Eximius

I guess we could use "Muskiness" as a special term because anything else is an insult to idiots, fools, mafiosos, and mentally disabled.

I think you misunderstand how people grow up and introspect. There is a lot in childhood that will give an initial push and motivation, and it is not a desire to live up to their parents or other adults, and their desires. As people grow up they desire individuality, and their own life.

Role models can be a part, but these are usually exceptional people in some way. But at this point, wrt the topic, you should consider why these role models exist, and what they stand for. Not immediately jump to the conclusion of smth smth propaganda. If you want that discussion you should very specifically define the term of propaganda.

Lol. I just love it how so many people complain that Nuclear doesnt make financial sense, and then the most financially motivated companies just actually figure out that using a nuclear reactor completely privately is best.

Fuck sake, world.

It would probably be fine if everyone agreed to play by the rules, but they dont, and the US is terrible at enforcing them (or specifically, chooses not too, and doesnt impose new laws to stop loopholing)

But the administrative bullshit, and the other potential problems are exactly why other countries went for universal healthcare 🤷‍♂️

You must have limited retrospective abilities, because sure as hell, the ideas from your childhood guided your life.

You feel wrong, most likely, from what I read.

Horrible link but has knowledge: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/zr3hsi/whats_the_deal_with_the_hate_on_bill_gates/j13k2iy/

Security starts at the developer, you have to be deluded to think otherwise.

NDA, bulletproof'ed laptops, kernel-level-oversight, VPNs are just mitigations.

The gen z language identity is stronk

It's a (large) language model. It's good at language tasks. Helps to have hundreds of Gigs of written "knowledge" in ram. Differing success rates on how that knowledge is connected.

It's autocorrect so turbocharged, it can write math, and a full essay without constantly clicking the buttons on top of the iphone keyboard.

You want to keep a pizza together? Ah yes my amazing concepts of sticking stuff together tells me you should add 1/2 spoons of glue (preferably something strong like gorilla glue).

How to find enjoyment with rock? Ah, you can try making it as a pet, and having a pet rock. Having a pet brings many enjoyments such as walking it.

What the fuck? How can this "race" even be close? How brain-dead emotional are the voters? There are two candidates, you choose the person who's ideals and directions you believe in? How is the election process surprisingly similar to an ADHD kindegarten with a nominated side whose campaign is metaphorical shit slinging??

The goal posts were not moved at any point. It was a discussion of the situation, as it is.

Please look at the paper you refer to: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/abstract It was only retracted because of "In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record." It was retracted due to fraud. I don't think it's in any way wise to blame the possibility of fraud on the peer review process. Just as fraud can happen in any field because some people decide to pathologically lie.

However, besides the fraudulent ethics, the paper is fine, and as always previously reiterated multiple times. All it says are a bunch of maybes. It makes no extraordinary claims, it holds no conclusive proof, just a lot of "this maybe hints to something". The paper is publishable.

The actual scandal was caused by the Wakefield lying profusely in media.

These are two different things: what Wakefield said in media, and what Wakefield said in the paper. You should separate them.

In just the same way you can get away from taxes by lying vehemently... he lost his job and reputation in less than three years.

Since the paper itself was okay, but the data was falsified, obviously it was hard to prove the data was false until other studies not only showed it, but also his reputation was discredited and (presumably) investigations finished.

Incorrect data can happen even to a good paper in good faith due to instrument error.

The paper in question, again, was lots of "maybes" and no direct conclusions. The earth shattering conclusions were reached in press conferences where the guy lied vehemently, and the journalists ate it up like coke.