Seems kinda arbitrary.

More humans publish non-replicable "science" in sociology -- your bar is way too high

I think you both are a little bit right.

If you are in a casual agreement with a friend and don't keep up your end then it's immoral.

If you have a contract that specifies expectations and consequences, then it's just a business deal.

The (predatory) school loan business works from contracts and they are obligated to keep up their side only as much as you are yours.

The real immorality is not accepting the consequences embedded in the contract to which you both agree to, it is that the United States has such a business in the first place.

Well actually second place I guess. When the student loan business started it was not predatory. But it got horribly abused, by the borrowers who would declare bankruptcy gaming that system, schools who raised rates because they knew loans were available, and the lenders who astroTurfed children into believing that it was a good bargain to exchange $200,000 at high interest for a Art History degree

I can't tell if this is sarcasm about the newspaper that just worried yesterday about the North American Treaty Organization.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15705545/New-York-T...

I wonder if Zwicky had named it Gravimagic or Love (as later hypothesized by Captain and Tennille) if we would still be where we are in the understanding of the cosmos

Depends on what you mean by "we".

Scientists have a good understanding of what the data actually is. The name isn't important. It doesn't throw them off any more than the up and down quarks do.

Non scientists... yeah, maybe. There's a good chance we might never even have heard about it by a duller name. People fixate on charismatic ideas, disproportionately to their relevance or to their understanding.

It is possible that it helps indirectly. Students sometimes get bitten by the bug of charismatic science, and go into the field. And funders may well be influenced as well. That extra attention could put us ahead of where we would be otherwise.

That has been (rightly) said every year there has been a current US administration.

It is not a conspiracy theory if it's true.

And no, it's not "cynicism Olympics", it's observation.

Right on cue!

I wouldn't be so pleased with myself over such "You will get wet in a rainstorm." style predictions.

truths from different angles that are at odds with one another produce mistrust and thoughts of conspiracy. We have more of that now than we have ever had, ever. It doesn't take Nostradamus to point to the trend.

tl;dr : Gee, where did this mistrust in the current government come from? I'd point but I don't have that many hands.

Your complaint is not at all what the article is about.

The article is showing that the proton claim that their new service is private from the US government data acquisition, including inability to access call metadata, is a lie (an intentional misrepresentation of the known truth by Proton).

I am not American so my lense may be a different one. What I am coming from is basically an extension of the German Laws that Govern the Mail Secret (Briefgeheimnis) which actually is constitutionally enshrined in the German constitution.

But has notable exceptions that can be made uppon federal law. The burden for these is supposed to be pretty high.

I think this should not happen willy nilly. And if thats the case in the US I am obviously against it.

It is a complex multi layered subject because it has to weigh the rights of multiple people against each other.

It's absolutely a required threshold in Switzerland

For most public jobs, there is a lot of practice and preparation.

This sounds like a very good thing. We obviously need to have a more resilient supply chain if we're going to take on an actual enemy.

It talked about how big Iran is as if that mattered. What about China or Russia? They're pretty big, aren't they?

Resiliency is good, but developing surge capacity is not free, and the US cannot afford it. Excessive military spending bankrupted the USSR.

The US has no chance of ever successfully engaging China in direct combat. China almost certainly has secret drones spread out in the mainland US that will destroy domestic US bases in a single day. As for China's own missiles, they're so spread out that they can never be neutralized.

"facial recognition" "dating app"

Was surprised to find it was Match and OkCupid and not Tinder/Grindr