"Journalism" has to compete with the likes of TikTok these days in terms of information availability, and TikTok (and it's infinite scrolling ilk) are not subject to the same principles that traditional journalism has been.
It makes perfect sense that the modern press has devolved to a 24-hour rumor mill; if they hadn't, they'd be even more irrelevant.
Not that it's a perfect source, but reddit lawyers used to describe the difficulty of proving entrapment by laying out two requirements: (1) you wouldn't have committed the crime if the instigator wasn't law enforcement, and (2) you only committed the crime because the instigator was law enforcement. One or the other is not enough. Like an 'if and only if' deal.
If you aren't aware that it's an LEO urging you on, I don't see why you should be able to argue impropriety. You made the decision as if it were real and would have real consequences.
Specifically re: git, I think a more fair comparison (than deep git vs. shallow git knowledge) is about learning how to use automation tools vs understanding the processes that they automate.
Case in point, there is an employee in my office who, after attaining a 4-year CS degree, was unaware that "git" wasn't "GitHub". GitHub is so aggressively pushed on new programmers that they don't even need to know that git exists, much less how it works. Actions that don't have a large colorful button may as well be impossible for someone so thoroughly dependent on tools-in-the-middle.
In the "How to work for Mr Beast" leak, the "no doesn't mean no" section absolutely boggles my mind.
For decades (probably centuries!), the phrase "don't take no for an answer" has always been a common sales technique. If the customer says they aren't interested, you don't necessarily just walk away from the sale. You can continue to try. Why wouldn't they have used that extraordinarily common phrase? The paragraph under the header only ever describes the same concept.
Who thought it was appropriate to negate the "no means no" phrasing that has almost exclusively referred to sexual consent for all recent memory?
They only hit the 80/20 because of the account-keeping shenanigans allowed by the PBM/manufacturer/plan negotiations. It would not surprise me if the rebate system were completely done away with and health plans had to spend the real amount compared to what they "spend" now, that premiums would go down and/or coverage would go up. I don't believe for a second that there are any such backroom negotiations involving a mostly-invisible 3rd party (the PBMs) that benefit patients in any way.
PBMs finally being on the chopping block is 20+ years overdue, and the American public have consistently refused to accept that drug manufacturers aren't solely responsible for high drug prices. Having worked with the JDRF in the past, it's never been a secret that while the list price of insulin has been going up...the net revenue per unit has actually gone down (albeit only slightly). Total profit has been scaling upwards because of a massive push of type 2 patients towards insulin, increasing sales volume.
Knowingly pushing type 2 patients towards insulin when cheaper, better options for them might exist can 100% be blamed on the manufacturers; however, the oft-maligned list price increases have a lot to do with the mostly-secret negotiations between manufacturers, PBMs, and health plans (many of which share ownership with the PBMs). A big effect of those negotiations helps to artificially increase the amount of dollars spent on drugs (on paper) while also artificially decreasing the actual dollars spent, making it easier for health plans to hit the ACA 80/20 rule with elevated premiums.
All of this to say...none of these price negotiations or middlemen entities (I'm counting health plans as middlemen between patients and their drugs...) should be targeted by the FDA, as that's not their responsibility. The FDA should be focused on the clinical side only as much as possible. Much to my chagrin, some amount of credit for PBMs and drug rebates being part of the modern conversation goes to the Trump administration.
My (recent) experience with Kayak is that when you do finally pick a flight to book, it only redirects you to the carrier site where you book it manually. This was once for United and once for Delta. Is that interaction maybe carrier-dependent?
Why do all of the PalWorld dedicated server repos I see have a crazy amount of stuff going on? I run my friend group server using a 27-line Dockerfile[1], and that could even be compressed a bit without losing any functionality...
I worked at Lexmark around the time they tried this as a strategy. They sold a $300-400 inkjet printer whose (black) ink cartridges were priced at $5. It doesn't work, because the consumer is shortsighted and greedy and often self-defeating (see: the JC Penney pricing debacle).
> “We love people sharing Netflix whether they’re two people on a couch or 10 people on a couch,,” Hastings said. “That’s a positive thing, not a negative thing.”
> To illustrate this example, he spoke of how a parent may share their login with their child. And when that child grows up, they will usually subscribe to Netflix, too.
> “As kids move on in their life, they like to have control of their life, and as they have an income, we see them separately subscribe,” Hastings told reporters at CES. “It really hasn’t been a problem.”
> While Hastings didn’t directly address how he feels about non-family members sharing their credentials – such as in the case where friends or roommates may split an account
From [1], at least, it doesn't appear that he ever intended password-sharing among multiple households to be a thing?
Even in [0] (which I would consider a poor reference since it's about the crackdown and therefore starts out trying to prove a point...), I think there is a fairly reasonable interpretation of "Love is sharing a password" that doesn't include 3+ households sharing an account.
> It’s still crazy to me how one group can have a chain of incorrect assertions, but then continue to make new ones without any self awareness.
This is the nature of "I have a viewpoint that must be true at all costs." It's why, in the face of extreme evidence to the contrary, they'll go full conspiracy theorist before they'll entertain the idea that their original, unfounded beliefs might be incorrect.
Those sort of arguments are always made in bad faith. Is it surprising that <arbitrary infectious disease> was lower during the pandemic, in the midst of unprecedented lockdowns and mask mandates? Absolutely not.
The same goes for any argument that claims that COVID deaths were simply mis-classified to take advantage of special hospital reimbursements, and that people were really just dying of the standard flu. It takes almost no effort to show that the ALL-CAUSE risk of dying in America was excessively high during the pandemic years, which turns their argument from "they're just reclassifying flu deaths" into "there's a global conspiracy to submit extra death certificates for fictional people." [1][2][3][4]
It makes perfect sense that the modern press has devolved to a 24-hour rumor mill; if they hadn't, they'd be even more irrelevant.