iNow

Fair points, but a single lone example is better described as an anecdote, not as evidence nor something indicative of trends requiring rule changes.

Here’s an idea. Try writing in a manner that makes sense to others. Basically, add units to your numbers, not your words. You’re making up terms and expecting to be understood. This will result in consistent failure. You have been given this feedback over and over and over again some more. You’ve been neg repped over and over and over again. You’ve not taken any of this feedback on board.

Helping other posters be less defensive is not my concern.

Indeed. This is where ML really thrives. We just expose it to more and more examples and archetypes and it does the rest. Unfortunately, this is also where it struggles in context of things like automating recruiting and scanning of applicant resumes or giving input on sentencing decisions in the courts, for example (algorithms that help judges decide how to rule). The AI tends to pick up and amplify past biases humans have shown and will do things like ignore females or more heavily sentence blacks, etc. In these cases, it becomes required that we DO proactively codify more neutral approaches into the AI simply to overcome how codified bias has been historically in our culture. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170413141055.htm

Worlds smallest violin playing for all the waitresses, eh?

You’re being neither silenced nor cancelled, but you are being a bit melodramatic and snowflakey.

The only thing that offends me is nonapology apologies like this and I didn’t insult you. Feel free to reread what I actually typed. You even quoted it. Your beliefs are irrelevant. Correct, because I shared actual facts and didn’t make unsupported unevidenced comments based solely on my beliefs. Two points: 1) The onus is on you to support your own assertions, not on readers to chase down whether or not what you “believe” is valid, based in reality, or fictional horseshit pulled out of your anus. 2) I went ahead and DID “wiki” your post at Minimum Wage in the US and nowhere does it support your claim that “more than 85% of American workers who earn minimum wage actually earn over $11 an hour.” What it DOES say is that the effective AVERAGE minimum wage across the US is over $11/hr. If you don’t wish to be corrected, then consider not saying things which are demonstrably false. If you stand by the claims you’re making, then point to a serious source which backs them up. If you wish to be taken seriously, consider also not throwing tantrums and claiming you’re being attacked when you do get corrected.

Same issue applies to the texture of ice cream. Placed in a standard freezer it’s crustier and doesn’t feel great on the tongue, but pour liquid nitrogen and you not only have immediate ice cream but also some of the smoothest you’ll ever eat.

Some of those claims are questionable (like IQ in the EU being higher, for example), but there’s good backing to support the ideas of school starting later and needing to have more nutritional choices. https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.html https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/features/eating_healthier.htm

Come on, bud. Please tell me you don’t really believe this. It assumes so very many things and demonstrates so very many inherent biases.

It’s written into current law for some certain categories of workers, and new laws raising the current minimum wage to $15/hr would in parallel raise this subminimum wage floor, as well. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/special-employment EDIT: There will also always be those employers who are simply breaking the law and just paying their workers too little... those who for whatever reason feel immune from legal action... maybe due to the class of their workers or because of friendly connections with the local judge, for example... but those are sure to be marginal at best.

Nobody here gives a shit what you believe, Jay Tony. This is a topic where facts both exist and matter. https://www.statista.com/topics/5920/minimum-wage-in-the-united-states/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/03/15-minimum-wage-black-hispanic-women/

The explanation is delusion in the observer, sometimes madness, even group psychosis.

Why does the term "screed" come to mind? Anyway, that axe must be sharp by now with all the grinding you're doing.

And you feel a thread that has been dormant for nearly 14 years was the best place to highlight this?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4921098/

We also can’t predict it bc it’s already happened. At best, we can postdict it, but even there we struggle for the reasons cited above

No No Lol. If only you knew what I do IRL Welp, that’s good enough for me. I’m convinced! 🙄

Agree completely. Win-win

US will also begin rebuilding international goodwill by donating extra vaccines to other countries

Unless you’ve seen the contracts, then you’re really in no position to make such a declaration. I feel a bit weird being put in a position of defending big pharma, but... do you have any evidence whatsoever that this actually happened? Says the man throwing stones

These comments around time to development also completely ignore the decade plus of work that had already been done on mRNA vaccination approaches before the pandemic was declared

I’ve heard it suggested that it’s payback for Brexit, but that struck me as conspiratorial

The coincidence of people taking the vaccine having a LOWER rate of blood clots than in the general population, you mean? x-posted with John

It’s called confirmation bias