I have interviewed probably a thousand people, hired and managed many teams, though not retail I have to admit. I have had precisely one conversation about hair in all of that time. I was interviewing a guy who had a very large number of thick braids. I said, “the job sometimes requires wearing a hardhat. Is that a problem?” He said no, that he did it all the time, he just needed to tie them back. I should emphasize this dude had a truly impressive amount of hair so I really did doubt he could get it in a hat, but I hired him and he did.
I’ve also had to have conversations about long nails and body odor. It’s not comfortable, but we should not be afraid of these topics ONLY if they are directly relevant to the job. I see nothing in this story where her hair interfered with the job, unless the job is pleasing bigots. Oh.
No, in Lady Windermere’s Fan, Oscar Wilde has Lord Darlingtons quip that a cynic is “a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”. The phrase is Wilde’s famous definition of a cynic. It means to be so materialistic that one is unable to gauge or recognize something’s true value.
After looking into this a bit last night, it seems that all of the preliminary results are showing that it does not have super conducting properties. Of course, I’ll wait and see, but even universities in SK are doubtful.
It’s credibly a strong diamagnet with a phase transition. Either it’s a completely new thing with no theoretical basis, or it’s the first reproducable example of a 1d superconductor. Either is a huge breakthrough.
Of course not. There’s only been days since the research was pre-emptively published. People around the world saying “yeah, I see strong diamagnetism in a minority of samples” is the peer review. You’re goal post shifting.
Do you have peer reviewed research stating that multuple verifiable videod observations of a novel diamagnetic material are whatever alternative explanation you’re vaguely gesturing at without defining?
A neat thing happened and it’s probably the simplest explanation that fits the data (but it might not be and that’s really significant too). This extreme scepticism and semantic game-playing over whether it’s true superconductivity just sparkling bosons if it doesn’t come from the cooper-pair region of france is stupid and pedantic.
So, there’s not evidence then I see. How is asking for conclusive scientifc evidence before extraordinary claims “moving the goal posts”? Do you think I have personal skin in this game or something? It seems that you are being blinded by the possibilities, but that’s not how science works.
Extraordinary consequences are not extraordinary claims. It’s probably a perfectly boring and normal advancement of physics that will take a long time to bear fruit if it is even possible to use it, or possibly an interesting anomaly with little application.
The only one making unsubstantiated absolute positive claims here is you.
There is no extraordinary claim. The claim follows the exact pattern of the discovery of type ii superconductors (right down to BCS failing to predict it and gatekeepers swarming to shout about how it is an "extraordinary claim). Multiple independent simulations predict the material will be interesting, and the 40 year old theory that did predict type ii superconductors was used to find it. I’m asserting nothing other than that the most likely explanation for the five independent reproductions is the simplest.
The potential impact on society if it is a superconductor and not a novel diamagnet, and if a process can be found to make pure bulk material is large. You’re trying to conflate this with an extraordinary claim.
The potential impact if it is a novel diamagnet on theoretical physics is large. This would be the more extraordinary claim, and insofar as you have said anything at all, you are actively making this claim (or you are claiming that three universities are conspiring to fake videos).
You seem to be confusing faith with science. That’s not how science works
Et tu. Brutus. Additionally science does not work by gatekeeping and invoking magic words like “peer review” without actually paying attention to the meaning of those words. It’s just a short hand for “get someonenelse who knows what they are doing to try and falsify your work”. The LK-99 paper has already had much, much more scrutiny than the average publication.
That’s a lot of word vomit to say that there is no peer reviewed evidence yet.
Notice how I’m not closing the door on it completely? Yet you seem to be completely sold in regard to the original claims with there being little to no evidence, and in fact NO peer reviewed evidence yet.
The neighbor who called this fuckin lynch mob better be on trial for conspiracy as well. “A neighbor called to report two black men were staying with a white woman.”
What the fuck. We need a strong leftist militia so people have someone to call when the cops are the ones that need to be stopped.
That’s like the worst thing I’ve ever read. I couldn’t finish. Normally I don’t believe in the death penalty but I would consider it here. Humans who not only try to kill but torture are just useless and don’t deserve life.
Normally I don’t believe in the death penalty but I would consider it here.
I feel the same way, these men brutally tortured and murdered civilians for not racially segregating themselves, then tried to cover up their crimes. I believe criminal police should face worse consequences for crimes than civilians as a counterbalance for qualified immunity.
U.S. District Judge Tom Lee said the men will be sentenced in mid-November. Dedmon and Elward each face a maximum sentence of 120 years plus life in prison and $2.75 million in fines. Hartfield faces a possible sentence of 80 years and $1.5 million, McAlpin faces 90 years and $1.75 million, Middleton faces 80 years and $1.5 million, and Opdyke could be sentenced to 100 years with a $2 million fine.
The men are scheduled to plead guilty to the state charges on Aug. 14, said Mary-Helen Wall, a deputy state attorney general. source
May they get the maximum sentence and die behind bars.
An investigation by The Associated Press also linked some of the deputies to at least four violent encounters with Black men since 2019 that left two dead and another with lasting injuries.
Everyone responsible for hiring, overseeing, and training these officers should be investigated and possibly face serious legal consequences themselves. There's no excuse for keeping excessively violent and racist cops on the force.
There’s no excuse for keeping excessively violent and racist cops on the force.
I read somewhere a couple of years back that a big roadblock to the concept of “police reform” is that many (all?) police unions have language that requires officers with less seniority to be laid off before officers with more seniority. This means that if the culture is being cultivated from the old guard, and it always is, that the only way to really root it out is to completely disband the department and then start it again with all new people.
This isn’t meant to be an excuse, but to explain why it’s so difficult; almost to the point where the phrase “police reform” is a nonsensical statement. It’s less “reform” and more scrap it all and start over.
When the check against the highest level of the judicial system is amending the constitution, and the partisan split ensures that congress will never agree to ratify any new amendment, it’s functionally not a check anymore.
They don’t need amendments to the constitution to adjust the supreme court, only laws, as long as those laws don’t conflict with what is written in the constitution. For instance, the reason we have nine justices and not eight or ten, is because of a law passed by congress. So congress can change that anytime it feels like. The number of justices is not set in the constitution. There’s actually very few details about the supreme court in the constitution, so congress has a lot of latitude to regulate and make changes to the supreme court.
One thing that’s popular that would likely require a constitutional amendment though is term limits for justices, because the lifetime appointment is a detail specified in the constitution. So basically, congress regulates and sets up the court system through passed laws, most changes to the court system including to the supreme court don’t need constitutional ammendments. Alito is talking out of his ass when he says congress can’t do this.
Unfortunately Congress’s only real recourse if the supreme court declares themself above the law and ignores congress like Alito wants them to, would be for congress to get off its butt and impeach some justices, which seems very unlikely. I would hope Roberts and at least one other would want to avoid a constitutional crisis though that would risk a total collapse of supreme court authority, but I’m not sure. The corruption seems to run deep with a number of them.
I have to be blunt on my reaction to reading this article. This is one of those “There’s no way that happened” stories. It just sounds too over-the-top to have actually happened.
Yeah, if their misconduct had been any less extreme/obvious, they’d probably plead ‘not guilty’ and get away with a slap on the wrist. Just my feeling…
they’d probably plead ‘not guilty’ and get away with a slap on the wrist.
Let's be clear - the only difference so far is the plea. Let's see what actually happens at sentencing.
And while I'm on my soapbox, I'm long past believing that a Police culture which discourages this sort of behavior would produce this sort of behavior as often as it does.
Reality is often stranger than fiction. This is the kind of story that would need to be toned down to be believable if it was turned into a TV series or movie.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.