I don’t accept the characterization of being thorough as harping, or that anyone would need to be unrelaxed for that. Is that ironic with me being told to assume good faith?
Twice in two comments foldr quoted from a source. Both of those quotes are literally right next to another sentence in the source which is exactly the opposite of what foldr asserted.
The Affila wikipedia page section titled “Grievance studies affair” is four sentences long. The sentence right before foldrs quote, which is the first in the section is this.
>In October 2018, it was revealed that the journal had accepted for publication a hoax article entitled "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism."
The New Discourses link does say the paper was rejected from a specific journal in the first footnote which is . The second footnote says the article was accepted. Both footnotes quoted here:
> Peer reviewed and rejected by Feminist Theory
> Accepted by Affilia , August 21, 2018
At this point I am no longer sorry for not assuming good faith from someone arguing that a reformulation of kompf could be “not that bad”.
According to Washington Post and Slate, both being rather progressive, SAT prep might improve scores 10-20 points on average, with greater effect on the math section. There is a paper on the ACT website suggesting 30-60 points.
Downward adjustments for high performing demographics can be double that.
A cup of coffee would probably see similar or better improvements than test prep.
I’m semi-sure that this is possible with .tar.gz files already. I’ve used vim to view a text file within a few different rather large archives without noticing the machine choke up on extracting several gigs before showing content. Certainly nothing was written to disk in those cases.
That sounds like a great argument for subsidizing teacher and social worker education instead of the wholesale forgiveness of student debt which includes people with degrees in poetry and pottery. Poetry and pottery are both valuable to society, but honestly a lot of the people who are good at those things don’t have matching degrees. Also, forgiving loans for pottery degrees competes with our ability to subsidize education for teachers.
In an economic context, why would it not be fair to judge the economic worth of someone’s degree on the basis of that degree’s ability to influence their earnings?
From a place of total ignorance, why would telegraphing a particular false strategy to your competitor in order to get them to respond in a way that is profitable to you be illegal?
Do you understand the difference between searching an individual you know had committed a crime and searching pool of people that might contain an individual?
No hyperbole needed, and only one way is present :)
There’s a meaningful difference between the government getting a warrant to look for a specific person’s DNA and searching everyone’s DNA to see if it’s a match. Why should the government get to digitally “stop and frisk” three hundred thousand people because they have a hair sample from a murder scene?