really trusting the results. Someone would also have to hypothesize what the causal link is, and then study that, because (sorry, I know it has become a cliche, but...) correlation does not equal causation.
But ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that it's determined that the exact diet described here as the "Mediterranean diet" prevents "brain shrinkage". Ok. Now what? What is "brain shrinkage"? Is brain shrinkage bad? What are the negative effects of it? Are their positive effects of brain shrinkage? Oh, and are there other negative effects of the Mediterranean diet that outweigh the benefits of preventing brain shrinkage?
Nobody really knows. I'm sure an expert could provide some information in response to their answers, but they won't have a complete answer.
But reporters don't necessarily understand all of that, and in any case, that kind of nuanced and intelligent reporting won't sell ad time on CNN. You know what will grab people's attention? The headline, "Drinking olive oil will make you smarter!" So that's what they report, and suddenly the common wisdom is that we should all be guzzling a gallon of olive oil per day.
And then a few years later, there will be another study where there's some correlation between olive oil and an increased risk of some particular rare form of cancer. There will be all the same uncertainties and complications of interpreting the results of the study, but reporters won't report on the complications. There will just be a headline, "Olive oil causes cancer!" Now everyone decides we're supposed to cut olive oil our of our diets.
Science may eventually find that the studies themselves were flawed, or the results were misinterpreted, or the correlation was just a statistical anomaly. Or we may eventually find that there is a correlation, but the causal link is something unexpected. Maybe people who cook with olive oil are less likely to eat butter, and butter causes brain shrinkage. Or, it's possible, just possible, that olive oil does in fact help to prevent brain shrinkage as well as increase the risk of a rare form of cancer, but that it does each of these things to such a minor degree that it's not worth considering when choosing what to eat.
It's also true that some studies are bad. Unfortunately, we don't put much priority on repeating studies to confirm results. However, the far bigger problem is that most of our news outlets suck. Even the respectable ones like the BBC and New York Times are just awful. Honestly, I'm not sure how to improve them, because another big piece of the problem is that *we, the audience*, suck. We insist on clicking on clickbait, watching tabloid junk, and superstitiously believing whatever our chosen news outlet reports.
Yeah, I came in here to comment because I'm not sure this is gaslighting. It seems the behavior would be better described as "scrutinizing" or "micromanaging", or perhaps just "fucking with".
For example, cancelling someone else's appointment at the last minute is not "gaslighting". If you somehow hacked into someone's email account and occasionally deleted reminders from their calendar, specifically so that they would miss appointments and think they'd forgotten to put it on their calendar, *that* would be gaslighting. Telling a coworker that their code sucks is not gaslighting. Covertly adding typos to their working code, without leaving any record of the edit, so that it mysterious stops working and the author believes they just had a bunch of typos-- that would be gaslighting.
Gaslighting is all about messing with someone in such a way that they don't know you're doing it, and instead feel like they're the one who is making mistakes, forgetting things, misplacing things, etc. The intention is to make them doubt their own abilities and sanity. What was described in the summary doesn't sound like gaslighting.
Yeah. One of the things I find really annoying is connecting to VPN using the built-in Windows VPN. You used to be able to click on an icon on the task bar, find the VPN tunnel, and click "Connect". Done.
Now it's the same process, but when you click on the VPN tunnel, it opens the window for VPN settings. You then have to locate that VPN tunnel again in that window, and click on the tunnel name, and then click on a button that says "Connect". Then you have to close that Window.
Why on earth did they change that?
Meh. Here's the thing, a lot of people want things to be cheap, and getting something this nice and thin and light for under $1000 is a pretty good job of keeping prices low. In order to make that price, Dell was going to have to cut corners somewhere. I'd rather have less RAM (as long as it's at least 4 GB) and less hard drive space (as long as it's over 100 GB) than sacrifice on the quality of the screen (for example).
In short, I think it's fine to sell a laptop with these specs as long as they also provide an option to scale up those specs for people who want something more. If it's 4 GB of RAM and 128 GB drive soldered onto the motherboard, with no upgrade options, then I'm a bit annoyed. But not too annoyed, because really it means I just won't buy it. But I'm only using 128 GB on my work computer right now, and that includes 2 VMs.
But for the 95% of the population who only needs bursty CPU power for web browsing and firing off tweets and Facebook posts, it's pretty ideal.
I would say that's true even for people who are doing normal office tasks. Even running something like Microsoft Outlook or doing some light editing in Photoshop isn't going to require more than an occasional burst of CPU. Most people overestimate the power they require for their computing. I've dealt with a lot of people who say they require a high-end CPU, tons of RAM, and a nice video card. Then they spend all day in Office apps, CPU basically idle, using 2GB of RAM, rendering nothing in 3D except for their OS putting drop shadows behind windows.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.