Since the article is based around an interview that Sinead has with People magazine and gives quotes that she gave in said interview, I would disagree that it qualifies as gossip.
Gossip would be, “supposedly Jolie and Pitt are back together after they were spotted talking outside of a court house”. That would be gossip.
If the mods or admin want to say I’m wrong I am willing to delete the post. I just don’t see this as gossip.
The way you know that Elon is a chaos agent: now that this is reported, he will not feel the need or desire to assure them of his good intentions; he'll say some crazy, bombastic shit and then do something unhinged and blame the Ukrainians somehow.
Considering what Poland's tank fleet is like, I don't think the rest of NATO would even have time to show up before Prigozhin got run over by a Leopard
Can someone explain the change to me? I do not understand how it was done before, why that was bad, and how this is different and better. (Things I probably would have included in the article, had I written it)
Historically, these investigations have been handled by the higher-ups in the chain of command. Say one soldier raped another and the victim reported it. Their mutual boss and that boss's bosses would be responsible for any investigation and discipline.
They have the same negative incentive to provide thorough investigation and justice as college campus police do - because in the end it makes them look bad at their jobs and makes the institution that signs their paychecks look bad. So they just don't. Often victims are ignored or worse, disciplined themselves.
This change will provide a third party not involved in the chain of command for reporting and investigation of sexual assault allegations.
No because that means admitting that it happened in the first place. It's a huge problem with reporting. Remember "there'd be less Covid if we just stopped testing for it?" Same problem.
Investigating and prosecuting a rape means admitting that rape happens in your unit. Punishing victims to keep them quiet allows the bosses to continue pretending like it never happens
I’m still confused though, they know handling reports is part of their job. How would doing that part of their job well not make them look good at their job? ~Strawberry
They’re in the position of authority and there is a chain of command, soldiers are trained from the very beginning to obey the chain of command without questions.
To climb the ladder or gain more power, they have to look good. They’re not going to get promoted if their records have any “negatives”.
Who is going to verify the reports? Their bosses, which means they also have the same incentives to only want good stuff, in order for themselves to get any considerations for promotions.
When their boss goes up, the boss under them will likely get promoted too.
What the boss said, goes. There are usually far more consequences toward the victims and whistleblowers than the actual authorities.
That’s why there should be independent review process where these folks have no incentive to have good reports.
I don’t get it, why aren’t “holding sex offenders accountable” and all of the ethical and moral concerns enough of an incentive for those along the chain of command? ~Strawberry
Adding to @Chetzemoka comment: The military has a peculiar concept for responsibility in command, such that a senior officer or even NCO could have thier career totally ruined for investigating a rape. Not for other crimes, mind you, but some arcane language held that they could be held culpable for not having prevented the attack. Biden has rather firmly corrected that error.
Reusability has nothing to do with it. Hardly any of the rockets have been reusable (in terms of saving significant money on launches). It’s just that spacex is dumping enormous amounts of satellites in LEO. It’s going to become a huge problem when other companies/countries does the same.
Yet the cost doesn’t go down. Spacex boss defined reuse as that the stage can be reused the next day with just an inspection. The reuse they avtually so is rebuilding it with the older parts. At least last time I checked the cost savings were just a few 10 % while they promised 90+
Edit: did some more checking, and it appears third party(military and government) pay significantly higher launch costs ~100mill vs 60mill list price), so might be they’re subsidising the starlink cost by funneling money from the state.
No-one is in the market for launch on a reusable rocket. They’re in the market for launch. The reusability is merely how spacex is undercutting the competition.
Spacex in no way has a monopoly on launching payloads. You can launch from North America, Europe or Asia, if you’re willing to pay.
Cost didn’t go down because there’s no competition. They’re just pocketing the extra money. Why would a private company charge even less for something they’re already the cheapest and best at? Why not make extra money?
ULA I believe said reuse would be profitable for them after 12 launches. For SpaceX, it’s likely lower since they’re built more from the ground up for reusability. But they’re up to reflying 20 times, so it’ll be even more profitable for them.
Also, starlink latches have been on older boosters, pushing the max reuses. So they benefit much more from reusability than the average falcon 9 customer.
G’morning, Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “Julian Assange: US rejects Australia’s calls to end pursuit of WikiLeaks founder during Ausmin talks” (Similairity: ~71%).
FLIP FLOP this action was performed automatically by a bot approved by the mods (:
By the way, this sort of thing is how many of those historical “religious schisms” happened. They weren’t really about religious belief; they were about whether a particular congregation should follow a dictator or a rebel movement.
Yes, this sort of thing probably informed the Nicene Creed and other core elements of Roman Christianity.
Comrad! Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “Swifties rejoice: Feds home in on Ticketmaster antitrust case” (Similairity: ~28%).
FLIP FLOP this action was performed automatically by a bot approved by the mods (:
In other words, everyone, including your favorite bands, likes things the way they are. Things will not change unless the fans take a stand, which means things will never change.
Many bands have been very vocal about how much they dislike ticketmaster. Some have gone to great lengths to avoid ticketmaster or attempt to circumvent many of ticketmaster’s practices.
Ticketmaster isn’t about keeping you from hating your band, ticketmaster charges fees to be an extra parasite in the industry and encourage scalping on their websites to charge fees multiple times for the same ticket.
I should have been more clear. I was referring to the service that TM provides to said venues and artists. Obviously they don't really provide a real service for consumers
If you have a band,
and someone says “I’ll be the bad guy for your band”
… they’re just gonna be the bad guy.
Your band isn’t actually gonna win anything.
You’re just gonna have a bad guy in charge.
Sometimes, when it looks like that guy is just a ripoff, it’s really because that guy is just a ripoff. There’s no upside. Really, that guy is just ripping you off. No secret, no bargain, no fooling. It’s really just money going into that guy’s pocket.
In this case it’s more like they’re eating their own face. Assuming the justice system they built applies to themselves. But probably not right? If this was a normal citizen they’d have been tortured to death by now.
Though this is great. I hope the Iranian government become targets of some fun and creative AI content.
On the ground, the whole point of “The Olympics” is that an irresponsible authority gets to erase things that people are actually using, right?
Like, is there any other effect for people who actually live in the targeted city? Folks come in and destroy things you like, and replace them with things you’re not allowed to touch. That’s what “The Olympics” does, yeah?
I was thinking if people are still sore about the retirement thing in Paris they should do a slow down or ramp up the protests and no one works to really tell their government how they feel by putting it all on display for the world.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.