oxjox
Finding a trustworthy source is the hardest part. I generally avoid anyone speaking too loudly of the subject. Someone who’s knowledgeable and confident, most times, can present calmly with context that’s accessible to most people.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a good example. He’s a good place to start for a broad range of topics. Then if I want more details I can dig deeper on my own. A lot of times, his commentary requires digging deeper because he speaks too broadly.
I always check the source of a report or article; if there is no source, I don’t trust it. The source is usually a good place to ‘bookmark’ for further research.
Probably not what you’re looking for but this is my favorite time-waster.
https://abagames.github.io/crisp-game-lib-11-games/?pakupaku
Y2K wasn’t nonsense. It was unremarkable, ultimately, because of the efforts taken to avoid it for a decade.
20 Years Later, the Y2K Bug Seems Like a Joke—Because Those Behind the Scenes Took It Seriously
President Clinton had exhorted the government in mid-1998 to “put our own house in order,” and large businesses — spurred by their own testing — responded in kind, racking up an estimated expenditure of $100 billion in the United States alone. Their preparations encompassed extensive coordination on a national and local level, as well as on a global scale, with other digitally reliant nations examining their own systems.
“The Y2K crisis didn’t happen precisely because people started preparing for it over a decade in advance. And the general public who was busy stocking up on supplies and stuff just didn’t have a sense that the programmers were on the job,” says Paul Saffo, a futurist and adjunct professor at Stanford University.
What is worth noting about this event is how public concern grows and reacts out of ignorance. Just because a pending catastrophe results in something ‘less-than’ does not mean best efforts weren’t taken to avoid it. Just because something isn’t as bad as it could have been doesn’t mean it was a hoax (see: covid19). Additionally, just because something turns out to be a grave concern doesn’t mean best efforts didn’t mitigate what could have been far worse (see: inflation).
After the collective sigh of relief in the first few days of January 2000, however, Y2K morphed into a punch line, as relief gave way to derision — as is so often the case when warnings appear unnecessary after they are heeded. It was called a big hoax; the effort to fix it a waste of time.
Written in 2019 about an event in 1999, it’s apparent to me that not much has changed. We’re doomed to repeat history even provided with the most advanced technology the world has ever known to pull up the full report of history in the palm of our hands.
The inherent conundrum of the
Y2K[insert current event here] debate is that those on both ends of the spectrum — from naysayers to doomsayers — can claim that the outcome proved their predictions correct.
Joe Biden was not picked in 2020 because he was the only person that could beat Trump. He was picked because he was the only person that could beat Bernie Sanders, rightly or wrongly. … That conclusion was made, okay? “Oh my gosh, coming out of Nevada, Bernie Sanders is going to be the nominee!” And people, just like they are now, said, “Ahhh, I don’t think that’s going to work,” so they were looking for an alternative.
I have a hard time understanding how “the party” “picks” the candidate.
We have primary elections. There’s months of publicity and news reports. There’s debates. There’s polls. What mechanism(s) does the DNC have to “pick” the candidate? What’s the point of the primary if the DNC can overrule what the people want?
I presume the DNC gets to choose where to spend their campaign dollars and can shift marketing one way or the other. Is there some other way they can pick the candidate?
I actually just picked up “Primary Politics” by Elaine C. Kamarck. I’m sure the answer lies in this book I’ve yet to read.
When a business is busy, they don’t like having to stop what they’re doing to figure out the change. I’ve seen people stumble trying to figure out what bills and coins add up to what the POS is telling them. I feel like I should be apologizing for paying with tangible currency.
Right. Be it plastic or digital, it’s still credit. It still goes through a point of sale system. Visa or Mastercard still get a kickback.
I was in London last month and everything was Apple Pay / Google pay. You can of course use a card to tap but I rarely saw anyone use anything but their phone.
With so many places now taking credit over cash, I’m not sure how relevant this is anymore.
I actually tried doing the opposite for a while. I’d leave my phone home and just leave the house with cash, keys, and a notebook. Lots of places gave me the stinkeye paying with cash and some places refused to accept it. I wish this weren’t the case. The percentage every business pays per credit card transaction hasn’t helped with inflated prices.
It’s just sad and frustrating that so many people / Americans / voters are so fraught with hate and pain and animosity that they’ve lost all sense of respect for themselves and their grasp on reality. I think this is why so many of us feel helpless and resort to name calling. Please, wake up and engage in genuine policy discussions. I’m sure we have more in common that we think and we could find compromises within our disagreements.
I mean, you have to be a braindead idiot or suffer from genuine mental instability (same thing?) to consider purchasing such memorabilia (never mind coming up with the idea to make it in the first place). I’m sure there’s people who want others to suffer from their idiotic choices but I just want people to snap out of their obsessions for the greater benefit of us all. I’m tired of people willfully being gullible.
