I agree. This sort of article is partly the reason why we so often here something like "science can't make up its mind" or "x is good now but was bad before, and will be bad again soon".
Instead of sharing accurate information about the findings of these researchers, news organizations use them to write catchy, clickbait-y articles. Needless to say, researchers are often to blame as well, since they participate in interviews using vague language so that they can benefit from the exposure, well aware of the repercussions of their behavior.
This issue goes beyond just researchers and news organizations, though. There have been plenty of discussions here in HN and other places about how scientific research is somewhat broken due to how it rewards quantity versus quality for example.
> researchers are often to blame as well, since they participate in interviews using vague language so that they can benefit from the exposure, well aware of the repercussions of their behavior.
I would also add that like everything in life, there's a large distribution of researchers. Some do poor research. This is true for all fields. One example is when a researcher has an hypothesis in mind which they try to force even if the results don't really support it. Doing great science is hard and researchers in the end have pressure to publish papers.
> Needless to say, researchers are often to blame as well, since they participate in interviews using vague language so that they can benefit from the exposure, well aware of the repercussions of their behavior.
Universities also have PR departments that tout their faculty research. I imagine these PR groups contribute to the hype.
It's really hard to fight this though, because it may take many years, even decades, to thoroughly answer a follow-up question. By then, everyone has forgotten about the original reason something got published.
The worse is laptop mic + speakers. If you noticed the people speaking to you stop mid-sentence, it's because hearing themselves with some timelag tends to make them stop speaking.
I don’t think either of us have solid evidence of how widespread the term is, but intuitively I would expect it to be much more than 10% of native English-speakers.
This is not a stab at you or your comment. I think your message is valid and I agree with it. However, I do believe there's a commonmisconception in here that needs to be highlighted if hoped to be fixed.
> We have open source browsers, we have open source social
> apps, but we definitely do not have open source phones.
> Phones that can be truly owned and controlled by users
> will reshape the privacy discourse, from one of
> complaining and >legal coercion, to one of choices and
> markets.
What you are talking about in the text above is not delivered by Open Source, which is just a practical advantage. The values you mentioned are fought for by the Free/Libre Software community [0].
I recommend to anyone interested in this topic (e.g. the differences between Libre and Open Source software), read more about the GNU project as a starter [1].
As a disclaimer, I'm by no means an expert on this topic which is another reason to follow the links below.
Just to complement other's responses, accessibility is a spectrum.
We ought to believe someone chooses to use an icon for aesthetics AND usability reasons. If the icon can't be rendered at all, it defeats it's purpose despite it having a "description".
Ultimately, if a well designed, user-friendly system doesn't work the way it's intended to, it is an accessibility issue of some degree. Albeit, some times more trivial than others.
I'm no expert, but anecdotally I can tell that the idea that the oaths are holdovers doesn't quite apply to the US. Their oath is worded in such a way that you very clearly have to give up loyalty to any other country state, but the US was never governed by a single monarch/ruler (after independence of course).
The "good reason" you provided, even if it were an actually thought out consequence of the US system, isn't really delivered.
In reality, people are painfully aware of how annoying filing taxes is and hopeful that they will get some money back later. The system is so convoluted, most people pay someone else to take care of it for them. Not to mention, most people barely understand what's happening when they are filing their taxes.
yea, I would much rather the IRS be mandated to send out a Yearly Statement itemizing every dollar spend by Category in the previous year by the US government, at minimum at the Broad Category level (i.e Social Programs, Military, Administration, etc)
